Paid is best?

Unfortunately it's the free MSE vs the paid Avira so it's got quite a challenge I doubt it will beat.

 

I completely agree.

 

combination of free antivirus is best!! norton just wants more money...and other companys wants money but not just money norton has now better security products because of the other good free products..... remember past times of norton only problems.....

put in browser wot or finjan and noscript
take a firewall like outpost or comodo
take antivirus lke avast! or security essentials
take threatfire geswall or sandboxie and you are a security god!

 

Excuse my ignorance, but I found this sentence completelly nonsense. What does that thing about China means?

 

Let's see here... new products are released from both ways in the form of betas, being MSE and Norton 2010. They've been tested by places like AV-Test.org and PCMag (ofc - why wouldn't they?). THAT is why I consider it old, because there's already proven availability of products that are newer and MUCH improved now. It could be 3 days ago and I would still say the same thing. By now they're available for testing and they've already been tested elsewhere. OneCare will not even be available for use in a while! (Atleast officially, and who would still use it? It would be redundant.)

On another note, since you've proven you're a "hater" of Norton, I couldn't be less surprised of you posting that result. I also couldn't care less about that result. I already didn't when you posted it initially. You simply posted something which suited your personal opinion, when it's irrelevant in reality.

 

Genrally paid protection is better and provides more features such as more freqrent updates etc. but then again i wouldnt trust certain paid products to protect my pc.
but there is a question no one has said yet: 1. what type of people are we talking about?

of course wilders users could go without an av and be fine. maybe restore an image if a legit website got hacked.

but for the adverage user freqrent updates and lots of protection is needed.

 

Try googling it, Symantec and China, the story didn't make much noise in the main stream media, but I won't be trusting them anytime soon.

A qoute from Vmyths;

http://vmyths.com/china-syndrome/

 

flyrfan111, nice post. That was epic conspiracy reading matter.

 

Extremelly dense and aromatic bullshit. So you think there are not guys in China that can get all that samples and dissasemble them without 'reverse engineering notes'? It is so pathetic that it is not even worth a laugh. Please, be serious.

 

Take it easy man, my posting was in relation to an article written by a Symantec TOP executive talking about how MSE was born out of One Care, and whether you like it or not they are the same program.

AV Comparatives, 1 month ago had the results clearly showing One Care got advanced + (60%) and Norton advanced (35%). If that makes me a Norton hater, how should we call your beloved Norton Top executive?

I would never dream about talking or comparing anything about Symantec as they have died for me many years ago. Now if you get so hot about things simply because you are beta testing their latest version, stick to that and report numbers rather than personal attacks.

 

Whether it's Avira free or paid doesn't matter since they use the same engine.

 

I think you missed the point, one detects less than the other.

 

Yup I was, but ok.

 

Ah, now I see.

Anyway this was my point.

 

From the version 9 Avira AntiVir Free uses same engine and signatures as Avira AntiVir Premium (including Adware/Spyware signatures).

Avira behavior blocking resident module will be part of Avira AntiVir Free too.

Avira AntiVir Personal (Free), Avira Premium AntiVir, Avira Premium Security Suite - Comparative chart

 

Paid of course would be better. It is a matter of business and marketing but take for instance the advertisement AVAST AVIRA and AVG put to their free product warning that it lacks a fair amount of security app. Why would a vendor say that their product lacks something? We may say it is because of marketing but i think this is one part of the truth. script blocking in AVAST
rootkit protection in AVG and whatever AVIRA misses is important for sure.
Somev underestimate this factors of securityi would not. At the end everyone is free to choose or depend on a certain product with or without some features

 

Adding other software would also impact computer speed and efficiency.

 

I think that the Symantec rep was probably talking more about less informed average pc users and not the well informed security conscious users such as Wilders members. Those average pc users that are not well informed or security conscious are getting infected with paid suites too. There are a lot of people out there for instance that don't even know what a firewall is. They are getting tons of spam because they are giving out there email address and wondering why they are getting spam. They are going to websites without using link checkers and not realizing that the site is bad. They are downloading from hacked sites. They are not using layered security or drive image programs. They are installing rouge security apps and thinking that they are legitimate. These things have been happening and will continue to happen regardless of weather Microsoft has a free av or not. This Symantec guy is saying that these people have to have a paid security suite with all the layers in the package to help keep them from getting infected but, they are getting infected anyway. He is really preaching to the choir about this because as long as you have a pc user that is not informed and not being security conscious then nothing will change.

 

problem is unless that article is written in a news paper the users we are talking about wont read it.

 

I think the gentleman is exactly correct with his thoughts. Had that been a spokesperson for 4 other products the arguement would be different. After using NIS 2010 they are ready to tackle all.

But let me throw this out to you. Free AVs are not bad, nor are they that secure by themselves. How many here use just a free AV and not a damn thing else. How many times do you folks preach layers. I think Norton is right. I paid for a computer and have no issues with paying for top notch secuirty.

 

no but they may experience it.

 

Paid is better in most cases and even if it's not, it should be considered.
If I really like a program and my finances allow, I will always take the paid version just to support the vendor.
Their work and efforts, I think, should be rewarded.

If you think about it, alot of these programs are not that expensive for a years worth of protection.
We spend more then that going out to dinner and the movies in one day then what these apps cost.
Just my opinion for what it's worth.

 

I completely agree, I paid for the Avira premium for the very reasons you mentioned. At the moment I uninstalled it as I'm testing MSE, but normally I use it without the web guard and mail guard just as the free version.

I think all AVs companies should offer a free version for home users and charge for business licenses.

This is the kind of inflammatory statement that needs a proper retort:

These are the results from people who can't afford to pay their researchers according to AV Comparatives: Avira (69%)*, OneCare/MSE (60%), AVG (45%), Avast (42%). Norton (35%), that was last month, Mr Hall(Symantec top executive) is talking about last year, what do they do with their money?

* Higher percentages imply better detection.

 

What about the not greedy companies

 

One Free AntiVirus is better than nothing, and will stop "a lot".
One Paid Security Suite still won't protect you from "everything".

The article is marketing bumf.