Antiviruses

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by chaos16, Feb 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    I have been thinking.

    ppl choose antiviruses for there computer some ppl like very fast antiviruses like Nod32 or a bit slower Kaspersky but thats it. There are no better antivirses then these 2. so then wat's the point on having other antiviruseso_O

    Antiviruses like Norman antivirus is not that common. So like norman antivirus if they wanted to could they join with KAV or Nod32 coz liike that if the join each other the programers could be able to fix more bugs, include more fetures, enhance the security etc... So that means Even better antivirus products and more stable with even better securityo_O


    Look wat Microsoft does they buy companies. So can't Kaspersky do the sameo_O?
     
  2. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Finance, competition, pride are the factors my friend. There are people out there who use BitDefender, AVK, F-Secure etc.

    Russians have lots of pride. They wouldn't want to merge with some American company...they want to come up all on their own.

    Look at MS...They're in practically every market, no wonder they have the money for buying the companies.

    Your ideas are very good but unfortuntely they won't happen for some time...

    Regards,
    Firecat
     
  3. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    Then that means for our antivirueses more unstable, less features and worse security.

    Its a shame coz Kaspersky could join with other antiviruses not so famous but good and that would mean a better product for KAV users
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    They should...but they wont. At least there should be a free sample exchange i.e. all samples of all vendors should be distributed to all the competing members because there are some products which are bad, but it doesn't mean that the users should be negatively affected right?
     
  5. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    Look at Norton for example it slows down ur computer even if u have really good hardware plus its detection is crap.

    But look at Kaspersky its not so famous as norton but its way better in every way. I know that Kaspersky has the best detection rate for an antivirus.

    But i know that it can even have a better dection rate plus a more stable product plus a bigger database if it joins or buy a antivirus company.

    Or

    It can always buy an Spyware company like Spy Sweeper or a Trojan company like TDS.

    That mean better detection rate for Kaspersky.
    Microsoft is clever for doing that lol

    Look at pestpatrol it was bought buy Ca Asossiation or watever its called. Well Kaspersky should do the same. For an AntiSpyware And an AntiTrojan.

    Great idea eh lol
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I'd say Kaspersky buy Lavasoft...would help them a lot if they integrate Ad-Aware into KAV...
     
  7. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    OT:
    Well, would this combo detect WhenU o_O :D
    /OT
     
  8. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    Does that mean we should only be driving Toyotas or Hondas and nothing else? ;)

    Acadia
     
  9. liang_mike

    liang_mike Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Canada
    For some reason, I feel offended by this statement
     
  10. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    KAV has a better detection rate than any other AV (that's a fact not an opinion - proved by various tests). They don't need to buy or merge with any other company.
     
  11. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    Wat i am saying is for example wats the point of using panda antivirus or mcafee
    if KAV has the best detection rate. And if u want a light antivirus then get Nod32.
     
  12. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    I can't use KAV, it's incompatible with my system, I know because I just tried it and it hosed me big time, so now I use McAfee.

    Acadia
     
  13. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    Mcafee detection rates are just about the same as kav. Why would I want an antivirus that slows a system down when I could use mcafee and get the same basic detection without the slowdown. Because it is all just personal choice. Some people like antivirus programs that have less of a detection rate because it runs good on their machine or they might just like the program. Personally I like the best detection I can get which means there are three av programs I can choose from. Again it is just personal choice. nothing more nothing less.

    bigc

    P.S.
    my personal choice is mcafee and always has been. ;)
     
  14. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    Wats the adavantage Mcafee has 9.0.
     
  15. df3234

    df3234 Guest

    New Kaspersky 5 does not slow down computers like old version 4.5

    There is no need for antiSpyware because kaspersky already adding spyware definitions in its extended database...


    Same as NOD32 doing right now and catches almost all spywares...
     
  16. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Another Norton basher. This is your personal view, presumably using Norton on your system.

    Symantec's AV is not as bad as a lot of people state. IME, install the latest versions on a relatively new computer with a 'clean' OS with sufficient memory and it is a very good AV.

    Even its detection rates of both viruses and trojans are a lot better than most people think. The up and coming test over at av-comparatives should be interesting in this respect.

    The 'Norton is crap' rallying call is similar to the other well-known adages of ' KAV sucks up resources' and 'NOD cannot catch trojans'.
     
  17. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Norton may have some issues, but detection is not one of them.

    This does seem to capture the common complaint of each. I've used all three, and there is a grain of truth in each statement, of course these are exaggerations of those grains.

    Blue
     
  18. mikel108

    mikel108 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,057
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada
    Personally, I think that Norton has a better than average detection rate. I also think that it has the best interface out of all AV's. Why I don't use it is the stupidest reason of all. Its because 98% of all pc users I know use Norton, (Black Sheep Syndrome :rolleyes: ).
     
  19. q1aqza

    q1aqza Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Posts:
    312
    I agree with this. I have only ever used KAV 4.5 as an on-demand as it slowed my system done terribly when using real time monitor but just last weekend I installed KAV Personal 5.0.227 to try out and I have found it much lighter than 4.5. It's only been a few days but so far I really like this latest version.
     
  20. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Yes, so far I liked 5.0.149 and 5.0.227 the most.
     
  21. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    But wat is the advantage of mcafee coz i hear that loads of ppl use ito_O
     
  22. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well McAfee is easy to use, but the SecurityCenter just bugs 'experienced' users, so the loads of people who use McAfee are those who want their AV to be easy to use. Apart from the SecurityCenter, McAfee solutions are among the best. But my personal experience with their support was bad, they took a week to reply to my query.
     
  23. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    And are there detection as good as KAV
     
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well as far as virii go, McAfee is *very slightly* better than KAV, and when you speak Trojans, there are some which McAfee detects that KAV cannot; and there are some which KAV detects that McAfee cannot. Overall Trojan detection is slightly less than KAV.

    All in all, I'd say McAfee is a wee bit behind Kaspersky in overall detection.

    Cannot comment on AdWare/Spyware detection though, both AVs caught all the Adware that had been installed on my PC.
     
  25. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    These tests show that McAfe is (or was) a fair way behind KAV in Trojans and Other Malware detection.

    http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.