Comparing Anti Virus Program

As a gamer and power-user, I prefer Norton Internet Security 2009. It does not slow down the computer for scanning, as it knows when you are using it and will only scan when the system is idle or you tell to scan. Its real easy to install and setup too. Note: It isn't free but it's worth it.  For free antivirus, i've used AVG Free for years before I converted to paid antivirus, it has caught all infections that hit my pc and I haven't had any system malfunctions at all. The only reason I converted over to paid antivirus is because of the performance of the new Norton.

For more in-depth review check this site out: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/protect_your_pc_from_guys_like_this?page=0%2C0

and go to the last page if you just want a table that compares features. It's a good read if you have the time.

That site also gives reviews of the McAfee and Avast! software.

-Carl

As a satisfied user of avast (having switched about a year ago from avg free), i was very surprised to read an overly "negative" evaluation of the product at the review site mentioned.  I don't know if that author got up on the wrong side of the bed that day, but for him to be so negative over minor, essentially meaningless points, suggests to me that he couldn't find any "critical" problems with avast, and so instead, harped on minutia.

Yes, avast does require users to register --- and indeed, re-register --- their FREE product annually.   It may take take away a minute of your time each year to do so.   But to say that's a reason to "attack" the product is, in my opinion, completely absurd.   the author infers from this required registration that perhaps, at some future time, avast may no longer be free.   Well, ANYTHING can happen nowadays.   (Who'da thunk GM could be on the verge of bankruptcy?)   Again, the author is taking an absurd "worry" into consideration:   If, at some future point, avast (or any other FREE program) changes its policy, then --- and only then --- will it be the proper time to re-evaluate what to do about it.

Oh, and to be concerned that the product's name is "annoying", simply by virtue of the exclamation point (!) --- it's name is actually Avast! --- is total balderdash!

As for "slow" system scans, since I hope that its resident protection will keep me safe, I only do a complete system scan approximately once a month... and as such, I can live with whatever scan speed it [or any other scanner] takes --- as long as it does the job reliably.

In fact, this review was so negative that people might be turned-off and not continue reading to see the single most significant statement "buried" toward the end: 

"Avast! ... had us strutting across the web with reckless abandon. Avast! cut off all forms of malware at the knees, preventing us from downloading various forms of pestilence and blockading their websites of origin".

That, to me, is the bottom-line review of avast!... and the only truly meaningful point made by the reviewer.

Until I hear differently either here or on another reputable forum that these free products are bad and non effective I will continue to use them. Right now my antivirus is Avast and I am satisfied with that. But maybe later on this year might try Aviria or AVG again. I have never had McAfee but tried Norton stuff for several years at the beginning of my travels in cyberspace and had all kinds of problems with it. I would only use it again if it were free.

I think that article is next to useless in "comparing"  AVs, despite its table of features:

1) It compares apples to oranges in that suites, standalones, free and paid products are lumped together, without mentioning the relative merits/disadvantages of choosing from these options (as opposed to the features present in specific products).

2) It does not specify its "testing" conditions, or even what make, model and operating system was used.

3) It does not mention the problems we keep seeing posted about in this forum: incompatabilities with other security products, problems with uninstallation, frequency of false positives, problems with upgrading to new versions, problems with certain preloaded trial versions by certain PC vendors (no names!)

4) For efficacy in detecting malware, it only looks at the "latest" Virus Bulletin test (which date? which operating system?) That's like looking at the recorded temperatures in several cities on one day to determine which is the best climate! Judging by the date of this comparison (Dec/08) the latest VB tests were done on a Vista 64 platform.

5) It does not mention that some of these products, both paid and free, now come bundled with unnecessary browser add-ons installed by default, which do nothing to enhance security (but do enhance the vendors' pocket books).

6) Its table of features includes questionable ones (such as e-mail scanning) but does not adress important ones such as frequency of updates, speed of updates, speed of response to new threats, and efficacy of removal.

7) Speed of on-demand scanning is the least important feature I would consider, also. The comparison does not state which scan level or configuration was used with each AV; most offer variations on default settings, quick scan, deep scan..

I could go on, but will stop there. I do not mean the above as an insult to Calbs, but merely to point out the shortcomings in that link. It is not a test of these products- it is a flawed opinion piece.

To Gimmey, I would say there is no best AV. Depends on your hardware, software, internet connection, level of expertise, surfing habits, the use for which your PC is intended, and financial circumstances, among many other factors. If you could provide some of this info, you might get a more informed opinion that might better apply to your situation.

Whichever you choose, always try before you buy. Reputable AVs always offer free or time-limited trial versions. You can always upgrade later.

I think an AV is perhaps the most important security program to have, and you need to do your homework.

Wow Joe!   As usual, another excellent, well-thought-out, analytical response.   I tip my hat to you.

Gimmey;

1) If you can tell us the make, model and age of your "old computer", plus the AV you bought to install on it, and the exact text of any error messages (if any) you are getting, it would help.

2) Did the old PC have any other AVs previously installed, and did you uninstall them before installing your new AV? (You should only have one AV running at a time, to avoid conflicts). If so, what was the old AV installed?

3) Is this an "inherited computer"?

Thank you Joe for your information, especially for the point 3. I have bought and installed an AV in my old computer and since then I just have trouble with shutting down my comp. Due to the less compatibility (if you don't say incompatibility) of the AV on my WinXP cause the XP will not shut down (the computer won't be off) and you must press the reset button first and then turn off.

I bought my old no name computer about 10 months ago. It was a brand new one. Specification: CPU Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2,33 GHz, 1GB RAM, WinXP Home Version 2002-Service Pack 3. The AV was Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 Intl. Edition. And this was my first AV in that computer. I have asked the Kaspersky online service, but the problem remain still.

The only problem was the computer just ignore when I shut down through the WinXP.

Hi Gimmey:

There is an extensive list of troubleshooters for WinXP shutdown problems at this site:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/shtdwnxp.htm

I would start at the top of the list.
Since this is an old PC, I wouldn't be surprised if you need to update one or more drivers to solve your problem.

Best of luck