Good Anitvirus
- Thread starter pushkar
- Start date
- Status
turbodiesel
Member
avast for its easyness to use and features
Yeah I've never had any problems with Avast. If you're looking for a free AV then Avast would be my pick and if you want to pay, I've had a good experience with Norton. Although it has got better, Norton is known to be kind of a ressource hog so if you're gaming I would suggest Avast.
AlienMenace
Well-Known Member
If you are running Windows 8, stay away from Avast. It puts the computer in a rebooting loop. Windows Defender in 8 has Microsoft Security Essentials wrap up in it.
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
MSE is the only thing I use and will ever use.
Norton 360 is light on resources and very effective. Check out the independent lab results from AV Comparatives. People that diss Norton are living in the past... about four years ago when Symantec "did" tax the CPU. That's so yesterday. Norton and Kaspersky Pure along with Bitdefender are premier security suites. Sure... Avast, Avira, AVG, MSE, Windows Defender... they're all free and they're all reasonably effective. BUT when it comes to the best protection you can get... you get what you pay for and that means Norton, Kaspersky and Bitdefender as far as I'm concerned.
lucasbytegenius
Well-Known Member
rofl, that is not "so yesterday". I recently had to fix a machine that came with Norton, the client was complaining it was slow all the time, and guess what was causing the slowness? Norton. No surprise. Removed it and installed MSE instead, and the machine was much faster. Plus, I've been using MSE for years and for a free AV, it's stopped everything that I've seen try to get in, as well as I'm sure other stuff I didn't catch myself.
We could argue about this all day and our personal experiences would mean absolutely nothing. What "DOES" mean something is the testing done by AV Comparatives. This independent lab ranks Norton in the top half dozen security-ware products. There is very little performance hit from Norton. I stand by what I said yesterday: your information and experience is about four years' old. Symantec now produce a world-class security suite. I would be very hesitant at trusting any of my boxes with MSE.
Ok. Norton is not good for every person/machine. Would you recommend running nortons on any machine with less than 1gb of memory? I sure wouldn't. They probably tested the software on machines running 4gb or more of memory and a quad core processor. With those specs there shouldn't be any bogging down. But not everyone has those types of pc specs. And why pay for a paid antivirus when a free version works just as well? Why spend money when you don't have to?
turbodiesel
Member
agreed, avast has all the features you will ever need so why buy a antivirus when you can get it free
Bitdefender is my choice. I have used avast (free version) and works just as well. I havent had any virus for appox 7 years. Or at least I haven't had any problems in that area.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I take people's experience with anti virus with a grain of salt. Meaning that a person can say that "Norton" (its just an example, I'm not degrading Norton) is the best virus protection and that this person has had no issues, when that person does "safe browsing" (very minor internet browing to secure sites) with low computer application use. Another person using Norton could say that its the worse thing ever. This person does a little bit more "riskier" browsing (lots of downloading and other various browsing) and heavy computer application use.
So in my thoughts, the type (brand) of antivirus that a person "likes" is dependant on what that person does with a computer.
Hopefully this makes sense lol
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I take people's experience with anti virus with a grain of salt. Meaning that a person can say that "Norton" (its just an example, I'm not degrading Norton) is the best virus protection and that this person has had no issues, when that person does "safe browsing" (very minor internet browing to secure sites) with low computer application use. Another person using Norton could say that its the worse thing ever. This person does a little bit more "riskier" browsing (lots of downloading and other various browsing) and heavy computer application use.
So in my thoughts, the type (brand) of antivirus that a person "likes" is dependant on what that person does with a computer.
Hopefully this makes sense lol
martinhersey
Member
Av
I like AVG. No problem with slowing down the computer. It does a good job. I have never had a virus get in there. Costs money.
I like AVG. No problem with slowing down the computer. It does a good job. I have never had a virus get in there. Costs money.
- Status