Do you get what you pay for?

[James]

Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the
free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why
is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old
adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these
software programs? I've a strong hunch that I should be paying for my AV
program and that McAfee or Norton would be a smarter choice in the long
run. I know that the particular brand (i.e. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky,
etc.) one chooses is open to individual likes and dislikes but I'm
speaking in particular about paid-for versus free versions of these.

 

[Guest]

you do get what you pay for, in a lot of cases with
software that has a free version and a paid version, the
free version is not complete, that is certain features are
only available in the paid version.

I use a free Firewall, and it does everything I want a
Firewall to do.

 

[Paul Smith]

Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the
free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why
is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old
adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these
software programs? I've a strong hunch that I should be paying for my AV
program and that McAfee or Norton would be a smarter choice in the long
run. I know that the particular brand (i.e. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky,
etc.) one chooses is open to individual likes and dislikes but I'm
speaking in particular about paid-for versus free versions of these.

AVG free has served my computers fine for years. Zero trouble with viruses.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://windows.dasmirnov.net/ Windows XP Resource Site.

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

 

[Steve N.]

Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the
free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why
is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old
adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these
software programs? I've a strong hunch that I should be paying for my AV
program and that McAfee or Norton would be a smarter choice in the long
run. I know that the particular brand (i.e. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky,
etc.) one chooses is open to individual likes and dislikes but I'm
speaking in particular about paid-for versus free versions of these.

Last I looked, those companies provide detailed comparison charts
showing the differences between the features offered in their free vs.
paid-for programs. Visit the sites, read the info, make up your own mind.

Steve

 

[Wesley Vogel]

It's all a matter of opinion. Do you like a gas or electric stove? Ford or
Chevy?

If McAfee were free, it would still cost *too* much. I use AVG free
version and have no problems. Years ago I used McCrappy. I wouldn't use
McCrappy now if they *paid* me to use it.

I also use ZoneAlarm free version and I have no problems.

It's your choice.

 

[Testy]

If it makes you feel more secure paying for it by all means do so!

Testy

 

[Al Smith]

Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these software programs? I've a strong hunch that I should be paying for my AV program and that McAfee or Norton would be a smarter choice in the long run. I know that the particular brand (i.e. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, etc.) one chooses is open to individual likes and dislikes but I'm speaking in particular about paid-for versus free versions of these.

Your strong hunch is wrong. When it comes to software, often what
you pay for doesn't work at all, and therefore is worthless, even
though it has cost you a large amount of money. On the other hand,
if you try free software and it doesn't work, it has cost you
nothing and you can move on and try the next free program, and the
next, until you find one that does what you need it to do.

AVG Free and ZoneAlarm Free are better than many similar programs
that you must pay for. The pay versions of these softwares contain
extra features that some users may consider important enough to
pay to acquire. Offering a free version of a program enlarges the
user base and name recognition of that software, and in this way
is of value to the company making it.

 

[Al Smith]

If McAfee were free, it would still cost *too* much. I use AVG free

version and have no problems. Years ago I used McCrappy. I wouldn't use
McCrappy now if they *paid* me to use it.

I agree, and that's the whole point with pay versus free software.
You can pay a lot, and still get crap. The price is no indication
of the quality or usefulness of the software.

 

[R. McCarty]

Just yesterday, I had a customer who wanted a Gateway fresh
installed with XP Home. Before committing his old 98 install to
CD-R I ran Nav 2004 (Latest Defs) scan on the extracted data.
It located 7 or 8 viruses effecting some 380+ files.

I wasn't satisfied with the results and ran a Panda on-line scan
on the old 98 instance and it found and removed 16 infected files
that Norton did not even detect as infected.

Perhaps Symantec's 2005 NAV might have done a better job.
Theoretically, a newer product should perform better than an
older version.

However, for a top-tier Anti-Virus that is supposed to have a
97%+ detection rate I've noted 3 cases recently where NAV is
missing infected files.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

<applause!> ;-)

 

[Wesley Vogel]

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.
Wes

In

I agree, and that's the whole point with pay versus free software.
You can pay a lot, and still get crap. The price is no indication
of the quality or usefulness of the software.

 

[jt3]

I used the CA free version of ZA (eTrust EZ Armor LE) for a while. Had a
little trouble. They even gave some support and helped me iron out the
difficulty. Giving service where the product is free is more than unusual.
I like the product, and I figured they at least should get some value for
the service they provide me, and so I paid for the product. It isn't as if
it would break you, you know, and how else can you ensure that good products
on a try-it-for-free basis will be available?

I'm all for shareware, too, of the type that lets you try it for a month,
and then register it--much preferable to the 'Surprize--you've been had!'
variety that retail boxware often is.

Joe

 

[\old\ devildog]

I use SystemSuite 5.0 (V-Com), anti-virus and firewall along with a nice
suite of maintenance tools.
Yes it cost money (39.95 @ walley world), but it is great software. I used
version 4 with my old Win'98 machine. never a problem, never a virus.
Firewall is great. Never been "entered". Always great customer support.
While getting ready for SP2 upgrade, an e-mail to customer support to see if
they had any reported problems with SP2, yielded me an answer within 30
minutes telling me no interface problems had been reported. And I reported
none either.

Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so
popular?
--
************
"old" devildog
Simper Fi
************

| Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the
| free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why
| is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old
| adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these
| software programs? I've a strong hunch that I should be paying for my AV
| program and that McAfee or Norton would be a smarter choice in the long
| run. I know that the particular brand (i.e. Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky,
| etc.) one chooses is open to individual likes and dislikes but I'm
| speaking in particular about paid-for versus free versions of these.

 

[Al Smith]

I used the CA free version of ZA (eTrust EZ Armor LE) for a while. Had a

little trouble. They even gave some support and helped me iron out the
difficulty. Giving service where the product is free is more than unusual.
I like the product, and I figured they at least should get some value for
the service they provide me, and so I paid for the product. It isn't as if
it would break you, you know, and how else can you ensure that good products
on a try-it-for-free basis will be available?

I'm all for shareware, too, of the type that lets you try it for a month,
and then register it--much preferable to the 'Surprize--you've been had!'
variety that retail boxware often is.

I used Computer Associates' InnoculateIT for around two years,
when it was being given away, and liked it very much. I even tried
their EZ suite when it was made available for free for a year,
through some deal with Microsoft (I guess Microsoft paid CA a sum
to host the offer), and it was not too bad.

I personally have a philosophical objection to having to buy virus
updates by the year. I figure that when I pay for an antivirus, I
should be given updates for as long as I choose to use the product.

It's all part of the grand conspiracy of software companies to
move their industry from a model where software is sold, to one
where it is rented for limited periods of time. I'm not a fan of
this model. That's the main reason I don't buy an antivirus.

The last antivirus I bought was McAfee. It worked so badly, I had
to remove it from my computer after a few weeks. Since then,
McAfee has started selling updates by the year, just like
Symantic. I would never buy either -- and in any case, neither
works very well. By that I mean that both McAfee and Norton screw
up and interfere with other programs, or even make the computer
unusable. They are worse than the viruses they are supposed to remove.

 

[James]

I used Computer Associates' InnoculateIT for around two years, when it
was being given away, and liked it very much. I even tried their EZ
suite when it was made available for free for a year, through some deal
with Microsoft (I guess Microsoft paid CA a sum to host the offer), and
it was not too bad.

I personally have a philosophical objection to having to buy virus
updates by the year. I figure that when I pay for an antivirus, I should
be given updates for as long as I choose to use the product.

It's all part of the grand conspiracy of software companies to move
their industry from a model where software is sold, to one where it is
rented for limited periods of time. I'm not a fan of this model. That's
the main reason I don't buy an antivirus.

The last antivirus I bought was McAfee. It worked so badly, I had to
remove it from my computer after a few weeks. Since then, McAfee has
started selling updates by the year, just like Symantic. I would never
buy either -- and in any case, neither works very well. By that I mean
that both McAfee and Norton screw up and interfere with other programs,
or even make the computer unusable. They are worse than the viruses they
are supposed to remove.

I'm no fan of Symantec products but McAfee is a relative unknown to me.
I've found it the past that Norton digs its tentacles so deeply into
your registry that it is nigh to impossible to root it out without going
in there yourself. And it's well known that Norton products are resource
hogs.

I wasn't really asking so much about a specific AV or firewall program
so much as the concept of using the "free" version over the "paid-for"
version. I too agree that it seems as though we never really own the
product but in fact are renting it on an annual basis.

Thank you all for your contributions to the thread.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Free this and free that? I've read a number who extol the virtues of the
free version of AVG and the free version of ZA. But if that is true, why
is it that both companies offer paid-for versions? You know the old
adage - you get what you pay for. Well... does this apply to these
software programs?

The pay for versions offer some extra facilities. If you look at the ZA
site you will find what those are (Click the Zone Alarm (non Pro) on
the left and then the Compare button). I have their Pro, don't use the
extras much - they are in the 'privacy' area for ad and cookie control,
where there are other free tools. So I regard the free version as a
good basic one to recommend to friends