What's the best free AV?

Couldn't agree more. Personally I think the free version of BD 8 is better than AVG.

 

i'm not familiar with bitdefender 8 - is it a realtime scanner? (and if yes can you switch that component off at install) i only want it for on-demand. (same goes for antivir and avast can these be switched off at install so they don't run real time?)

i've decided i don't want to uninstall avg only to have to reinstall it if i don't like the alternatives. the main thing is to find an AV that can do a job with the minmum of hassle.

 

clamwin - anyone tried this? looks interesting - including a firefox extension for 1.5

(no realtime by looks of things - could make a useful backup)

 

PC Mag tests the big three to find the head honcho.

 

avast! Cons:
Scheduled virus scans not available. Full report turned off by default. No option to scan only executable files.

Thats not true (Normal Sensitivity scans only infectable filetypes,but you can remove all other extensions i this case) and why the hell would anyone want to scan only EXE files? Haven't found anything directly obviosly wrong in AVG or AntiVir review. Maybe someone can check them out.

 

CAI's EZ Trust also has a real time scanner.

 

bitdefender is on-demand only fyi

 

Etrust promo also

 

e trust promo is good and perhaps the best solution especially for older systems . The other solutions seem to slow down systems or have update issues etc. I have just repaired an old win98 for a freind and tried each of the free solutions in order to provide some av protection . The only solution that worked effortlessly both in real time and also with auto update , which never interfered with the pc was etrust promo.

 

Update problems? Thats new. Apart from sometimes slow AntiVir update servers i never encountered any problems updating any free AV.

 

well thats one out of three with anti virs slow updating especially on dial up. Avaste appears to work well on some setups however I have never had any luck with it not slowing me down like a bucket thrown over the stern ( thats both with win98 and a new xp). AVG from many accounts does seem to work ok but many experience a similar slow down. I think for any one who hasnt tried e trust promo its worth a shot as its the lightest av Iv tried and from reports others also. Its as fast as Nod on most systems . I dont use it currently on my xp as Im using Kav lite which is very light for me and ultra simplicity.
e trust promo http://etrust-chil.www.conxion.com/v7/

 

15.7MB, that don't look small to me?

Thanks
Wildman

 

Wanna try a 30+ MB Norton?

 

Far from being bloated Avast is multi featured and even on ancient P-IIIs with 256MB, there is no slowdowns like other AVs of today.

 

yea I know that 15.7MB is a seemingly big download but its really surprising just how ultra lite e trust promo is on a system. Iv run e trust on win98 128 rams and its a breeze.
No disrespect intended for Avast as its certainly a good av . For those who may find for what ever reason it slows their system down then e trust promo is a neat option.

 

I think apart from questions like "how much of RAM does it consume" and "is it possible to define file exclusions", the most important feature a virus scanner should provide is as much of a detection rate as possible, both in realtime and on-demand scanning scenarios.

And here is where all free scanners have a problem. When looking at the latest reports from AV Comparatives, only the products from Kaspersky, Symantec, McAfee and Eset are worth to be considered for an install. All others may be nice, but I for my part prefer to be protected than having a nice skinned user interface.

Free versions at least for my taste have too many restrictions to be good protectors (applies to free firewalls etc. as well). Quality has it's price in our capitalistic world of today, that's the truth. If you want protection at some higher level, you need to pay for it. It's only fair because who would take care of virus definition files without being paid for?

In our times, freeware from business companies is always somehow crippled...

Andreas

Andreas

 

Well avast! is far from limitations of AVG and AntiVir regarding features.
I can easily say it has more features than many payable AVs out there.

And you worry about developers getting payed if they offer free AVs?
All 3 free AVs have their bigger brothers for commercial usage with more features (avast! too). Not to mention solutions for corporate usage like file/mail servers protection,workstations protection etc.
Thats always the main profit part. Home users are usually just a small fragment of that (usually).

 

I think it's all about what you expect from the product, for me avast! home is better than many pay antivirus software.

Efficiency update mechanism

With avast! home, I get fast and accurate incremental updates (approx. 2-80 KB) as soon as it's released, I can set avast! home to check for update hourly.

Outstanding robust features

- Web Shield/URL Blocking, offers real-time HTTP scanning to eliminate web-based threats
- Network Shield, offers real-time network traffic scanning to eliminate network worms
- Boot-time scan, offers bootable CD virus scanner style

Reliability

Its engine (avast! pro) has been certified by ICSA Labs and passed the latest Virus Bulletin test for ITW malware, and gets approx. 90% against zoo malware. (So please tell me, Why Microsoft uses eTrust even though eTrust has low detection rates of zoo malware.)


Efficiency update mechanism and overall reliable performance are important for me, not the total number of malware detected, so avast! home is enough for me.

 

Well eTrust isn't exactly the best regarding detection either. I think it hasn't even reached required level for AV-Comparatives to even enter the testing. Thats why it was tested separately...

 

i thought they had licenses for nod32, so did they switch AVs?

 

Microsoft use different AV's not just one product.

And detection rates are not always the first consideration.

 

Microsoft has a license of several antivirus software such as eTrust, Norman and others to use in its release labs and as far as I know Microsoft uses eTrust solution to protect its network.

http://www.norman.com/News/Press_releases/2004/19582/en
http://www3.ca.com/customersuccesses/Details.aspx?CID=60939

 

Avast works excellent on my Celeron 800 Mhz, 256 Mb, Windows Me PC and when I turn off the rotation of Avast system tray icon it seems to me that Avast works even more stable and faster. For me Avast is number one options regarding free AV's becouse AntiVir makes many problems on my old PC and AVG altough very light and stable has very poor detection.

The only possible problem with Avast can be detection rate. Avast results are very good but quite lower than Kaspersky, BitDefender and Nod32? Also, I do not know does Avast has heuristic at all?

 

atm, avast only uses heuristics for its email providers.

 

I have come to the conclusion that we could argue this category till the cows came home by themselves. The best simply is what works best for the individual, it is as simple as that. Took me a long time to figure this out by the way. Also I don't think it wise to place all ones eggs in one basket so to speak, so the point of detection as far as I am concerned becomes rather mute, unless the product is really atrocious, and if that is the case it wouldn't be around for to long I would think.

Thanks
Wildman