Which of these antiviruses do you think is the best?
AVG
15.2% (45)
15.2% (45)
Norton
8.1% (24)
8.1% (24)
Avast
31.4% (93)
31.4% (93)
McAfee
2.4% (7)
2.4% (7)
Windows Defender
7.8% (23)
7.8% (23)
Avira
3% (9)
3% (9)
Kaspersky
9.8% (29)
9.8% (29)
Other
21.6% (64)
21.6% (64)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Best Antivirus

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Please tell me which you consider is the best antivirus and why?

Best how? Kaspersky is quite thorough, but also very heavy duty - I wouldn't want it on my PC because it would take up too much resources. I'm using Avast! at the moment and that's OK, as it's free. If I was going to pay for something, then I would probably go with Nod32. And so on. What criteria are we applying here?

I use Webroot, and it's quite good at picking stuff up, and it doesn't use too many system resources, to boot. It's got a yearly license fee on it, though, so I can see why it might not be for everyone.

Linux...

Anyway, out of those options I'm going to go for Windows Defender (providing you know how to use it). Malware Bytes is also supposed to be pretty good. Looking in the processes in task manager & your appdata is also a fairly good way of getting a general idea about your computer's health.

Microsoft Security Essentials. Much less resource intensive than Norton and I've had absolutely no issues with it so far.

My bank gives me a free 3 computer license for Kaspersky every year, so I use that. It seems to do the job and as long as you tell it not to scan processes in realtime it doesn't usually affect performance.

This is as loaded a topic as browser wars, console wars, console VS PC, Mac VS PC, and so on. Ergo, there is no right answer.

Kaspersky has never let me down, although it IS a bit of a resource hog. Especially on this laptop. @_@

I use AVG, but this is indeed a loaded question.

All I know is that Norton releases bloatware and charges for something that should honestly be free. Basic protection from something that's as prevalent as potential viral infections, nowadays, should be free.

Not that my personal pick doesn't have its cons. The database is littered with false positives, and there's old games I don't have no choice but to crack that consistently register as virii. This means I have to shut down AVG until the next reboot if I want to be able to start the damn thing.

Well that depends on what your criteria is. I like to use Kaspersky, but I wouldn't say it's perfect. Like others have already said it is a bit of a resource hog. However it is quite thorough and keeps my computer clean.

I use Comodo. It's free and it hasn't fucked up in the three years I've been using it. Which is good enough for me.

Currently, I'm happy with Avast. I was using AVG until I got fed up with the constant pestering to upgrade to the paid version. At least Avast has a "silent/gaming" mode that doesn't bother me.

FalloutJack:
This is as loaded a topic as browser wars, console wars, console VS PC, Mac VS PC, and so on. Ergo, there is no right answer.

No no, it's not there is no right answer, it's there are many right answers.

The best antivirus is the one you will actually tolerate and use. Doesn't matter if it's Panda, with its Scientology links, or Microsoft Security Essentials, with its constant and pathetic lagging behind in detection rates -- the one you actually use is better than the one you get pissed off at and disable because it annoys you, slows you down, or otherwise gets in the way.

Same can be said of browsers (I use Opera despite the occasional compatibility problem!), consoles, operating systems, you name it.

Anything that isn't McAfee, the software itself may be good at detecting viruses, but I could write a novel about all the problems and frustrations I've had with it payment-wise. I bought a 2 year subscription, then it ran out after one year, then when I tried to renew it for another year only to have it run out immediately. And I don't even want to think about what it was like trying to move it from my old laptop to a new one.

McAfee is riddled with glitches that coincidentally always fuck you over.

Right now I'm using Trend Micro Titanium, it seems to work pretty good.

evilneko:
Snip

All right answers? You just made this even more confusing, but since I have no special retort, I'm going to establish some kudos here and move on.

I've been using AVG Free for a while on my desktop, quite lightweight, and reliable, switched from Avast! as it annoyed me.

My new laptop has the MS one on it, just to try it out mainly.

Norton/Symantec stuff is ridiculously resource heavy, and I don't see the point of anything else you have to pay for.

I didn't see Zonealarm on here (which I use). It stays up-to-date and has a better Firewall (easier to operate anyway) than the one you get with your windows OS. It is also completely free (it just gives you ads and one of those obnoxious mandatory toolbar installs)

Eh, I use AVG because it's rated highest at the moment... but in truth, Windows installations are disposable (to me). If it catches something, I have no qualms with nuking the drive and starting over.

All of the files I'm afraid of losing are on drives I have formatted in ext4. I think when I make a fileserver I'll actually backup with raided drives, but for now I just count on my luck holding. I've only ever had one HDD fail in the past 15 years (and it was a 10000RPM drive that wasn't being cooled properly. Totally my fault).

Jasper van Heycop:
I didn't see Zonealarm on here (which I use). It stays up-to-date and has a better Firewall (easier to operate anyway) than the one you get with your windows OS. It is also completely free (it just gives you ads and one of those obnoxious mandatory toolbar installs)

Did Zone Alarm start doing AV software? I did use it back in the day but it was only a firewall. It was a bit too picky for me, though - by default it blocked lots of things - including animated GIFs on web pages (I didn't notice that for a while). After an update, it just went haywire and...seemingly lobotomised - I had kept it in learning mode until then and suddenly it remembered nothing at all and started bugging me for every single thing. I moved on at that point, though I assume the issue was fixed in the next patch or so. I've got COMODO Firewall Pro now and I'm happy. Does a good job and has stuff like sandboxing, so it's OK. I combine it with Avast! because I prefer to keep my protections separate to each other.

And Windows Firewall is the first thing I turn off when I get a fresh Windows installation. It hinders more than it helps from my experience.

I'm not well-versed in computers despite spending most of my day on one, so for the longest time I was using the pre-installed Norton. After it pissed me off one too many times, I switched to Kaspersky and have been using it ever since. So far it's only let me down once. I got a bug that wouldn't allow me to access the internet anymore without inputting my credit card info (it was disguised as a legit windows security program but I'm not THAT dumb) that I got from funnyjunk, which is why I no longer go to funnyjunk. Still, I have had Super Anti-Spyware and Malwarebytes installed since then for those rare situations where Kaspersky doesn't catch something. It seems to cover all the necessary bases.

Alfador_VII:
Norton/Symantec stuff is ridiculously resource heavy, and I don't see the point of anything else you have to pay for.

My Norton is using 5 MB of memory right now, which is barely on the radar, as far as I'm concerned. Not really resource heavy since the 2009 version revamp, and Norton has saved my hide on more than one occasion.

And this is a recommendation from someone who used to swear Norton was in league with the devil, due to aforementioned resource-use issues.

Microsoft Security Essentials, combined with being a little bit circumspect about what you click on. No antivirus can substitute for taking a little care with your browsing.

I use Norton 360. Not by any choice I'm just on a relatives family plan or something and get it for free (for now).
I'm pretty savvy about my internetting so I don't think I;ve ever gotten a virus on my machine and its also stopped like 3 intrusion attempts so yay!

However when a virus does slip through it fucks shit up. I got one on my aunts computer while browsing a Halo wiki page and it blew right through all the protections and started to destroy my aunts computer. Norton could do nothing but weep at the virus' laughter.

I have a shitty laptop and it doesn't run all that slow with Norton, hell Google Chrome eats up more memory and processor power than Norton does.

AVG combined with Firefox Ghostery and Adblocker (the latter I turn on only on sites with annoying popups that slip past the firewall, and turn off on sites that I support). I put the PC in administrator mode every few weeks or so and clean it up with Spybot and Malwarebytes. Keeps things fairly clean, though Firefox has become something of a resource hog.

Once upon a time I used Avira, but then it let a worm in that started infecting executables. When Avira detected it, it proceeded to quarantine every infected executable without asking - including critical system services, thus borking my computer. Then I switched to AVG, but it wasn't exactly an airtight shield, let a lot of stuff in. After using my dad's gaming rig with ZoneAlarm, I was really tired of being assaulted with dialog boxes asking the same questions over and over, and the massive slowdowns in loading as it scanned literally everything. Now I use Avast on two machines, which hasn't let a virus in in the last 4+ years, doesn't slow things down in the slightest, asks me what to do when it makes a detection, and doesn't bug me about anything else.

As for Norton/McAfee/Defender, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

So Avast is really the only one there that hasn't screwed me over yet.

As someone who does Cyber Security "research", the best anti virus is you. I don't even mean that is a sappy 80s power movie way. Pick any of the free ones, no anti virus can protect you from yourself.

Though in IT, Nod32 or WebRoot or Symantec are to goto pieces of software. I use COMODO Internet Security Free on my machine at home.

DoPo:
If I was going to pay for something, then I would probably go with Nod32. And so on. What criteria are we applying here?

This man knows what he's talking about. Nod32 is the best in protection software.

Trend Micro Titanium + a certain add-on for Firefox have consistently done well by me and my computer.

Best Protection Over-all = Norton 360
Best Protection/ Performance = McAfee Anti-virus
Best Little Resource Abuse = AVG
Best Free Protection = Avast! (though I admit I haven't tried them all)

Personally I would normally go with whichever anti-virus or internet security came with the computer. Just renew the Norton or McAfee after the trial period was up. But since I have four computers in my house now it's just so much cheaper to get Norton 360 which you can use on three machines. Baby-sitter/ children's computer uses Avast! since I really don't care if anything happens to it.

Also, I've never personally had any issue but I get more complaints from customers concerning Kaspersky than every other AV/IS software put together. Everything from it not catching important issues to it making customer's PCs completely unusable.

Hmmm...Does no one here use Bitdefender? That's my anti-virus of choice. Plenty of different services from standard anti-virus, firewall, and anti-spam. But it can also encrypt files and help optimize my computer. It's a shame the interface is kinda awkward. But all in all I get a lot for what I paid for it.

I use Microsoft Security Essentials. Its free, first and foremost. And Ive yet to have a Virus it hasnt contained, then asked me to remove. Its really unintrusive (Like Mcafee telling me to scan and update etc etc). I really like it. Its simple, and it works.

Charter cable gives out a free licenses for their security suit, it uses F-secure. I am typically a fairy paranoid user and usually catch even the best of phishing emails. It has caught and cleaned a few nasties for me over the years but I wonder what its missing at times as the scans on my computers almost always come up clean.

Has anyone else heard of F-secure or have any opinions of their software?

I use windows defender, and scan using malwarebytes and Kaspersky TDSS killer. So far so good, been using these since my little problem with java opening the flood gates and infecting my system with a bunch of crap.

DoPo:
Best how? Kaspersky is quite thorough, but also very heavy duty - I wouldn't want it on my PC because it would take up too much resources. I'm using Avast! at the moment and that's OK, as it's free. If I was going to pay for something, then I would probably go with Nod32. And so on. What criteria are we applying here?

Define Heavy.... I have it running on my PC as we speak, If you combine Kaspersky and Malwarebytes (Which I use in tandem) it is still taking up only 5MB of RAM..... (Steam and Firefox are taking up the lions share.... its at 32% out of 8 gig)

As far as my processor is concerned..... I have one core at 5% and the other three are fluctuating between 2% and 0%....

So I wouldn't call it a resource hog, considering my PC is 5 years old now....

Granted... When it is doing a full scan it is a REAL hog, but that only takes about 4 hours, and I do it every three days.... It runs while I'm at work, and I don't care how slow my computer is when I am not using it...

frizzlebyte:

Alfador_VII:
Norton/Symantec stuff is ridiculously resource heavy, and I don't see the point of anything else you have to pay for.

My Norton is using 5 MB of memory right now, which is barely on the radar, as far as I'm concerned. Not really resource heavy since the 2009 version revamp, and Norton has saved my hide on more than one occasion.

And this is a recommendation from someone who used to swear Norton was in league with the devil, due to aforementioned resource-use issues.

How many MB of RAM a program takes is a terrible way of measuring how much resources it takes. In fact, it isn't a method of measuring performance at all. It's easy to force purge shit into the swap file, reducing the RAM footprint. But that is anything but a performance boost. RAM is fucking fast. HDDs aren't. Even SSDs doesn't hold a candle to it. You get the best possible performance when programs run entirely in RAM. Empty RAM is useless RAM. As long as there's a buffer zone for new programs, it's generally best to use up as much RAM as possible instead of using the swap, which laypersons tend to perceive as bad. "This program takes up 300MB of RAM! Such bloatware!" etc.
Anyway, point is, never use RAM usage for measuring performance. For anything.

For measuring AV software, it would be the added memory bandwidth usage and CPU load during certain operations. An internet traffic monitoring tool may not be noticeable at low speeds, but easily could choke up your computer when you're transferring at some 10MB/s, despite being under at under 10MB RAM usage. That's not good if you've got a 100Mbit connection, or are transferring things through a LAN connection.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked