Do you use : No Antivirus , FREE Antivirus , or PAID Antivirus and why?

[Guest]

Then maybe you're not asking a direct enough question for me to give you a better answer?

I guess in this case there isn't a direct question.
I could make requests for what I want to see in an antivirus all day, but the sad reality is none of them are going to tick every box. The free versions at least.

I suppose I'll do my research, see which one goes best for my use.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Bitdefender and Norton Internet Security have served we well and both are really light.

 

[Skylyne]

I guess in this case there isn't a direct question.
I could make requests for what I want to see in an antivirus all day, but the sad reality is none of them are going to tick every box. The free versions at least.

I suppose I'll do my research, see which one goes best for my use.

That would be the best route for you to take. From my short-term experience, Bitdefender is an acceptable solution for those who don't want to expend much energy into protection, want something very lightweight, and has a good report card. Comodo is a nice free security suite that provides (from what I've seen) the best overall protection; however, it is fairly resource demanding. AVG is not a personal recommendation, as the reviews I've seen are mixed at best. Kaspersky seems to be the only other quality AV ware with a zero false positive rate; and that's a requirement for my personal recommendation. I'll have to give TrendMicro a go, but no promises I'll recommend it...I don't like a software that leaves a genuine virus up to the discretion of the user. I'd rather it have less than 5 false positives (in the av-comparatives real-world chart), or none at all with a minor rate of failure.

You're better off with something that has a smaller rate of failure, and take extra security measures outside of AV software, than with one that gives you an option to allow a blatant virus onto your system. The real problem with the allow/deny programs is the command prompt could [in theory] be bypassed by a decent programmer.

 

[Skylyne]

Bitdefender and Norton Internet Security have served we well and both are really light.

You know, I've heard more people complain about Norton than praise it. I know people who've struggled with Norton for many years, and pay for it, and they're never happy. I've not really met anyone happy with Norton, at all. Then again, that's my sample of people.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Norton recoded all their software about 5 years ago , it's very light except for the 360 version .People are still rating it from the time period before that.

NIS is very light on a system.

 

[Skylyne]

I know someone who was running Norton, about a year ago, on a brand new laptop, and it was slowing down her system pretty good. Not to the point of things being substantially slow, but it was definitely noticeable to me. I don't think she really noticed, because there was no complaints about speed (then again, her last computer was terrible), but Norton took its toll. You really can't prevent a security software from slowing a system down; it's just a side effect of running that kind of software.

But, that aside, I wasn't really talking about speed. I was really talking about overall user reviews. I just haven't heard too many people who are genuinely happy with the job that Norton does. I've definitely not heard a positive review from anyone I've talked to in person; I've only seen positive reviews of Norton on the internet. I should definitely consult my local computer shop, though... I'll have to make a note of that.

On a side note: I will say that I've had one noticeable problem from every security software I've run... video streaming. For some reason, every single security software I run has to screw up my video streaming experience. It doesn't matter what website I'm using, I have that problem. It's weird. The only time I have a good streaming experience is when I'm not running AV software. I think part of the problem is the overwhelming amount of flash video on the internet, as Flash itself doesn't seem to like letting me multi-task while I'm running AV software. It could also be my browsers causing part of that problem, but I'm not about to leave them for anything else.

And yes, I'm having this same recurring problem with Bitdefender. It's relatively lightweight, from my experience, but it still bogs down slower machines in some ways.

 

[USAFRet]

The last AV or firewall I paid money for in a home setting was Black Ice Defender, back in the late '90's.

I have had zero uncaught infections this century.

 

[Guest]

Welp, I moved back to MSE.

It's by no means the best, but it stays out of my way and that I can live with.

Scanned with Avast!, Bitdefender and Panda Cloud yesterday, finding nothing. I like my current combo of this and MalwareBytes if and when I suspect something.

Here's what I found from yesterday evening:

Bitdefender Free - Nice, but limiting. I dislike 'cloud' scanning in general and this is no exception. The scan was slow and there wasn't much information as to what it was actually doing.

Panda Cloud Free - Better than the above as far as usability is concerned. Also scanned quicker. I was very much tempted to stick with it, but again, I dislike anything relating to the fabled 'Cloud'. (Just ask Jennifer Lawrence).

Avast! Free - As I said above. Certainly the cleanest looking, with the most support and the most customisability options, but let down by its overall annoyingness attempting to get you to pay for a premium version of at least one of their other services. Also had the longest setup time due to too many annoying settings turned on by default.

AVG Free - Didn't try yesterday, but have tried recently before. I would give it points on overall design versus pretty much every other option out there, the scanner isn't the worst either, but I've had far too many issues with AVG in the past.

MSE - Arguably the worst of the bunch, but also the least annoying. Take precautions at the browser level and it's unlikely something will slip through without your say-so.


I guess the only real way to get the perfect blend is to pay for it. For that, Kaspersky, NOD32 or Bitdefender would be topping my list. Preferably in that order.

 

[Gibu]

I use the paid version of Bitdefender and I really like it, it's lightweight and the scan seems to pick up threats. And it looks nice too.

 

[spooky2th]

I think you get what you pay for. But, I know some friends that use the free AVG.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I agree with Bitdefender , it's super light and seems to block the threats that are out there.

 

[Skylyne]

I think you get what you pay for. But, I know some friends that use the free AVG.

Yes, and no. Free doesn't always have to mean lower quality. Free can simply mean "you're on your own if something stops working." That's how a handful of the current wares work, and it's perfectly fine for those willing to learn about computer security. The only downside with free software is the trial and/or freemium software; the kind where you pay for certain features to no longer be restricted. That kind of software is going to give you more security problems, because it gives you a false sense of security. Typically, those types of software are going to give the user just enough security at the beginning, but eventually the user will have no real choice other than to pay to fix things. I just don't approve of that practice.

Sure, you can avoid it with a little quality research, but those particular wares are aimed at the individual who can't be bothered to learn about computer security.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

A lot of people seem to use Avast FREE , seems like one of the top in the FREE category.

 

[Skylyne]

I'm honestly surprised at that, Blackbird. I mean, I don't find the UI appears to be gimmicky at best, it bogs down your computer significantly (compared to other wares I've tried), and it doesn't even come out as one of the top performers. I'm struggling to see why it's so common. I'm assuming it's the user-friendly customisation; but it genuinely lacks compared to any half-decent security suite I've ever used. Avast just seems to be one of those middle-ground programs that people use, and gravitate towards, but without any real explanation. Maybe they just haven't used enough software, and the popularity has given it a collective feeling of familiarity? I really am failing to see why it's so popular. I just haven't found it to be appealing in any way, whenever I've used it.

 

[thetechnoobguy]

I have been using AVG for some time now, before I had been using Norton, both great. In my opinion a paid anti virus is mandatory if you're someone who values the protection and security of your files and computer, or you visit more risky parts of the internet. Generally smart browsing practices will help prevent a lot of viruses but I've had dozens of instances where my anti virus has protected me against a virus in real time.

Here's all that I use:
AVG Internet Security 2014
TDSSKiller (Anti-rootkit tool, free)
https/www.virustotal.com/ (free browser file scanner)
OpenDNSCrypt (free encryption software)

 

[Skylyne]

I have been using AVG for some time now, before I had been using Norton, both great. In my opinion a paid anti virus is mandatory if you're someone who values the protection and security of your files and computer, or you visit more risky parts of the internet. Generally smart browsing practices will help prevent a lot of viruses but I've had dozens of instances where my anti virus has protected me against a virus in real time. If you can't afford payed anti virus software you could always pirate some to see if you like it and buy a license later (though this is risky and you have to know what you're doing).

Here's all that I use:
AVG Internet Security 2014
TDSSKiller (Anti-rootkit tool, free)
https/www.virustotal.com/ (free browser file scanner)
OpenDNSCrypt (free encryption software)

Not to mention recommending that someone pirate stuff on this forum is against the rules... but I think we understand your point. I won't recommend pirating anything on here, even though I have many ties to it outside of this forum. Just FYI, mate.

I'm starting to wonder if it's either luck, technique, or some random other factor that has prevented me from being one of those people who's seen an AV software do something beneficial. I've never seen anything beyond false positives (usually for custom rootkits), and I've not once seen an AV software block something that couldn't have easily been prevented without an AV software. Either I'm not visiting shady enough websites (can't be that, given what my internet activities consist of), I'm using other tools that most people aren't using, or something else peculiar about my usage prevents it... but I can't figure out why. I've only seen AV software on other people's computers flag 'infections' or potential 'threats' when my own customised browser would have blocked all that nonsense before an AV software would know about it; and that's because it never had a chance to run itself. The only stuff that can infect my computer is the stuff that would fly under the radar with the vast majority of security software; and I kind of have to be okay with that.

But... that isn't why I came back here *facepalm*. Does anyone know if the TrendMicro and Kaspersky trials perform identical to their paid versions? I don't care if they run out after a month (I will likely use them for two weeks at most), but I want to see if they are worth their weight in... currency? I just would like to see if they are worth what you would pay for, and if their UI is going to be of a good quality. I won't test them if their trials are restricted in any way... that defeats the whole test.

 

[darkbreeze]

No, I just use the Window's one.

Because most of the others are crap / crash / slow the system down and die when you get infected anyway. So whats the point in paying for one

And this has already been discussed / posted in here

He's a Senior Moderator, do you really think he doesn't already know what's been discussed and have a good reason for asking? Sheesh.

 

[darkbreeze]

I use Windows Defender along with the paid version of Malware Bytes. I've tried a few different AV's over the years. Mostly Avira, which I used for years and years until it started creeping up further and further on the resource usage. Once Windows defender became incorporated into the Windows 7 services it just made sense to quit using Avira.

So WD and MB have been the answer since the release of Windows 7 on mine and all client builds and other than a couple of instances that were the fault of those users, all has been better than could be expected. For my own sake, it's been a very successful combination along with common sense.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Malwarbytes should be paired with all AV's in my opinion.

 

[CPU Fan]

No, I just use the Window's one.

Because most of the others are crap / crash / slow the system down and die when you get infected anyway. So whats the point in paying for one

And this has already been discussed / posted in here

You really should at least install Avast or AVG. Both are very respectable for free and way stronger than MSE. MSE is a very basic safeguard and MS admits that it isn't that great. I used to have the same mindset as you until MSE allowed a PUP to constantly install itself on my computer without consent and could never detect it. avast and malwarebytes found it and eliminated it. I don't trust MSE to do anything except slow my computer down a bit when it scans now.