New
#251
I just hate the sick interface of Avast or else i will never leave Avast. By the way, i have used NOD32 4, NIS09, KIS09, Avast Pro, Norton 360 and MSE on my computer so far and i must say that i m impressed with MSE.
Which antivirus is best for win7
-
-
New #252
Wifey may let me buy one soon *crosses fingers* so one I'm seriously considering is Kaspersky... til then I'll stick with my AVG Free... it has served me well the past few years...
-
New #253
As a tech (for my job and as a hobby), I refuse to use anything except Avira anymore, I use Avira with zero problems... except the updating runs slow for some odd reason... otherwise it works great and also has the highest virus detection rate of any anti-virus out there.
Check out the detection rates in the Comparatives/Reviews section in the link below and you will see Avira is rated higher than any other program out there.
AV Comparatives.org
Even with the footprint and performance levels is among the top program out there. Add in that it works well on W7 and I see no reason to use anything else as an every day AV program (except for program or compatibility testing).
-
New #254
Along with a high detection rate, it also has a high count of false positives. It wasn't reviewed so favorably in other third-party tests.
For June 2009, Avira failed Virus Bulletin's VB100 test:
Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Avira
You might need an account to view it, but accounts are free at virusbtn.com.
June 2009 - Avira AntiVir
Status: FAIL
Failure reason: 1 false positive
Product name: Avira AntiVir
More: June 2009 in full
Review: Avira AntiVir on Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise Edition
Details: Only available to subscribers.
-
New #255
-
-
New #257
-
-
New #259
I'm using Eset Smart Security v4 and it works like a charm!
-
New #260
I don't trust any system or group that fails the best detection rated AV available for one or a few false positives... I do not know of any way to have a near perfect detection rates (99.7%, better than anything else out there) without a few false positives, that is the nature of the beast with any heuristic based AV.
If it does NOT have at least 1 or 2 false positives in some testing, I don't trust the program because it is not doing its job at finding new and unknown viruses. Yet a higher number of false positives (depending on the test, I tend to say around 4 or more) means it is being too strict, and not having any shows that its detection rates or heuristics just suck...
I am the type that digs through the sources and information to find what works best and the reasons WHY it works best... just because a few review sites get paid off to make sure Norton and Microsoft get top honors just shows that many of these places are willing to sacrifice security for a few bucks in their pocket.
Look at the reviews at http://www.av-comparatives.org/compa...ews/main-tests
Proactive/retrospective testing:
Avira 69%
Avast 42%
AVG 45%
Kaspersky 50%
Mcafee 25%
Microsoft 60% (OneCare)
Norton 35%
On demand scanning:
Avira 99.7% (4,300 viruses missed)
Avast 98.2%
AVG 93%
Kaspersky 97.1%
Mcafee 99.1%
Microsoft 87.1% (OneCare) (over 164,000 viruses missed)
Norton 98.7%
Performance tests (footprint, memory usage, file transfer times, etc). At the default settings, Avira is rated among the top of these programs, and even at the higest setting is still rated very well.
When you look at the raw numbers, there is no way that I could NOT recommend anything except Avira unless it all of a sudden started showing a large number of false positives...
Look at the foot print and memory usage, on all of my systems, Avira files are all under 10MB memory used (files are under 10MB combined) and total of 60-65MB of hard drive space used.Last edited by screwballl; 29 Jun 2009 at 14:51.
Quote
Related Discussions