AVG is not system resource intensive, i like
I used to have Mcafee cause it was free from comcast as long as you have their broadband service, they have since upgraded to Norton Security Suite so now I run that.
AV software should be one price for life of machine, its not like we dont upgrade like every 2 years.
OfficeMax has Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 (3 PC User) for $24.99.
Buy that then go to www.kaspersky.com/kis_latest_versions and download the 2011 software and use your 2010 key with it.
How does BitDefender rack up against the other AV programs?
Just noticed that my KIS2011 is taking up anywhere from 10-30k in system resources while minimized. I don't remember 2010 ever taking up that much... Any way to lower it? I have application control disabled, but that didn't seem to change anything.
Just wanted to chime in here. I swore up and down by AVG for years, never had a problem or a virus. Recently, within the past month, I decided to make the switch to Avast, and I am much much happier with it's overall performance. That said, my girlfriend who has AVG on her laptop recently got a virus. She always updates her software and regularly does routine computer maintenance and scanning. AVG DID NOT pick up the virus even having the latest update. The virus was preventing firefox/chrome from opening, so I put the Avast installer on a flashdrive and installed it on her computer. Avast immediately picked up the virus and cleaned it out and got the computer working normally. Funny thing was just last weekend I told her to switch from AVG to avast because it was shit, and she gave me "AVG has worked fine for years." line. I too was in the same boat as many of you, swearing up and down for AVG, but I have now seen first-hand that it is shit compared to Avast. Not to mention the fact it's a resource hog, takes forever to scan, you can do whatever you want with your computer when Avast is running a scan, and it barely uses any resources. There is seriously no reason to use AVG and anyone still using it is asking to get infected. Good day sirs.
Avast vs Sekurity essentials?
Either or really, doesn't matter a lot. I believe with MSSE you're getting antispyware in the package, can't say for sure if it's the same with Avast.
I go with Avast for AV, and Malware Bytes+Spybot S&D for adware.
For those using Kaspersky I would reconsider. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10...te_compromise/
Seems their websites get compromised more than a few times.
Personally I've used CA and Symantec. I've gotten a number of false positives from CA, mostly around hacks I download or 3rd party programs for FFXI. Like it flags the star used in AltanaVeiwer and AltanaCubby as malicious code, removes it and stops the program from working. I've tried using the excluded folder option but it doesn't seem to work. Haven't bothered chasing down a solution as it's not a big issue. I've seen it do worse things at work with the corporate edition being much more aggressive though they usually have it fixed by the next update cycle. But not before the damage was done and us in support scrabbling for a work around, usually disabling AV all together until patch was in place. Also running scheduled scans will slow your computer down to the point of being unusable.
Symantec I have is through my school and has worked well just very hard to get a hold of. I really don't like how dressed up the home edition is. I'll give Nod32 a try once I get some new hardware.
I've had plenty of customers come into my store with rogue anti-malware and have an active, updated subscription of Symantec...
Most of the comparisons on various program suites and their pros/cons are reported on AV-comparatives.org. They do compare for resource usage, false alarms and other stuff. Frankly I live quite happily with the sh*tload of add-ons I use on Firefox for security but I do have to use some protection when wanting faster performance on google chrome. Off the top of my head, Norton's IS has had certain issues with Facebook crap, Kaspersky is pretty solid but I have issues with its resources, AVAST has more false alarms than I'd like. I do like Malwarebytes but I've dealt with a few PC's that I've fixed where viruses had killed the system even when the full version was present so I want to say they may not update their definitions as fast as Norton and Kaspersky. Only programs I swear to never touch are Trend, CA and Norton 360. I haven't the chance to use and test out the new Webroot. If the question is which is the best free thing out there, I guess it might be Miscrosoft Essentials (formerly Windows Live One Care).
This thread saved my install, I was ready to install windows again after having just reinstalled the other week. A pesky spyware program posing as a fake antivirus program just wouldn't go away. SAS and Avast! wouldn't pick it up, but malware bytes did, thanks
Coincidentally I'm trying to fix someone's laptop and saw this thread on new posts- I was told not to use flash drives because they could also get infected. I have to repair the registry anyway but I'm curious which one is true.
flash drives can be infected, but it really depends on what virus it is
Some viruses can spread to flash drives, yes. I usually either throw the write protection switch on my drive (since I'm only copying files from it anyway) or just format the USB stick once I'm done.
Typically only worms and certain trojans replicate themselves like this, though. If you're dealing with some simple fake antivirus thing it's usually safe just to use a stick.
What he said. Keep in mind USB sticks are re-writable media so unless you have the one with write-protection on it, see if you can image it onto DVD disc. I usually just end up removing hard drives on my end since I have a thermaltake hot-swappable drive and scan it from there. Always risky if your clueless on what your doing. Also some malware/rogue programs/viruses/or whatever can disable the DVD from responding so just imaging everything onto a DVD isn't the one-all be-all solution.