Free Vs Paid Antivirus.....Best ones.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: dorkiedoode
avast! ;]

I've been using the free version of this on 4 different computers and have not had one problem for a couple of years.

 

[Mystic]

I am glad that Microsoft came out with the free Microsoft Security Essentials. I think it is a reasonably good antivirus and some people either cannot get an antivirus program, can't afford one, or will not use one unless it is free. The more people who use antivirus software the better for everybody else.

However, I don't think Microsoft Security Essentials is as good as the top paid antivirus programs. In particular, software like Kaspersky, Norton, BitDefender, GData, and Avira.

I do think that Microsoft Security Essentials is probably as good as or better than software like McAfee, Norman, and CA.

So if I was going to use a free antivirus program I would probably use Microsoft Security Essentials. But if a person is willing to pay for quality software, I personally would much prefer Kaspersky or Norton.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

However, I don't think Microsoft Security Essentials is as good as the top paid antivirus programs. In particular, software like Kaspersky, Norton, BitDefender, GData, and Avira.


If you go look at the references I gave in a post on page 1 of this thread, you can see exactly how MSE rates against some others. Testing was done by an independent tester.

Their main page: http://www.av-comparatives.org/ and http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews

 

[Mystic]

When Microsoft Security Essentials first became available it did test pretty well-better than several paid antivirus programs. But in the most recent testing that I am aware of it was near the bottom.

I used Norton for many years. And when Norton went downhill I tried several antivirus programs. Some, like the free versions of AVG, Avira, and Avast! (and now MSEs of course) I could freely test out. And oftentimes there are trial versions of other antivirus programs. I have tried several. I was impressed with MSEs when it blocked a worm, but 2 Trojan Horse programs were able to get past MSEs and were not discovered until I ran the free online scanner that Microsoft used to have and that I used as a backup. I did not have a lot of confidence in MSEs after that.

Norton came back up in quality about 2009. It seems to be a good antivirus and certainly not bloated anymore. I will not listen to any 'security expert' who calls the current Norton antivirus bloated and bad software. That is obvious bias because the software simply can't be called bloated software anymore.

Norton, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, GData, the paid version of Avira, tend to be the top antivirus programs in testing year after year.

Others like Norman seem to be always near the bottom in the testing.

And some seem to be usually somewhere in the middle.

I think it makes sense to use one of the top-rated programs.

I would use the free MSE if I thought it was good enough. Maybe it is good enough for somebody who visits just a few websites that are known to be good. But the internet has become so dangerous I think anybody who explores the internet to any extent needs a really good antivirus. My recommendation based on what I know is either Norton or Kaspersky.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
When Microsoft Security Essentials first became available it did test pretty well-better than several paid antivirus programs. But in the most recent testing that I am aware of it was near the bottom.


Not from the latest data I see in the independent testing I linked to. In fact, MSE and Symantec rated about the same - Kaspersky looks a hair better, maybe.

You got links that show the testing results that show MSE at the bottom? ... please post the links, I'd be interested in reviewing the data.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Mystic
When Microsoft Security Essentials first became available it did test pretty well-better than several paid antivirus programs. But in the most recent testing that I am aware of it was near the bottom.


Not from the latest data I see in the independent testing I linked to. In fact, MSE and Symantec rated about the same - Kaspersky looks a hair better, maybe.

You got links that show the testing results that show MSE at the bottom? ... please post the links, I'd be interested in reviewing the data.

Mystic could be referring to this review by AV-Test.org mentioned in a PC World article.

 

[Mystic]

Yes, thanks LTVibe. I could not remember exactly where I had come across that information.

And understand that I want for MSEs to be successful and for it to make unnecessary the buying of expensive A/V programs. But MSEs failed me personally.

I must be honest and recommend Norton or Kaspersky based on what I know and have experienced.

If a person rarely strayed from certain known good websites and never or almost never explored the internet, I think MSEs would be good enough. I personally would still prefer Norton or Kasperksy. Especially if a person does online banking.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Yes, thanks LTVibe. I could not remember exactly where I had come across that information.

And understand that I want for MSEs to be successful and for it to make unnecessary the buying of expensive A/V programs. But MSEs failed me personally.

I must be honest and recommend Norton or Kaspersky based on what I know and have experienced.

If a person rarely strayed from certain known good websites and never or almost never explored the internet, I think MSEs would be good enough. I personally would still prefer Norton or Kasperksy. Especially if a person does online banking.

Norton? Really? IMO its bloatware. Whether its effective or not, it gets too many hooks into the system causing an unacceptable loss in performance.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Norton? Really? IMO its bloatware. Whether its effective or not, it gets too many hooks into the system causing an unacceptable loss in performance.


The commercial and consumer grade nortons are very different.

 

[Iain]

I've been running Kaspersky A/V for the past few years. Quite satisfied with it.

Current plan however, for when subscription expires is to replace my 4-year old internet gateway with one of the latest generation ICSA certified Universal Threat Management (UTM) gateway. I'll run network A/V on that machine and a free, host based A/V on each network host. That will probable be MSE AFAICT currently.

Overkill? Maybe for now, but you can never be too safe; it's called future-proofing.

https://www.icsalabs.com/

 

[ZZman]

Norton was bloatware but has gotten better because of so many complaints.

I get it free thru Comcast.

Plus with better computers and more Ram in computers the performance hit makes little difference now.

 

[Iain]

Originally Posted By: Iain
......

Current plan however, for when subscription expires is to replace my 4-year old internet gateway with one of the latest generation ICSA certified Universal Threat Management (UTM) gateway.

........

https://www.icsalabs.com/

Erm, to late to edit post but it should read:
Unified Threat Managment (UTM)

Just being pedantic.

 

[greenaccord02]

I don't think that's overkill. Should be a system that manages to provide pretty good all around security for a fair price.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Norton? Really? IMO its bloatware. Whether its effective or not, it gets too many hooks into the system causing an unacceptable loss in performance.


The commercial and consumer grade nortons are very different.

Oh, I'm aware the commercial grade is not too bad at all, but the general public usually buys the "Norton" consumer version rather than the "Symantec" commercial version.