PDA

View Full Version : Antivirus Software



Fostire
2009-10-29, 05:13 PM
Today expired the antivirus that came with my laptop so I'm in need of a new one.

I really don't know much about antivirus software so I was hoping someone here could help me pick a new one.

I'm currently running windows vista but I should be getting Windows 7 soonish. Also I would prefer one that is free.

So, any recommendations?

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2009-10-29, 05:59 PM
What antivirus program came with your computer?

Fostire
2009-10-29, 06:03 PM
What antivirus program came with your computer?

That would be Norton.

Starscream
2009-10-29, 06:11 PM
I currently use Avast. It's free and works just fine.

Do you have a firewall? There's plenty of those that are free and effective as well.

Kallisto
2009-10-29, 06:11 PM
I am using Avast! (home edition). It's a free program. I've never had any problems with it, on the contrary. It's very simple to register and manage, i.e. you don't really have to do anything once it's installed. It updates frequently on its own and takes little memory space.

Nothing but good things to say on Avast!, really.

*grins* Ninja'd.

Fostire
2009-10-29, 07:16 PM
So 2 for avast. I'll try it out then.

Do you have a firewall? There's plenty of those that are free and effective as well.

Only windows Firewall.

bluewind95
2009-10-29, 07:17 PM
Avast is great. But I'd still recommend HijackThis to go along with it. Just in case.

Edit: To clarify, HijackThis is not an antivirus. But if you know what actually should be in the registry, you can delete even those horrible virus cases that an antivirus won't catch/delete. If not, I recommend googling each part you can't recognize.

Starscream
2009-10-29, 07:23 PM
Only windows Firewall.

Blech. Not a very good one at all. Check out the tables in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_firewalls) Wikipedia page, and you'll see that the windows firewall has a lot more red entries than most of the available alternatives.

That page can also give some nice free alternatives.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2009-10-29, 07:36 PM
To be quite honest, if you're happy with Norton, I'd just stick with it. It's really not all that expensive. I believe it's only about $50 a year for a subscription renewal/

Fostire
2009-10-29, 07:44 PM
Blech. Not a very good one at all. Check out the tables in this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_firewalls) Wikipedia page, and you'll see that the windows firewall has a lot more red entries than most of the available alternatives.

That page can also give some nice free alternatives.

Thanks for the info :smallsmile:

BritishBill
2009-10-30, 10:59 AM
I use AVG because its free!!!! You can download it at download.com

Bouregard
2009-10-30, 02:06 PM
Norton Internet Security is it for me. Works fine. Althought not that cheap.

Ichneumon
2009-10-30, 02:13 PM
I don't currently use any virus software, due to there not being many virusses (???) for my operating system of choice (Mac OSX), but I enjoyed McAffey.

Telonius
2009-10-30, 02:52 PM
I've had problems with both Norton and McAfee hogging resources, I'd recommend against either of them.

RS14
2009-10-30, 03:21 PM
I use AVG because its free!!!! You can download it at download.com

I don't use AV software (Linux), but the perception of AVG reflected on Slashdot seems to have dropped sharply with AVG 8, for what it is worth.

Dvil
2009-10-30, 03:22 PM
I've had problems with both Norton and McAfee hogging resources, I'd recommend against either of them.

Same. I use AVG 'cos it's free, but I also love the fact that it runs very smoothly in the background, and doesn't really slow anything down. One thing with AVG though is that it'll try to to a virus scan once every 24 hours. For me it takes 30 minutes to an hour, and it does noticably slow down games while that's going on. So if you get AVG, and you're a gamer, you may have to schedule your fun a bit.

Moonshadow
2009-10-30, 05:15 PM
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T USE NORTON, IT MAKES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT FIXES!!!!

Any program that requires you to download a *specific* uninstaller from it is just asking for trouble.

Ditch Norton, NOW, and get Avast!

Just as an example, when I had Norton on my laptop, my wireless connection would die every few minutes. Getting rid of it and installing Avast? I haven't had a drop out in months.

Fostire
2009-10-30, 05:53 PM
Ditch Norton, NOW, and get Avast!
Done and done :smallbiggrin:

Totally Guy
2009-10-30, 05:57 PM
I don't currently use any virus software, due to there not being many virusses (???) for my operating system of choice (Mac OSX), but I enjoyed McAffey.

Can someone confirm this is largely true? I just made the switch from my old XP machine to a Mac OS X Leopard.

RS14
2009-10-30, 06:01 PM
Can someone confirm this is largely true? I just made the switch from my old XP machine to a Mac OS X Leopard.

That is correct. While viruses can and have targeted OS X, it is uncommon.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2009-10-31, 12:55 AM
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T USE NORTON, IT MAKES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT FIXES!!!!

Any program that requires you to download a *specific* uninstaller from it is just asking for trouble.

Ditch Norton, NOW, and get Avast!

Just as an example, when I had Norton on my laptop, my wireless connection would die every few minutes. Getting rid of it and installing Avast? I haven't had a drop out in months.


You must have been quite unlucky then. I've used Norton ever since I got my laptop 3 years ago, and have not had one issue with it. I even got a free upgrade to NAV 2010 after I reformatted my hard drive. Norton has in no way every interfered with my wireless connection what so ever.

Ichneumon
2009-10-31, 01:40 AM
Can someone confirm this is largely true? I just made the switch from my old XP machine to a Mac OS X Leopard.

I will not say that there aren't any mac virusses, but they are rare. This isn't because Mac would somehow be more protected or more secure than Windows, but mostly because there just don't happen to be many Mac virusses.

Starscream
2009-10-31, 02:18 AM
I will not say that there aren't any mac virusses, but they are rare. This isn't because Mac would somehow be more protected or more secure than Windows, but mostly because there just don't happen to be many Mac virusses.

This is exactly it. Mac has about 10% of the market. Windows has almost 90% (a small number use Unix, Linux and other options).

If you are a complete tool who wants to produce a computer virus, odds are you are going to target the OS with the biggest market share. You'll be able to infect 9X the machines that way. There's nothing particularly secure about Macs, it's just that the virus makers don't bother.

Adds a note of irony to Mac salesmen promoting their products with boasts about how "secure" they are. They'd better not do their job too well, that's all I can say.

Dispozition
2009-10-31, 02:23 AM
Avast is a good one that's free, but if you can afford anything, or just need 30 days, get Nod32, I find it uses less resources and does a better job.

Speaking of which, I need to install anti-virus on my computers again...I hate giving them OS reloads...

ninjalemur
2009-10-31, 05:00 AM
Avast

PandaCloud is also pretty good.

Cicciograna
2009-10-31, 05:19 AM
I use Antivir, but I noticed one thing, as I have friends that use all sorts of antiviruses: if you stick to the free ones (Avast, AVG, Antivir, Comodo, etcetera), keep them updated and add a good Firewall and an AntiSpyware it doesn't really matter which one you choose.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-31, 06:34 AM
I have to say, I'm glad I found this thread. My McAfee expired awhile ago, and I lack the money to but a new subscription, or the means of paying.

Thinking I'll try Avast! after all the praise it got here.

Here's hoping it'll stop all the annoying "HEY! OUT OF DATE! RENEW RENEW!"

Mando Knight
2009-10-31, 02:37 PM
Adds a note of irony to Mac salesmen promoting their products with boasts about how "secure" they are. They'd better not do their job too well, that's all I can say.

Especially when that's the main focus for one of the Mac vs PC ads.
"I'm a top-o-the-line PC, but I can get viruses!"
"Well, I'm a Mac, so no one targets me with this stuff."
Consumer: "Well, I definitely want to be ignored by hackers more than getting the high spec hardware that I specified earlier in the commercial!"

It's not how the commercial states it, obviously. It implies that the $2000 Mac will get you all of the features of a $2000 PC and security from viruses.

Ichneumon
2009-10-31, 03:02 PM
Most of the Mac vs Pc ads have been more humorous (not very) than really informational. Although some of them are funny, if you've seen one, you've basically seen all.

1. Pc shows Mac why Pc is supposedly better in X or says him he is suffering from a problem Q
2. Mac says some kind/nice things to show he is just a regular guy. Is concerned about Pc having problem Q or says that he can do X too or that it isn't really what people want.
3. It becomes clear that PC is not better as Mac doesn't suffer from Q or that Mac can do X just as well. Usually PC says something spiteful.

Lupy
2009-10-31, 03:58 PM
I'll back up AVG and Avast. There's also good spyware-specific stuff out there too.

Dispozition
2009-10-31, 04:06 PM
It's not how the commercial states it, obviously. It implies that the $2000 Mac will get you all of the features of a $2000 PC and security from viruses.

The thing is, that's wrong. A $1500 PC is at least equal, if not better than a $2000 Mac, and more flexible as well.

Starscream
2009-10-31, 04:41 PM
Especially when that's the main focus for one of the Mac vs PC ads.
"I'm a top-o-the-line PC, but I can get viruses!"
"Well, I'm a Mac, so no one targets me with this stuff."
Consumer: "Well, I definitely want to be ignored by hackers more than getting the high spec hardware that I specified earlier in the commercial!"

Especially since, as this thread repeatedly points out, there are some excellent free programs for protecting PCs. So not only are you paying extra for imaginary security, you could get REAL security without it costing a dime.

Incidentally, I don't hate Macs but I have wanted to punch that smug little twerp in the face ever since those commercials started airing. Is there any doubt that the PC is the more likable character?

Lupy
2009-10-31, 07:00 PM
The thing is, that's wrong. A $1500 PC is at least equal, if not better than a $2000 Mac, and more flexible as well.

Much as I hate Apple, I have to say, it depends on what you want.

Timberwolf
2009-10-31, 07:17 PM
I use AVG for stopping infection from webpages but if I have serious virus killing to do, I use Malwarebytes (http://www.malwarebytes.org/), backed up by Spybot.

Flickerdart
2009-10-31, 07:23 PM
Is there any doubt that the PC is the more likable character?
The only thing funny in any one of those commercials is the "let me calculate how much time you just wasted" one. Said, of course, by the PC.

Generic Archer
2009-11-01, 01:25 AM
Much as I hate Apple, I have to say, it depends on what you want.

Nope. Sorry, but if you get a $1500 pc and install Mac OS on it it'll be just as good at everything, and whats more, shock horror, you can actually upgrade it.

I suppose if you want a system which you don't need to (and can't) touch and want to pay a 25% surcharge for the privilege it might be better...

AstralFire
2009-11-01, 01:29 AM
I really wish I could afford a Mac. They are incredibly pretty. Unfortunately, I can't afford spending that much money on cool case visuals and I'm not inclined to use my desk space for much else. But one day, when I'm rich, I shall buy a top of the line Mac.

...And then install Windows on it.

But seriously. Sexy freaking computers. I guess this is sorta like how my mom and my sister love to pick out furniture.

Ichneumon
2009-11-01, 01:43 AM
Nope. Sorry, but if you get a $1500 pc and install Mac OS on it it'll be just as good at everything, and whats more, shock horror, you can actually upgrade it.

I suppose if you want a system which you don't need to (and can't) touch and want to pay a 25% surcharge for the privilege it might be better...

You do realise that you'd have to pay $169 more to pay for the OS and all the software you get on "free" on a mac? Also, it is not just the performance stats you should look at, when looking at the macbooks, for example (I haven't had experience with other mac-machines so I can't rightfully talk about those), the fact that the power cable is magnetic or that your cd drive is "internal" and thus can't brake as easy or the multi-touch touch-pad (don't know if you can have this on other pc's if you just install OS X) or the screen of the macbook pro's (which is really amazing and I haven't seen it anywhere on any other expensive laptop, but I'm sure you could get it somewhere, but that would add to the price as well) or even the back-light keyboard of the macbook pro's. These are all of the small things that make apple different and for some "better". Yes, if you don't care about these minor things and only want a machine that has pure hardcore computing power, you don't think it is worth it. But some don't need that and prefer a machine that's more user friendly. All of these things considered, I don't think you pay that much more for the brand, maybe max $100, (which isn't much if you're talking about expensive computers).

Also, you could not add the the extra money for the OS in your calculation, but remember that on most windows machines you get Home premium and need to pay an extra $100-200 for an update to Ultimate, while most features of Ultimate, like switching languages, are already integrated within OS X.

EDIT2: Also, with the IMacs, you get a wireless keyboard + wireless mouse + (internal) screen for "free". I think that should be considered when looking at the price, especcially because good screens can cost a lot and are not normally included with desktop computers.

Starscream
2009-11-01, 01:49 AM
I really wish I could afford a Mac. They are incredibly pretty.

Here's a glue stick and some glitter. Go wild.:smallwink:

RS14
2009-11-01, 02:35 AM
Especially since, as this thread repeatedly points out, there are some excellent free programs for protecting PCs. So not only are you paying extra for imaginary security, you could get REAL security without it costing a dime.

There are no excellent programs to protect your PC, free or not. Anything with an on-access scanner imposes a non-negligible performance penalty, they all have finite false negative and false positive rates, and most of them are atrocious failures of interface and utility for other reasons, anyway.


Also, it is not just the performance stats you should look at, when looking at the macbooks, for example (I haven't had experience with other mac-machines so I can't rightfully talk about those), the fact that the power cable is magnetic or that your cd drive is "internal" and thus can't brake as easy or the multi-touch touch-pad (don't know if you can have this on other pc's if you just install OS X) or the screen of the macbook pro's (which is really amazing and I haven't seen it anywhere on any other expensive laptop, but I'm sure you could get it somewhere, but that would add to the price as well) or even the back-light keyboard of the macbook pro's. These are all of the small things that make apple different and for some "better". Yes, if you don't care about these minor things and only want a machine that has pure hardcore computing power, you don't think it is worth it. But some don't need that and prefer a machine that's more user friendly. All of these things considered, I don't think you pay that much more for the brand, maybe max $100, (which isn't much if you're talking about expensive computers).

Small things? Let me tell you something; I had a mac-book for all of two days before I returned it, and yes, I took a loss in doing so. Why? Because the keyboard was an unredeemable failure of function and ergonomics (HOME! END!) and it lacked a trackpoint style mouse. In highschool, when I was forced to work on apple desktops, I actually went so far as to bring a keyboard from home. It's not that I'm some ergonomics nut--they keyboard I brought was a cheapo-generic model I pulled from some scrap-heap--but the totally flat Apple keyboards with virtually no key-movement just aren't comfortable.

Hilariously enough, even after taking the 10% loss for a return, I was able to get a Lenovo laptop with higher specs at no extra cost. Admittedly, it was on sale at the time; I believe it had a regular price about 100 USD higher than the mac. But I got 2GiB additional ram, a slightly faster processor, better video card, and, you know, an interface that doesn't suck.

Oh, and a matte screen. I love my matte screen.

The only downside is a smaller hard-drive, which I can live with.

All things considered, I suspect equivalent hardware is generally in the same price bracket. Apple prefers to depict themselves as a vendor of high-end computers. In the past, it was certainly true that they were more expensive. The perception may have just stuck around because of inertia, the lack of low-end Apple computers, and because it serves their purposes.

Of course, I went and installed Ubuntu.:smallbiggrin:

Ichneumon
2009-11-01, 02:45 AM
Small things? Let me tell you something; I had a mac-book for all of two days before I returned it, and yes, I took a loss in doing so. Why? Because the keyboard was an unredeemable failure of function and ergonomics (HOME! END!) and it lacked a trackpoint style mouse. In highschool, when I was forced to work on apple desktops, I actually went so far as to bring a keyboard from home. It's not that I'm some ergonomics nut--they keyboard I brought was a cheapo-generic model I pulled from some scrap-heap--but the totally flat Apple keyboards with virtually no key-movement just aren't comfortable.

Well, I agree the keyboard lay-out needs time to getting used to, but now I'm used to it, I can't say I find it that much of a problem and use it quite intuitively. To be honest, I've never used a ""track-point mouse", never heard of it, so I don't know how much of a loss it is.


Oh, and a matte screen. I love my matte screen.

Nice to hear you like yours better.


Of course, I went and installed Ubuntu.:smallbiggrin:

Of course.:smallbiggrin:

Trixie
2009-11-01, 05:12 AM
You do realise that you'd have to pay $169 more to pay for the OS and all the software you get on "free" on a mac? Also, it is not just the performance stats you should look at, when looking at the macbooks, for example (I haven't had experience with other mac-machines so I can't rightfully talk about those), the fact that the power cable is magnetic or that your cd drive is "internal" and thus can't brake as easy or the multi-touch touch-pad (don't know if you can have this on other pc's if you just install OS X) or the screen of the macbook pro's (which is really amazing and I haven't seen it anywhere on any other expensive laptop, but I'm sure you could get it somewhere, but that would add to the price as well) or even the back-light keyboard of the macbook pro's. These are all of the small things that make apple different and for some "better". Yes, if you don't care about these minor things and only want a machine that has pure hardcore computing power, you don't think it is worth it. But some don't need that and prefer a machine that's more user friendly. All of these things considered, I don't think you pay that much more for the brand, maybe max $100, (which isn't much if you're talking about expensive computers).

Also, you could not add the the extra money for the OS in your calculation, but remember that on most windows machines you get Home premium and need to pay an extra $100-200 for an update to Ultimate, while most features of Ultimate, like switching languages, are already integrated within OS X.

EDIT2: Also, with the IMacs, you get a wireless keyboard + wireless mouse + (internal) screen for "free". I think that should be considered when looking at the price, especcially because good screens can cost a lot and are not normally included with desktop computers.

1. For free? Pffft. MacOs is already included in price anyway - the fact you can't see it there means nothing;
2. Multitouch pad with a grand total of one key (left) and useless keyboard. No thanks.
3. Screens on Macs suck, actually - cheapest TFT panels. Age when Mac were one of the rare computers with LED screens had long since passed. Even netbooks have it these days;
4. User friendly? I'd call it dumbed down - it doesn't let you do what you want when you actually know what you're doing.
5. Sorry, I'll trade computing power for pretty logo and case (which will set you back 300-600$ more, not 100, depending on model);
6. Why would a normal user want Win Ultimate? Even Home Premium is already far more powerful than MacOs. Sorry, I own HP, and I can switch languages just fine.
7. "Free" in this case means: for 200$ more. Seriously, for the price I could buy top of the line Razer/Logitech/MS Mouse/Keyboard which would simply blew the Apple ones out of the water, even if you don't consider the sucky one mouse button and poor keyboard layout.
8. Screens in the Macs suck - no TN can match MVA/PVA/IPS screens used in the better PC monitors. Check if you don't believe me.


Of course, I went and installed Ubuntu.:smallbiggrin:

Really? :smalltongue:

Why you needed power in your laptop at all, then? :smallbiggrin:

Oh, and back to the topic - if you know what you're doing, use firewall, autostart block, and good browser, you don't need any anti-virus at all. Seriously, all they do is suck power out of your computer and money out of your pocket.

RS14
2009-11-01, 03:17 PM
Really? :smalltongue:

Why you needed power in your laptop at all, then? :smallbiggrin:


To run Emacs, of course. :smallwink: