Avast 5.0

[overload1977]

oh one other thing

 

from Cnet

 

"In November 2009, Avast 4.8 and Microsoft Security Essentials were the only freeware to score Advanced+ in the Retrospective/Proactive Test done by AV Comparatives. It's also the only program that tested faster than Norton AntiVirus 2010, and was tied with Microsoft for second place in fewest false positives detected. The detection score was also high, at 98 percent. That's worse than Avira, but Avast noted far fewer false positives. ...Avast Free 5[is probably the strongest, free antivirus currently available."

 

sold ^^

[WaLkAwaY]

It probably depends on what time you ask and who you ask.

 

I use to use W98se and only switched to 2000 when I had a problem with it. I used 2000 for the longest and switched to XP when I had a problem with that one. Still use XPsp3.

 

So I used Norton for the longest time as well actually up until a year ago. They have a compound where I think 68 people work not only for the cure for viruses and all that junk but they create them and find cures for them too.

 

Now I use AVG and SpySweeper. I think what happens is some people don't use the big names because they are big names and they use an unknown or lesser known until that one becomes a big name. People had used AVG for years while it was free and then when they decided to start charging for premium people grew disgruntled. Kind of like Starbucks people were all for it when it first came out and was a start up mom and pop, then when they went corporate everyone deserted them claiming they were now EVIL!!! Kind of why people do not like MS either, and Adobe is getting on thelist. Then again it could be that the other anti-virus software is free. :biggrin:

 

I could be wrong and most likely I am.

[Vagrant0]

Well, some of that is essentially what the problem with all antiviruses are. First off, most benchmark tests tend to have a little bias toward a given software package, or tend to be limited in scope. One test says that Avast is the best, another says Comodo, another says Antivir, another says Kaspersky for instance. There is often little agreement between tests, and they all test programs at different stages of advancement. The first one for being Windows 7 compatible gets an instant good grade, while others get pushed to the back. Each one is just trying to beat the other to the punch, and then advertise their "unparalleled security" against others.

 

Furthermore, the more popular an antivirus is, the more likely that there will be viruses specifically designed to slip through the filter. This is what had happened with Norton, AVG, and McAfee. These companies becoming lazy and riding off their corporate contracts and notoriety only ends up making them lag even further behind. This is why many of the antiviruses used in businesses are essentially useless later on, people write viruses to get around the heuristics, and the company doesn't have much obligation to try and fix the problem until some serious threat rolls around and they have to create a removal tool.

 

The reality however is that unless you are constantly dealing with the criminal elements who are making new viruses, aren't part of a company who would be particularly targeted, and can exercise some common sense, you don't need the best, most complete antivirus to be safe. All you need is something which has the features you want, is fairly reliable, and doesn't make any unnecessary demands on your system. First and foremost, the best antivirus you can get is to simply use your head before dealing with anything that might be unsafe. If you aren't looking for trouble, take some basic precautions, and aren't making yourself out to be a person of interest on the net, chances are that you won't even get a virus.

[WaLkAwaY]

There is often little agreement between tests, and they all test programs at different stages of advancement. The first one for being Windows 7 compatible gets an instant good grade, while others get pushed to the back. Each one is just trying to beat the other to the punch, and then advertise their "unparalleled security" against others.

 

I never thought about that.

Furthermore, the more popular an antivirus is, the more likely that there will be viruses specifically designed to slip through the filter. people write viruses to get around the heuristics, and the company doesn't have much obligation to try and fix the problem until some serious threat rolls around and they have to create a removal tool.

 

That makes sense I never thought about that either.

The reality however is that unless you are constantly dealing with the criminal elements who are making new viruses, aren't part of a company who would be particularly targeted, and can exercise some common sense, you don't need the best, most complete antivirus to be safe. All you need is something which has the features you want, is fairly reliable, and doesn't make any unnecessary demands on your system. First and foremost, the best antivirus you can get is to simply use your head before dealing with anything that might be unsafe. If you aren't looking for trouble, take some basic precautions, and aren't making yourself out to be a person of interest on the net, chances are that you won't even get a virus.

 

This I have thought about and is probably why I use AVG and spysweeper and don't worry too much. I forgot to mention that I loved Norton but alas it was not meant to be as it got to the point that Norton was taking over my computer so I ditched it, took an entirely new install to do it too. Anything that is that hard to get off of your system...