Best Virus Software for Windows Vista

[Cameron]

Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows Vista
already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one that makes you
computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made 1990.
I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus on a
UMPC(the oqo)

Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight" . Its a
good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good Choice]

And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it slows down
a bit.
Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then. [Good
Choice]
Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security app ran
better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!

UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]

Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out Avast.
If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.


Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )

 

[B. Nice]

Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection.

Yes. At least that is what the security industry wants you to believe.

The question is: Why do you deliberately plan on using your computer
in a way that makes you vulnerable to viruses?

 

[Dan]

Yes. At least that is what the security industry wants you to believe.

The question is: Why do you deliberately plan on using your computer
in a way that makes you vulnerable to viruses?

All you need to do is use e-mail to be vulnerable.

Dan

 

[B. Nice]

All you need to do is use e-mail to be vulnerable.

Dan

How? E-mailing itself is not vulnerable.

Security requires that you use robust software, which rules out stuff
like Outlook/Outllook Exress.

 

[Robert Moir]

Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows Vista
already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one that makes you
computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made 1990.
I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus on a
UMPC(the oqo)

Your tests would be a lot more credible if you spelt "norton" correctly and
documented your testing methodology.

 

[Guest]

All you need to do is use e-mail to be vulnerable.

Dan

I've had my current Windows 2000 laptop for 4 years. The anti-virus software
I've had installed (originally Sophos, now Avast) has never detected a virus.
I've only ever had 2 viruses on that machine, both of which got through
before the anti-virus updates to detect them were available. One was detected
by me noticing that something wasn't right, and the other by the nework
admins noticing a lot of activity from my machine.

Neither of those viruses resulted from using email or www. They got in
through vulnerabilities in background services before there were either
patches to the vulnerabilities or updates to allow anti-virus software to
detect them. They certainly didn't get in through email or web browsing.

So using anti-virus software has done nothing for me. I still use anti-virus
software just in case I accidentally do something silly, but I wouldn't pay a
lot (preferably nothing!) for it.

 

[Guest]

Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows Vista
already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one that makes you
computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made 1990.
I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus on a
UMPC(the oqo)

AVG (from www.grisoft.com) is another frequently reccommended free
anti-virus tool. I've not used it myself, but you might want to look into it
before buying a commercial one, if Avast doesn't suit your needs.

 

[Dan]

How? E-mailing itself is not vulnerable.

Security requires that you use robust software, which rules out stuff
like Outlook/Outllook Exress.

Are you suggesting that a more robust email client will stop bad attachments
and hidden code within emails?

Dan

 

[Carl G]

AVG Free works great on my Vista Home premium.
I don't install the e-mail scan part of it and I didn't on XP and haven't
had a virus in 4 years now.
And I scan the net a lot.

 

[B. Nice]

Are you suggesting that a more robust email client will stop bad attachments
and hidden code within emails?

Dan

E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.

If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.

E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
security rule.

Mail clients of course may have vulnerabilities in itself - but don't
expect your anti-virus product to protect you against exploits for
such vulnerabilities.

 

[RayG]

Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows
Vista already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one
that makes you computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made
1990.
I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus
on a UMPC(the oqo)

Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight"
. Its a good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good
Choice]

And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it
slows down a bit.
Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then.
[Good Choice]
Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security
app ran better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!

UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]

Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out
Avast. If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.


Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )

I have to say NOD32 has always done the business for me.

http://www.nod32.com

 

[Dan]

E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.

Using it does.....

If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.

How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe and
what is not? How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
host for Malware? My point was that using email does expose a computer to
risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still taking
chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
discovered daily. To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
with all of these changes and protect their computer with the effectiveness
of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.

E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
security rule.

Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a email
client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how to
avoid it?

Mail clients of course may have vulnerabilities in itself - but don't
expect your anti-virus product to protect you against exploits for
such vulnerabilities.

No, that is what security updates are for, as well as hardware firewalls and
other such measures. Do some security vendors prey on the fears of those
that are less knowledgeable? Absolutely. But there is a good middle ground.

I myself use a Cisco router with configured firewall as my first line of
defense. Second line is using the windows native firewall on all internal
machines, along with a good lightweight AV solution from Bitdefender. I also
use Windows defender as a backup AS solution. Do I have problems, or have I
had an infection in the past few years? No, but if I inadvertently do, I
have the tools to clean it up and keep my network up and running.

The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe. That is
until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.

Dan

 

[B. Nice]

Using it does.....

How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe and
what is not?

Internet Security rule #1: Don't click links in e-mails and don't open
e-mail attachments unless you are 100% confident what it is.

A user unable to grasp something that simple should'nt be allowed on
the internet. Such users can install all the security apps they like
and still they will get burned.

How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
host for Malware?

No idea. Problem is anti-virus products are'nt really very effective.

My point was that using email does expose a computer to
risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still taking
chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
discovered daily.

Yes. But virus protection won't be of any help there - which was the
claim you made.

To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
with all of these changes and protect their computer with the effectiveness
of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.

I don't know. I've been running without antivirus, firewall
illusionware, anti-spyware a.so. for years without problems.

BTW, "a good security solution" in the form of software and hardware
alone is a fantasy.

Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a email
client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how to
avoid it?

If they don't know they better learn.

The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe.

Maybe. Unless they run inherently insecure software like IE or
Outlook/Outlook Express of course.

That is until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.

Kids and teenagers should'nt have admin rights until they understand
what that means. Problem is most parents don't have a clue

 

[Dan]

Internet Security rule #1: Don't click links in e-mails and don't open
e-mail attachments unless you are 100% confident what it is.

A user unable to grasp something that simple should'nt be allowed on
the internet. Such users can install all the security apps they like
and still they will get burned.

90 percent of my customers are in this bracket. And I seriously doubt my
area of the country is any different from the rest of the U.S. People for
the most part look at a computer as an appliance and expect it to work like
one as well. Unless you are in direct contact with end users on a daily
basis, its hard for the us to realise how far away from useable a computer
is for the average person.

No idea. Problem is anti-virus products are'nt really very effective.


Yes. But virus protection won't be of any help there - which was the
claim you made.

Heuraistic scanning has come a long way. But then the user are needs to be
smart enough to know of the detected "possible" malware is legit or not.

I don't know. I've been running without antivirus, firewall
illusionware, anti-spyware a.so. for years without problems.

And how do you know for sure? How would you know if a rootkit hadnt been
malicously installed for instance?

BTW, "a good security solution" in the form of software and hardware
alone is a fantasy.

Agreed, brain matter is needed above all.

If they don't know they better learn.

Sorry, but from my experience with the public, this isnt going to happen.
There is a huge gap between what techies think is easy to use software and
OS's and what the public actually needs.

Maybe. Unless they run inherently insecure software like IE or
Outlook/Outlook Express of course.

Most of my users are switched over to Opera and its built in email client.
Not all are willing to switch. Outlook is hard to get business users away
from, especially if they are used to using it.

Kids and teenagers should'nt have admin rights until they understand
what that means. Problem is most parents don't have a clue

To True

 

[-Draino-]

I am a Comcast user and there FREE version of MacAfee works flawless with
VistaU

D

 

[B. Nice]

90 percent of my customers are in this bracket. And I seriously doubt my
area of the country is any different from the rest of the U.S.

I deal with regular home users every day (outside US). I don't find
the situation that bad. People seem to be able to follow a few ground
rules if it's explained to them why they are important.

People for the most part look at a computer as an appliance and expect it to work like
one as well. Unless you are in direct contact with end users on a daily
basis, its hard for the us to realise how far away from useable a computer
is for the average person.

A computer is a tool. The usage of any tool requires education before
proper and secure use can be expected. Problem is that a computer is
probably the most complex and versatile tool there is. What other tool
can turn a typewriter into a music studio mixer with just a click of a
few buttons? Still people expect their 5 year olds to be able to use
it properly w/o the nescessary preconditions. "My little son is SOOO
good with computers. He knows a lot more about it than I do <big cute
smile>" - Yearh, right. He is most likely f*cking it up pretty badly,
mommy ;-)

Heuraistic scanning has come a long way.

That's definately not my experience. And most AV products are still
signature based. The vendors may use heuristics at their labs and then
distribute signatures for the viruses found, but that won't help our
home user facing an unknown malware.

But then the user are needs to be smart enough to know of the detected
"possible" malware is legit or not.

Yes, and that will of course fail.

And how do you know for sure? How would you know if a rootkit hadnt been
malicously installed for instance?

I will never claim to be completely malware free. On the other hand I
know enough about what is running on my computers to be 99.7% sure -
which is enough for me. I monitor what is running, what is installed
and what networking is taking place. When I ocasionally do run scans
for malware or rootkits I never find anything but a few harmless
cookies - so the chance that something really nasty got in is very
small.

Agreed, brain matter is needed above all.
Sure.


Sorry, but from my experience with the public, this isnt going to happen.

I'm a little more optimistic. It will improve. Realising that social
engineering is the biggest security problem, that is were we need to
put some effort. The problem is that the "common knowledge" on home
computer security has been: Install a firewall, install an anti-virus
product and install anti-this and anti-that. That does'nt really add
much - except for a lot of extra vulnerable code, of course
Unfortunately that's the easy "solution" - and well, it does'nt really
work.