Any opinions of BitDefender free?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by justicekeeper, Nov 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I was considering running the free version of BitDefender, any opinions if it's worth it. Thanks in advance for any replies.
     
  2. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    Hey justicekeeper

    I run bitdefender free as my backup scanner and I have had enjoyed having it. I would like to see the scanning speed improve personally. I run NOD as my primary so I'm used to having super fast scanning.

    The detection rates are very good with bitdefender and it is relatively easy to use.

    I recommend it :)
     
  3. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I used it a year ago and it missed 3 trojans that KAV did detect, so I would stay away from it, it also doesn´t have realtime protection and the GUI is unhandy, so if you want a good free AV/AT I would recommend AntiVir. :)
     
  4. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    If you want a free AV to backup your main AV, use AntiVir...
     
  5. MikeyBikey

    MikeyBikey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    Another vote for BitDefender free! The scanning speed is the worst I've seen; on my box a scan can take anything up to 2 hours (Make sure you turn off your resident AV!). What makes BD worth it is the detection, which I think is very,very good.
     
  6. Tinribs

    Tinribs Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Posts:
    734
    Location:
    England
    I think you'll find that many products miss malware that Kav (etc) detect, I also doubt that Antivir will be alot better. Another fact to bear in mind is that in the year since you used it last things have progressed.


    :)
    Kev
     
  7. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.
     
  8. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    Hi Mele20,

    When was the last time you used NOD32? NOD is still fast on my end.
    It even runs good on an old PIII 500.:)

    As with any AV YMMV with different platforms and loaded applications.
     
  9. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I know that the detection rate of BitDefender is very good, but I don't like to have always running a service because BD requires it, and because the on-demand scanner takes a lot of time and resources...

    That is why I prefer AntiVir... ;)
     
  10. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    I agree with Stan. I have NOD32 with the max settings and it scans my 80Gb hard drive in under 20 minutes. I only have 512Mb RAM and a 1.2GHz AMD Proc. I use Bitdefender as my backup scanner and it takes twice as long to scan the same thing as NOD does.

    I think you might have something configured improperly o_O
    None of the users I have sold NOD32 to have had any speed issues.

    Hmmm...

    As far as having to run the service for bitdefender to work (which it does) I just set it to manual and start it up when I need to update or scan. Just go to Run and type "Services.msc" and it will take you straight to the services. Kind of a pain I know, but not that difficult.
     
  11. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it isfaster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today.
     
  12. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down
    an AV you haven't tried in over a year?
     
  13. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Surely it is the amount of data (and especially compressed data) that should determine scan time, not hard disk size?
     
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    NOD32 runs very fast on my system - AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (Socket 754) with 1GB RAM, Windows XP Home. Perhaps NOD32 was slow on your PC due to the 2MB RAM.... (I'm just kidding) :D

    Back on topic, BitDefender Free is quite fast, has an excellent unpack engine, and the detection is surely in the upper end of the spectrum. Enough said :D
     
  15. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    Surely :)

    I use normal compression and my hard drive isn't completely full. There are a ton of files though. It usually scans around 300k.
     
  16. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I thought it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down a certain AV at all. :)

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  17. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not in the habit of trying AV, or any other software, again that has let me down once. I have no interest in trying NOD32 again. It still has that HTTP scanner which is unnecessary and just bloats it up. Most of them have a bunch of unnecessary junk. I just wish Frisk would put up version 4 of F-Prot (and not junk it up in the process). One of the great things about F-Prot has been no email scanner. If they would just fix the GUI for XP...I like BD free because it is just an on demand scanner...but a great one. I have ProcessGuard to defend against rootkits and the like.
     
  18. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    No one suggested you try it again?

    KAV never let you down?;)
     
  19. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that. ;)
     
  20. ghodgson

    ghodgson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Posts:
    784
    Location:
    UK
    I tried BD free for a little while some time ago, but I removed it for a different reason other than its speed. Although now I cannot remember what the actual file in BD free was, but when using BD free my firewall was always bringing to my attention that it was always wanting to 'phone home'. [not just for the updates !] Maybe it has changed since then, but thats why I stopped using it.
     
  21. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    No, i'm sorry Rasheed, we can't ;). BitDenfender actually has improved quite a bit and is at least as good as AntiVir.:)
     
  22. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Actually BitDefender had a better overall score in the latest AV-Comparatives test,(on demand) as well as being quite a bit better in several categories within the test.
     
  23. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    BitDefender have a great detection rate, but the rest...
    I don't choose an AV only because of its detection...
     
  24. ~~~~~

    ~~~~~ Guest

    No we can't.
     
  25. hollywoodpc

    hollywoodpc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,325
    Please understand that antivirus solutions are just that . Because Bit Defender missed some trojans means nothing . KAV is trying to add trojan protection into there AV and has done a good job . But , it also gives more fp s . Bit Defender free , for me , stinks . Alot of people like it . I do not . I do not believe it is as good as others think it is either . I will not mention other AV solutions . Only comment on BD . In my opinion , BD is fine as a BACKUP . I would not use as my # 1 . Honestly , I would not use it as a back up but , I think it is ok for most home users .
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.