The best antivirus

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by kloshar, Jan 29, 2004.

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

    Smokey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1,514
    Location:
    Annie's Pub
    The option to delete a lot of files is not important for a (good) AV.... ;)

    Ciao,

    Smokey
     

    Attached Files:

  2. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    I agree with Smokey the ability to delete a lot of files doesn't make a good AV(let an unsupervised 5yr old loose on a PC they can do the same,they're not a good AV either)
     
  3. jer03

    jer03 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Posts:
    24
    My NAV 2003 subscription expired this month. I did not want the 2004 edition. I checked all the forums that I knew about to see what would be the best replacement.

    There was so much argument about the best, and even which ones were good, that I finally said to heck with it, and renewed my 2003 NAV subscription.

    I have had Norton since I got my computer in 1999, and it has detected and deleted all the viruses and one Trojan that have attempted to install on my computer. I have not had a reason to change, except the evident bloated 2004 version.

    I realize there are some that take less resources, but I am not able to sort through all the conflicting posts, and I know that NAV is good and has served me well.

    Jerry
     
  4. shunned

    shunned Guest

    quote: Define "costs"

    regards.

    paul
    ____________________


    A well placed request. Anyone care to answer the man?
    Imo, if a person has to ask the cost that person really can't afford the product so may as well install a freebe.
    Over the years I have seen thousands of threads identical to this one. As another poster already stated it always ends the same.
    An thats the way it should be...freedom of choice its called I believe.
    So define COST: Whats your machine worth to you and how do you value your time?
    On my business computers there is a $600 security program just to keep out others...any others! Would I put that on a computer that can be purchased at wal-mart for $400..in certain cases yes I would. But instead I use older computers to surf the web....
    DEFINE THE COST: If a person can enter into discussion on a subject such as this should not that person also take some time to learn how to protect from ever getting a virus or trogan? For eg: A vbs virus is a joke that no person on earth should ever have a problem with...but even at this late point in time not many know how to prevent this simple infection....do such people value their computer?
    DEFINE THE COST: Alot of discussion on the right cure and no discussion on the right PREVENTION so excuse me but isn't that just asking for half an answer?
    So yes please someone answer the man's request: Define The Cost!
    The very best anti virus program made is only as good as the person using it! Poor habits makes for infections. Un-willingness to learn proper prevention. Willingness to depend on others for solutions.
    An before someone gets upset an begins ranting at me....think about....take a look around the forum.....how many are asking for a "quick-fix"........thank goodness this is such a wonderful group of moderators and members.
    Define The Cost: whats the value of the time used by the moderators and members helping others?
    In many cases the best anti virus program..is the person behind the computer screen. Everything else is BACK=UP
     
  5. Grummy

    Grummy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Posts:
    46
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    shunned,

    You certainly addressed the "define costs" question for starters ;)

    Be assured: there will be no ranting ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  7. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    As a side issue (of sorts) if everybody was of the sme opinion as to which was the best AV
    1)everybody would be using it & all others would cease exist
    2)if every body used the same product wouldn't it make it far easier for the clowns that write/release malware to try and get round the defences offered by this one(best) product
    So I for one hope we do disagree(to some extent)on this issue because by using a variety of products we actually do make things slightly harder for these clowns!(would use another name to describe them but I wouldn't have thought it would have been allowed)
    Steve
     
  8. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    6,677
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Define costs? Why should this be necessary?

    "Costs" is generally a common sense term, popularly understood as {for instance} a price of $39 is more than a price of $25. Of course, common sense isn't really that common nowadays, is it? :)

    The command to "Define costs" infers that there are potential security costs beyond mere program prices -- such as compromising of one's private information, & so forth.

    However, such inferences also are raised, at times, by those who are connected with over-priced products -- such as salesmen {for instance} of used cars, whole life insurance policies, extended maintenance agreements, aluminum siding, junk bonds, and the like.

    In my opinion, "costs" {price differences} are a valid consideration when comparing security programs -- if all other comparative factors are fairly equal.

    Also, when considering how much protection a given product provides, isn't it also prudent to consider how much protection a given individual's situation actually requires?

    So I fail to see the need to wax philosophical or self-righteous when someone mentions price. It's a valid factor, I think.
     
  9. jer03

    jer03 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Posts:
    24
    To a statement that if you have to ask the cost you can't afford it, I must reply, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

    I personally have never known a wealthy person who threw his money around.
    It is entirely appropriate to ask about the cost of anything, and enter that component into the equation as to whether one wants to buy it or not.

    HIgher costs do not necessarily equate to better or more secure, and that is what many of us want to know.

    Jerry
     
  10. Shunned

    Shunned Guest

    The superego is sub-dividable into two parts: conscience and ego ideal. Conscience tells what is right and wrong, and forces the ego to inhibit the id in pursuit of morally acceptable, not pleasurable or even realistic, goals. The ego ideal aims the individual's path of life toward the ideal, perfect goals instilled by society. In the pursuit, the mind attempts to make up for the loss of the perfect life experienced as a baby
    The REQUEST to define cost was read by myself as one that lacked self-centerness an presented a question of what is a realistic goal. Whats it REALLY worth to an individual person. Should a person seek the perfect life experienced as a baby, or realistic goals?
    The most intelligent man on earth works as a bartender. His vocation should not imply he is a con artist. Nor should it be implied that the posters here lack the intelligence to equate the realistic value of their time, personal documents, privacy, etc., should any of those be compromised.
    Higher price, no, does not particularly imply better a product. Therefore, is it not realistic to judge the product by what it offers and not what it costs. As individuals surely they (posters)deserve the respect of having the inteligence to make rational decisions based on fact an not on groupie mentality
    Each poster should as an individual define what the cost would be to theirselfs.
     
  11. Shunned

    Shunned Guest

    In respect to the person who posted this topic... to keep the thread on topic...I will not comment further....

    Well Wishes To All
     
  12. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    The best antivirus is the one that you're comfortable using. :D

    Having said that, "cost" has to be figured in.

    An example: A good friend/co-worker of mine is a network admin for a network of about 50 computers.

    The AV solution protecting his mail gateway was very inexpensive, and relatively strong with regards to signature detection--however--the timeliness of updates and heuristic detection was at best--middling.

    MyDoom and Bagle were able to penetrate his mail gateway because of a lag between updates, and he had several desktops that were infected, in addition to the lost personnel productivity he suffered while having the mail server/user machines down.

    The "cost" in this case was extremely steep--steep enough for him to switch vendors when his license expired--as the difference in "cost" between products was much less than this one instance of "cost" in lost payroll, and productivity.

    FWIW. ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.