help me choose antivirus

well i was thinking since i get etrust vet antiviurs for free from my sbc yahoo dsl subscirption. Should i stay with etrust or go to another free antivirus?

p.s. i have norton 2005 which hasent been installed and never used.. maybe i could use this?

 

any opinions would be nice to have..

 

The norton will give you better protection than the etrust. Although etrust is a pretty good av.

 

you think free ones like avast or other ones can be used? i heard norton is a resoruce hog and leaves alot of junk in registry.

 

?

 

If you have unused Norton I will use it rather than eTrust. Its a bit more heavy for system than eTrust but provide better protection.

 

is avast better than norton because of its extra protection\features?

 

No. Norton has better detection rates than avast.

 

kk thanks for help guys

 

i guess ill go for norton 2005

 

Try it on your system and let us know how you go...

There are various setups within the link of my signature that will help you in developing a layered approach to your security.

Hope this helps...

Let us know how you go.

Cheers

 

hmm everything went well but by installing norton 2005 my boot time went up by 20 seconds, but i dont mind waiting for my computer to boot up important thing is im protected..

p.s. i was wondering if norton 2004 is supported by norton still and if its lighter on resources? since i also have a norton 2004 cd that i got for free from buying the computer. im still wondering if the cd was really free and not inlcuded in the computers price.. oh well...

 

norton 2004 is noticably heavier on your system than norton 2005

 

I like Antivir more thank Etrust, Avast! and Norton.
But Avast is cool too...

 

Avast with all its modules is very good protection, whats good is that the free version doesnt' cripple itself as compared to the pro, the boot time scan along with VRDB and other modules like P2P, network IDS,mail and web scan truly makes it a gem among free or paid AVs.

 

Agreed with Arup there.. can't go wrong with Avast. I use it here for years now and never any problems, nothing gets by it, detects fine. Where else can you get so much protection and features, all using only 10-15mb ram! Nothing else can touch that footprint. No slowdowns with the web shield on port 80 stuff, unlike Nod, which destroyed my browsing speed when I tried it. Avast is a great one for anyone I think. Only reason it isn't more popular is proably because it's free and most people think you don't get anything good for free. Can't get much further from the truth!

 

Avast free does not detect spywares same as AVG free. They force you to buy full version to have full protection.

I do not want to make someone here unhappy but Avast missing a lot of files on Jotti.
Just KAV, NOD32, VBA32 and DrWeb are in many cases ones that detect malware.. even BitDefender miss a lot.

 

so should i unistall norton and install avast?

 

i heard avast finds some spyware not all

 

If you want good protection leave the norton installed

 

kk

i still would like others opinions

 

When I read about scans on Jotti, I am not sure what one is talking about. Right now there is a table of results there. Is that what you are talking about? I am not a worshipper of any AV, but Bit Defender is consistently one of the better AVs. It, like all AVs, misses some but that does not change the fact that on AV Comparatives BD shows up in the top tier for every test.

The only ones you listed that show up better are KAV, and NOD32.

FWIW
Jerry

 

In trying to find the right antivirus, I have tried several of the trial versions as well as the free versions. I also have a side business which consists of ridding people's computers of malware and viruses, so have personally seen which ones work and which don't. First of all, there are many witnesses who would be the first to tell you that Norton and McAfee are extreme resource hogs, and have told me (after the changes I made on their systems) how much quicker and responsive their systems are now after getting rid of either of these. Most people don't have a clue what's out there, so go with the AV that is marketed the best.

Let me let you in on another little secret. I have seen many posts in here about Avast and what a great antivirus it is. Personally, I used Avast for a while - however, I can tell you that it is much more invasive and much more resource intensive than several of theothers. One of the reasons I got rid of it was for that very reason, and I'm running a brand new XP Athlon-64 computer, not an older model. But that's not the main point I want to make about Avast. The problem is this: If you are running any antivirus that does NOT run at the kernel level, it is extremely susceptible to destruction by a virus or malware. Avast does not run at the kernel level, and is easily disabled by certain malwares.

A perfect case in point is an incident that occurred a little over a week ago with my father-in-law's computer. I went to see what the problem was after he called me and said his computer was almost completely locked up. The first thing I noticed was that his little blue ball (aka Avast icon) was missing from the system tray. I asked him why in the world he had uninstalled Avast. Well, he hadn't. Something else had uninstalled it for him, so to speak. I went into Windows Explorer and looked under Avast's program files, and saw that something had either deleted or altered every file in the folders. The Avast.exe program had been changed to Avast.E_E. Basically, it no longer existed. The same thing had happened to some of his other security software. The only thing that wasn't altered or disabled in any way was Ewido. That is because Ewido runs at the kernel level and is basically able to repair its own files if some malware attempts to delete or alter them. The bottom line is that Avast was totally defenseless against this virus. First of all, it did not catch it in the first place. Secondly, if it did indeed try to detect the virus, the virus disabled and killed Avast before it had a chance to do anything. The only way I was able to get rid of the virus was by booting into Safe Mode and then running an DOS-mode antivirus scanner - and under DOS, the virus could no longer hide or protect itself, and was subsequently removed.

As far as I know, there is only one AV that runs in kernel mode and is therefore not a sitting duck for some virus or trojan, and that is NOD32. Also, since I have dealt with many antivirus systems and have received a ton of feedback from people whose systems I've worked on (most of which were running Norton or McAfee, which you can purchase at Costco or Wal-Mart and therefore the best known and available, I can tell you that, without exception, people have raved about how much faster and responsive their systems were after installing NOD32. People think that having an all-in-one application or security suite is somehow less intensive on their resources, and I have not found this to be the case. What I recommend to all my customers is this: Purchase NOD32, and run it with either Zone Alarm or Kerio. I know some people like Sygate - but I ran Sygate for awhile and tested the firewall at Sygate's own website, and it failed the test, with the TCP and HTTP ports being open and able to be read, which is not a good thing. Anyway, run NOD32 with Zone Alarm or Kerio, Winpatrol, and either Counterspy (much less resource intensive than SpySweeper, and I feel is better at detection) or Microsoft Antispyware (for free).

To be honest, I know there are many who think you can protect your computer for free, but like all things in life, you get what you pay for. I now run paid versions of NOD32, Counterspy, Sunbelt-Kerio Personal Firewall with its Host Intrusion and Prevention System. Along with that, however, I run free versions of Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, Ewido and SpywareBlaster. After my experiences seeing what malware has done and can do to people's systems, even when they are low-risk surfers and extremely careful, has made me change my tune about running all freeware.

Bottom line - Here are the reasons I believe NOD32 is your best bet and well worth the $39 it costs:

1. Runs at kernel mode and therefore is not susceptible to disabling like most AVs. Your AV does you no good if something can so easily destroy it, like I saw on my father-in-law's computer.

2. It uses both signature and heuristic detection methods. I know Avast uses some heuristics, but they are not nearly as advanced as those employed by NOD32. I would never use simply a signature-based AV, as a virus could be on the loose for a week before it is even discovered. Then, a copy of the virus must be sent to the AV company for analysis. Then, that signature must be put into the signature database. Then, the AV on a person's computer must download the signature datafile. That's simply too much time for a virus to do its dirty work.

3. NOD32 also detects trojans and other malware. I know this from personal experience as well as what others have told me. Not long ago I inadvertently ended up at a malicious site that attempted to download several trojans onto my system. My trojan scanner, that is supposed to be a great trojan-stopper, didn't detect squat. However, NOD32 sensed them and blocked all four of them. Also, in the time I have used NOD, it has never given me one false positive. I used to get all sorts of false positives with Avast.

4. NOD32 is the least invasive of any AV I have ever tried, and my customers would attest to the same thing. If you don't believe me, download NOD32 and try it (from www.eset.com). They have a 30-day trial version, which is well enough time for you to see how uninvasive it is. Unless it alerts to something, you wouldn't even know it is there.

5. If you have recently purchased a new computer with a 64-bit processor, you are very limited in your choices for an antivirus. As far as I know, there are only two companies that have 64-bit antivirus products: Avast and NOD32. While Avast is a good antivirus and I did actually like it even though it was very invasive, I don't want what happened to my father-in-law to happen to me. I want an AV running at the kernel level so malware can't disable it and then in turn disable my system. You can run a 32-bit antivirus on a 64-bit system, but that is not the problem. The problem is if you encounter a 64-bit VIRUS. A 32-bit antivirus product is then absolutely worthless. While 64-bit viruses are not prevalent right now, they will be in the near future, since eventually the 64-bit format for Windows is going to be the norm.

Everybody has their preference on which antivirus they believe to be the best. However, as I said, I have seen these varied products operating in the real world, and also see what can happen if ONE rogue malware happens to invade your system. And don't think you're immune because you have antivirus, firewall and all the other toys. In fact, one of your biggest risks for spyware and other malware is from software you buy at the store. There are many software products that, in addition to loading their software on your computer, also load a bunch of "friends" along with it. My purpose here is not to push one particular product, but to attempt to get people to protect themselves in a practical sense. As I said, what good is your antivirus if it is disabled before it has a chance to detect anything? Let me just encourage you not to make a decision based on an emotional attachment to a certain product, but make your decision according to practical guidelines. That means you try to place the products on your computer that give you the best protection while, at the same time, have the least risk of being rendered useless by some virus or trojan that sneaks in unawares.

 

Thats not true. Both avast! editions detect exactly the same threats.
They also recommend using dedicated anti-spyware for maximal spyware cleaning capability, but avast! itself will also clean some spyware nasties that are most common.

Regarding Jotti. Forget it in avast!'s case (and many others too, NOD32 and UNA are also one of them, BitDefender could have the same problem...). avast! for linux is very limited in detection at the moment and will "miss" many things while it's Windows counterpart WILL detect that.
This was official explanation by Alwil staff. And i can confirm it because igor (i think) explained me the same again when i sent them some ITW sample not long ago which was shown as NOT DETECTED on Jotti and he said it is indeed detected by Windows editions. Checking on VirusTotal (they use Windows instead Linux) confirmed this statement.

 

If you read carefully, this was not one of the choices that the original poster listed! We could all post about our favorite AV's but this would not help metallicakid15.

Since you have already installed Norton, I would stay with that choice as long as this AV is not affecting the performance of your system.

BUT if you are thinking of testing other AV's you need to completely uninstall Norton before trying out any others. Further, for a complete removal you may need SymNRT.