Looks like rankings have changed:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/removal-tests
Go to the review.pdf
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/removal-tests
Go to the review.pdf
AV-Comparatives-New AV leaders?
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
I still love Avira. If not for the false positives......
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
**read the latest Aug 2009 report
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
**read the latest Aug 2009 report
Good stuff.
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Has anyone used the MS Security Essentials? I use the Free Avast and like it, but the MS product seems to get good reviews for performance and detection.
I installed it on my remote work puter. It seems to work just fine, and auto-updates. If you need to exclude certain directories from scanning you can do that in settings. If those directories are on the network, then you must go through the registry, which I did and that worked just fine. Having to go through the registry is an extreme weakness in design.
Has anyone used the MS Security Essentials? I use the Free Avast and like it, but the MS product seems to get good reviews for performance and detection.
I installed it on my remote work puter. It seems to work just fine, and auto-updates. If you need to exclude certain directories from scanning you can do that in settings. If those directories are on the network, then you must go through the registry, which I did and that worked just fine. Having to go through the registry is an extreme weakness in design.
Sounds like I might try it. It seems that developers are listening to users and being more conscious of memory usage and system slowdown. It even sounds like the new Symantec AV is pretty good with that respect, but the free ones seem to be doing the job for me.
Like Microsoft Security Essentials. Only changes I made was under Settings. Changed the When to Daily. Time to a time that I may have the computer on. Took out the check mark in "Start the scheduled scan only when my computer is on but not in use" so it would scan in the background while I am using it.
Installed it when it first came out about a month ago on both my desktop and laptop + I like the fact that it is free for personal use or a home small business.
Does not hog the processor. Scans are quick.
Am quite happy with it @ this juncture.
Installed it when it first came out about a month ago on both my desktop and laptop + I like the fact that it is free for personal use or a home small business.
Does not hog the processor. Scans are quick.
Am quite happy with it @ this juncture.
Standalone AV's day is done, and has been for some time.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2...ns-websense.htm
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2...ns-websense.htm
Originally Posted By: SrDriver
Like Microsoft Security Essentials.
Does anyone else get the heebie-jeebies, or at least grasp the irony in using a suite of products meant to compensate for an insecure OS *from the folks who make the offending OS*?
I do not ask this from an idealological standpoint, because 1) I am pretty sure Microsoft just up and bought, then re-branded the A/V technology as opposed to writing it themselves, and 2) You'd think they'd be *best* equipped to deal with the flaws in their OS, as they'd have the most acute knowledge of it, and 3) They'd probably be able to most tightly (read: efficiently) integrate the product(s) into the machinations of the OS, if not the kernel itself... I guess you could even add 4) A security suite could be another level of protection for them against piracy, as the OS would have to be verified before downloading or installing it.
I ask this from a conflict-of-interest standpoint: Would you buy locks from the same folks who marketed lock picks? And on the surface, it seems like Microsoft has little to gain by aggressively addressing security issues: They can sell you (or more accurately; perpetually *license* you) the magic antidotal serum.
Like Microsoft Security Essentials.
Does anyone else get the heebie-jeebies, or at least grasp the irony in using a suite of products meant to compensate for an insecure OS *from the folks who make the offending OS*?
I do not ask this from an idealological standpoint, because 1) I am pretty sure Microsoft just up and bought, then re-branded the A/V technology as opposed to writing it themselves, and 2) You'd think they'd be *best* equipped to deal with the flaws in their OS, as they'd have the most acute knowledge of it, and 3) They'd probably be able to most tightly (read: efficiently) integrate the product(s) into the machinations of the OS, if not the kernel itself... I guess you could even add 4) A security suite could be another level of protection for them against piracy, as the OS would have to be verified before downloading or installing it.
I ask this from a conflict-of-interest standpoint: Would you buy locks from the same folks who marketed lock picks? And on the surface, it seems like Microsoft has little to gain by aggressively addressing security issues: They can sell you (or more accurately; perpetually *license* you) the magic antidotal serum.
Every OS has flaws. Macs are getting hit a lot and their users are mostly unaware. If we all ran OpenVMS life would be easy!!
$1$ shutdown
$1$ shutdown
- Status
