Which antivirus is best for win7

I was using McAfee from last 1 year in vista & XP it worked fantastic !!

and now it works good in os 7 too...

Tried kasperky but didn't liked it !!

try McAfee guyz !! :)

Priyank said:

I was using McAfee from last 1 year in vista & XP it worked fantastic !!

and now it works good in os 7 too...

Tried kasperky but didn't liked it !!

try McAfee guyz !! :)

McAfee is ineffective, and lacking in heuristic detection capabilities, and will let 3 out of every 4 pieces of new malware onto your computer system. (Heuristic detection is the app's ability to detect new threats for which there is no definition available using advanced real time "smart" file scanning engines- Mcafee is almost 100% dependant on virus/malware definitions. McAfee is good for On-Demand scanning of old/exisiting and known threats, but will not offer adequate protection against the constant barrage of new and emerging threats)

McAfee (with Artemis) only has a 25% detection rate of new malware threats. Thats means with a 1 one week old set of definitions, the app will let 75% of "new threats" onto your system, bypassing the AV security. McAfee without Artemis has an even lower detection rate of malware threats.

Understand the significance of Heuristic detection capabilities- Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take screenshots nowadays too-e.g., Spy Lantern Keylogger ), that captures your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria), or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs, etc.


May 2009 AV-Comparative testing:

rive0108 said:

McAfee is ineffective, and lacking in heuristic detection capabilities, and will let 3 out of every 4 pieces of new malware onto your computer system. (Heuristic detection is the app's ability to detect new threats for which there is no definition available using advanced real time "smart" file scanning engines- Mcafee is almost 100% dependant on virus/malware definitions. McAfee is good for On-Demand scanning of old/exisiting and known threats, but will not offer adequate protection against the constant barrage of new and emerging threats)

McAfee (with Artemis) only has a 25% detection rate of new malware threats. Thats means with a 1 one week old set of definitions, the app will let 75% of "new threats" onto your system, bypassing the AV security. McAfee without Artemis has an even lower detection rate of malware threats.

Understand the significance of Heuristic detection capabilities- Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take screenshots nowadays too-e.g., Spy Lantern Keylogger ), that captures your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria), or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs, etc.


May 2009 AV-Comparative testing:

so which is best ???

its been a year now and have never got a problem of virus wid McAfee,

and my use is also too rough i download all latest tools and all other stuff

if its a virus or anything like that McAfee surely picks it up and throw it out

i heard that Shield deluxe is good too ??

Priyank said:

so which is best ???

its been a year now and have never got a problem of virus wid McAfee,

and my use is also too rough i download all latest tools and all other stuff

if its a virus or anything like that McAfee surely picks it up and throw it out

i heard that Shield deluxe is good too ??

tw33k said:

that's not a question easily answered. a lot of AV progs do an excellent job but each person has different wants/needs so that determines personal preference. i trust Virus Bulletin tests and check regularly on their most recent results. I have used ESET NOD32 for a long time and unless they suddenly fall off the planet I can't see myself changing

Personnally I would say it depends on your needs and cost...

I look for something that consistantly passes the virus bulletin VB100, and consistantly recieves 3-star Advanced+ certification in AV-Comparatives in both Heuristic (proactive/retroactive), and On-demand testing, and level 2 "Checkmark" certification from Westcoast labs. Most Labs have different criteria, and so the results can become contradictory- but out of all, AV-Comparatives and VB100 are usually good indicators.

WestCoast is a good "standard" cert, If it does well, then check VB100, If it does well there check AV-Comparatives as this is the most demanding, as it tests many different aspects. If it recieves Advanced+ in both Heuristics and On-Demand consistantly, you got yourself a Winnner...IMO a product that consistantly recieves top marks from all three is ideal and will give you piece of Mind.

Some Vendors will only submit their AV product to the "easy" certification bodies (like WestCoast and ICSA, and other non-certified Labs) and not the more demanding ones (like VB100 or AV-Comparatives); this is usually a good indicator that the product may be somewhat deficient. ICSA labs for example awards certification, but doesnt test for self replicating/potentially catastrophic malware (like polymorphic Trojans). Most Vedors must submit their AV product for inclusion in the Lab comparason tests- If they dont, then that is usually a good indicator that it is also subpar and offers inferior protection. Look at it this way, VB100 and AV-Comparatives are the cream of the cream, a Vendor would love to recieve top certification, but if they enter and recieve low certification or no certification at all, it could hurt them more in sales then not trying for the certification at all, so they shoot for gauranteed certification, and leave the more advanced ones alone, and the more naive customers see the "editors Choice" picks and "awards", and the "certifications" and are sold. Most times the Choice pick and awards are a result of paid promotion. Had they failed the VB100 consistantly, or recieved "standard"/no Certification from AV-Comparatives then their product would become known as truly subpar and would result in a Marketing/PR nightmare.

for example, Trend Micro/Panda/CyberDefender/Vipre/Advanced Systemcare 3
note- Trend boycotted VB100 due to its consistant failure to recieve certification, yet they manage to recieve Certification from ICSA and WestCoast Labs (and "others" that have lower standards for certification, and this does the customer little justice, as it gives a false sense of security). For the above Vendors it is all about sales, they could care less if the program will not protect, or will cause corruption. Cyberdefender prior to a company name change (Cyberdefender corp was previously known as Network Dynamics, and sold fake antimalware aps like Spyblocs and eblocs), and Advanced Systemcare is known to disable critical Windows Components, and cause corruption and excessive false alarms, and earlier versions were bundled with known malware.

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Main-Tests
Virus Bulletin : VB100 award and logo
http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/

Sophos is my choice 4 top-dog. Current version is not accepted by win 7, but works flawlessly - lol. Actually better than norton, bitdefender or kap. I kile all 3 of those , they are the best in their league, Check out sophos though, it has saved my a** many times..

Anthony said:

Avast! Home Edition 4.8.1335

Alwil Software - 29.81MB (Non-Commercial Freeware)


avast! antivirus Home Edition represents the best free antivirus protection currently available on the market. This edition is FREE OF CHARGE for non-commercial & home use. Its features include:

• Anti-spyware built-in
• Web Shield
• Anti-rootkit built-in
• Automatic updates
• Strong self-protection
• Virus Chest
• Antivirus kernel
• System integration
• Simple User Interface
• Integrated Virus Cleaner
• Resident protection
• Support for 64-bit Windows
• P2P and IM Shields
• Internationalization
• Network Shield

Download Avast! Home Edition 4.8.1335 - FileHippo.com

yep,Avast! very good.

liuxun249 said:

yep,Avast! very good.

wheres the firewall lol

rocky90 said:

wheres the firewall lol

Isnt that the web Shield?