F
Franklin
Antivir recently released a new version and I think it is much better
than before. Updates are more frequent and are smaller too.
Antivir recently released a new version and I think it is much better
than before. Updates are more frequent and are smaller too.
F
Franklin
Nice chart. I guess it is worth AVG users remembering that although
AVG has many devotees it usually comes near the bottom of group tests
with tested detection rates of maybe 80 or 85% or something like that
and that doesn't sound very impressive me. But, hey, AVG is free and
it's friendly and it's a lot better than nothing.
BTW the chart shows that Avast has 9% fewer detections, takes three
times as long to scan, and is half as responsive to new threats when
compared to Antivir but there is only a one point rating difference
between them. Odd.
C
ctowers
When a scholar starts a post with "I know this is a common topic" then
ends it with "Education is about knowing where to look for answers", I
begin to wonder about motive!
ct
A
ABC
Am interested in exactly how you managed to get the free copy of the
ShadowSurfer programme.
I filled in all of the data accurately, but was told that the coupon
(to get the free version) was not valid.
Any ideas?
Many TIA.
ShadowSurfer programme.
I filled in all of the data accurately, but was told that the coupon
(to get the free version) was not valid.
Any ideas?
Many TIA.
M
meow2222
Duddits said:
Nice comparison of the popular 3, but a shame Clamwin isnt on there,
nor f-prot dos.
NT
L
Lou
ctowers said:When a scholar starts a post with "I know this is a common topic" then
ends it with "Education is about knowing where to look for answers", I
begin to wonder about motive!
ct
Why?
C
Craig
Perhaps because he has a sense of humor or irony.
-Craig
C
Craig
NT;
I felt your pain wrt Clamwin's omission. <grin> So, I dropped the
PCWorld author an email asking if he knew about ClamAV and whether he'd
considered including it.
I'll report back if I hear anything.
-Craig
T
The Wizard
PanHandler said:
I used to have Norton installed, A friend pointed me to AVG, Installed and
did a scan.
AVG found a couple of viruses that had been there since Norton was
installed, I guess it shows that Pay software is'nt always the better to go
for!
C
ctowers
Why? ...because a scholar would have known to look at last weeks answer,
or the week before that, or the week before that, or ...
How can you know it is a common topic and not know it must have a history?
P
perro
\> I used to have Norton installed, A friend pointed me to AVG,
Installed and
I was using this junk before I switched to AVG.
A friend of my was using Norton and interestingly enough the very first
day his yearly updates license expired (what a scam) he was infected
with a virus. It sounds like Norton is doing something funny to ensure
the money rolls in from ill-informed consumers. I recommended AVG to
him.
Thank you AVG for keeping these corporate thieves at bay. It is okay to
charge businesses for anti-virus software but the average Joe, come on!
Two years ago, I read about AVG scored "low" on some virus scanning
test. This was the same test that score Norton high. Who else but PC
Mag I think. Any comparison conducted by PC Mag I take with a grain of
salt. Don't know who is paying/sponsoring these tests, if you know what
I mean.
Anyhow, AVG has been working for years for me and my pc has never
gotten infected (knock on wood). If it works why bother to change I
say. Plus AVG was the first to give me free anti-virus protection when
it came out and has been true to its promise ever since (four years
now).
Gracias y adios,
El perro
Installed and
I was using this junk before I switched to AVG.
A friend of my was using Norton and interestingly enough the very first
day his yearly updates license expired (what a scam) he was infected
with a virus. It sounds like Norton is doing something funny to ensure
the money rolls in from ill-informed consumers. I recommended AVG to
him.
Thank you AVG for keeping these corporate thieves at bay. It is okay to
charge businesses for anti-virus software but the average Joe, come on!
Two years ago, I read about AVG scored "low" on some virus scanning
test. This was the same test that score Norton high. Who else but PC
Mag I think. Any comparison conducted by PC Mag I take with a grain of
salt. Don't know who is paying/sponsoring these tests, if you know what
I mean.
Anyhow, AVG has been working for years for me and my pc has never
gotten infected (knock on wood). If it works why bother to change I
say. Plus AVG was the first to give me free anti-virus protection when
it came out and has been true to its promise ever since (four years
now).
Gracias y adios,
El perro
P
Peter Seiler
The Wizard - 03.04.2006 04:23 :
all the different and numerous probs with Norten are welknown und are
discussed very often since years. I wonder, that nevertheless people are
installing this product again and again. Perheps in reality it is so
good instead? ;-)
all the different and numerous probs with Norten are welknown und are
discussed very often since years. I wonder, that nevertheless people are
installing this product again and again. Perheps in reality it is so
good instead? ;-)
L
Lou
ctowers said:
I know it has a history, but I also know things change rather quickly in this
field and that new folks visit this newsgroup.
Lou
I eat my peas with honey.
I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny.
But it keeps them on my knife.
D
Duddits
Because *you* say AVG is better does that make it so? Please show some
independent tests/articles/proof to back your claim.
AV-Test, the German security firm with which PC World partnered for this
story.
http://www.av-test.org/index.php3?lang=en
Dud
M
meow2222
Well lets hope. It might just be that it doesnt pass the 100% wild
virus test.
NT
C
Craig
From the author:
Eh well.
-Craig
M
meow2222
Craig wrote:
re Clam:
So they did a test of the main AVs but didnt have the time to test the
main AVs. Hmm. Thanks for writing.
NT
re Clam:
So they did a test of the main AVs but didnt have the time to test the
main AVs. Hmm. Thanks for writing.
NT
A
Art
Clamwin isn't a mainstream av. It has a long way to go before it
reaches that status, if it ever does. It's just a Windows port of
clamav which was designed for email servers. It has has a small
fraction of the detection capabilities and features of mainstream
antivirus products.
Anyone looking for a free on-demand av scanner that's worth having
should check out Bit Defender:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/BitDefender-Free-Edition.shtml
The free escan utility using the Kaspersky scan engine is also very
much worth having and using:
http://www.mwti.net/products/mwav/mwav.asp
Also, forget about PC mag evaluations. They don't have the
ability to properly test and evaluate av products.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
B
badgolferman
(e-mail address removed), 4/1/2006, 10:03:58 AM,
If you are looking for effectiveness in catching malware then all
testing I have seen indicates AntiVir to be superior to the other two.
If you are interested in eye candy then Avast! gives you the most
choices.
Despite everyone's besmirching of Symantec, they fare comparably to the
popular AV applications available.
I would study this chart for a better understanding of what their
strengths and weaknesses are. Although these are the pay versions of
the products, I would guess the virus definitions are the same for the
free versions.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
If you are looking for effectiveness in catching malware then all
testing I have seen indicates AntiVir to be superior to the other two.
If you are interested in eye candy then Avast! gives you the most
choices.
Despite everyone's besmirching of Symantec, they fare comparably to the
popular AV applications available.
I would study this chart for a better understanding of what their
strengths and weaknesses are. Although these are the pay versions of
the products, I would guess the virus definitions are the same for the
free versions.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
B
badgolferman
This product has no cleaning capabilities. Of what use is it? Even if
it does find malware you would still have to use another product to
clean your infected system, right? That would seem to be a good reason
to use something that can do both.