AVG 9.0 great anti virus

[swarfega]

I Have windows 7. and using

Windows defender
AVG 9.0
Spybot S&D 6.2
Malwarebytes
Windows defender
Microsoft sercurity Essentials
Firewall turned on
and automatic updates.

but others are using

Nod32
Microsoft Forefront
and others from above. (We have 5 Computers).

No Problems!!!!

You dont need 2 AV programs running.

 

[Coco15]

So Ditch one? MSE or AVG 9.0

 

[Nem]

Choose one... If you think AVG does it's job for you then keep it.. if not choose MSE

 

[Product FRED]

I Have windows 7. and using

Windows defender
AVG 9.0
Spybot S&D 6.2
Malwarebytes
Windows defender
Microsoft sercurity Essentials
Firewall turned on
and automatic updates.

but others are using

Nod32
Microsoft Forefront
and others from above. (We have 5 Computers).

No Problems!!!!

You dont need 2 AV programs running.

You don't want 2 AV programs running. They'll conflict with one another. Easiest example, if AVG is running and you're scanning with Malwarebytes' at the same time, everytime MB finds something, an AVG alert window will come up.

 

[whs]

AVG - we had AVG on all the system in my computer club. People bring in USB sticks and SD cards and all systems were infected by viruses, trojans, worms and all the other nice critters. And not one per system but dozens on each system. We now use MSE.

MSE - I started out as a MSE fan too. I installed it on several systems (in lieu of NIS). In the meantime I collected 1 trojan and 1 Browser Highjacker (fortunately I have images). In all my years with Norton I never had those problems. Since I still have a valid Norton license for 18 months, I will go back to NIS.

 

[Coco15]

Never had any sort of problems. So I will keep both and disable MSE

 

[JMH]

A sensible decision.

 

[Coco15]

A sensible decision.

How do you mean? Made a good choice this time?

 

[JMH]

I Have windows 7. and using

Windows defender
AVG 9.0
Spybot S&D 6.2
Malwarebytes
Windows defender
Microsoft sercurity Essentials
Firewall turned on
and automatic updates.

but others are using

Nod32
Microsoft Forefront
and others from above. (We have 5 Computers).

No Problems!!!!

A sensible decision.

How do you mean? Made a good choice this time?

Coco15,
To have one Anti Virus running at a time is advisable - as stated previously.

Note above in your post you list Defender twice. Defender [ I understand] has been incorporated into MSE. Therefore if you return to MSE as the program of choice you don't need to run Defender.

[If you maintain AVG as the program of choice you can also use Defender. You would need to check that it was indeed running. Often an Anti virus program will turn it off.]

 

[Corrine]

I Have windows 7. and using

{Snip}

but others are using

Nod32
Microsoft Forefront
and others from above. (We have 5 Computers).

No Problems!!!!

I'm not so sure it is Forefront you are seeing. Microsoft Forefront is the Enterprise product. In other words, it is for business desktops, laptops, and server operating systems.

Microsoft Forefront Client Security: Pricing and Licensing

Microsoft Forefront Client Security is available on a subscription basis through Microsoft Volume Licensing:

• A subscription per user or per device for the Security Agent that is installed on business desktops, laptops, and servers and that provides protection from viruses, spyware, and other threats.
• A subscription per server for the Management Console, which enables administrators to manage Security Agents and generate reports and alerts on the security status of their environment.

It used to be an abundance of infected computers with Symantec products that I would see in the security forums. These days, AVG takes the lead. In comparison, I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

 

[Jacee]

I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

 

[Corrine]

Sad but true, Jacee.

 

[whs]

I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

 

[JMH]

I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

 

[zigzag3143]

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

I agree and besides we have beat this dead horse many, many times before.

 

[whs]

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

I agree and besides we have beat this dead horse many, many times before.

What you guys are essentially saying is that those security reports are for the birds. But this is the only data we have - by what else would a layman go?
Own experience is pretty useless because you never know whether you have good protection or were just lucky and got never attacked.

 

[JMH]

Everthing one reads needs careful evaluation. It is up to the individual as to how much weight they attach to the report.
Ultimately the interpretation is a subjective decision.

 

[Corrine]

WHS, I don't have an answer, I'm only saying what I see. As JMH said, it is subjective. On any given day, one A/V can perform better than another or one A/V will catch something another misses. On any given day, an A/V defs can include a f/p that quarantines Windows System files, resulting in an unbootable machine.

 

[whs]

WHS, I don't have an answer, I'm only saying what I see. As JMH said, it is subjective. On any given day, one A/V can perform better than another or one A/V will catch something another misses. On any given day, an A/V defs can include a f/p that quarantines Windows System files, resulting in an unbootable machine.

Thanks Corrine for the answer. I know there is no guideline hammered in stone. But with all the imponderable elements surrounding the AV area, I would rather rely on the findings of some professional organizations than on the whim of a few people - and granted, those organizations can have an agenda. That's why I read several.
As an example: with all the hype surrounding MSE I got dragged into replacing my NIS with MSE - and caught one trojan and one Browser Highjacker. That never happened with NIS. Maybe it is a coincidence, but it makes you think.

 

[malexous]

whs, has Norton ever blocked anything on your PC(s)? How many times if any?