Matt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):
> On 3 Jun 2004 14:32:06 GMT, Aaron
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"Dugie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:hYovc.52387$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Please don't flame me. :-)
>>>
>>> A computer shop tech just told me that AVG is no good, because it's
>>> free. I don't believe him, but I want to reassure a friend.
>>>
>>> What is the consensus: is AVG a good program, equal or better than
>>> McAfee or Norton AV?
>>
>>It's adequate against in the wild worms and viruses and should suffice
>>if you are careful. Though paid scanners generally have better
>>detection rates against zoo (less commonly seen) viruses and trojans.
>
> No antivirus is perfect - for every case where people say AVG missed
> something, there'll be others where it found something that others
> missed. Most do ok against the current "wild list", though if you
> indulge in unsafe practices, you should "sheep dip" all incomings with
> as many AV's as possible, preferably holding them unrtil the next
> update.
That will only work with in the wild viruses and worms, which you can
reasonably expect all AVS to eventually detect. For trojans and the alike
this is not guaranteed.
>
> Avast and Antivir PE seem to be the other main free contenders, with
> F-Prot DOS useful as a check.
And there are other 1 year limited software I guess.
> AntiVir PE generally seems to rate stronger on non-viral malware,
> which many AVs don't seem to give enough attention to.
I believe Antivir basically does lots of dialers, adware, joke programs
etc. Stuff that are covered by other antimalware programs.
Aaron (my email is not munged!)
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 200+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit
http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/
Similar Threads
