Which antivirus is best for win7

sexytool · 15 May 2009

Generally, i determine the capability of an AV by installing it and scanning the PC.
If i've been running AVG 8 for a year and switched to Symantec corp, then it detected 10 virii AVG 8 hadn't detected then that's proof enough in my opinion.

AVG8 did score very low in the tests at AV Comparatives, but i was a little surprised that kaspersky scored that low.

That's something i find hard to beleive. Every other AV comparison i've seen prior to this has put KAV at #1 at 99.7% detection rate and Symantec at #2 with 97% roughly.

I find the results from AV-Comparatives hard to beleive, but it still gives the reader an idea of which ones to stay away from.

Hint hint, quit recommending AVG 8 :P
Any tech or computer savvy user worth their salt should have known AVG 8 has been crap for over 1-2 years.

screwballl · 15 May 2009

I have always trusted av-comparatives, they are one of the few testing places that do not take advertising dollars or other "perks" to sway them into giving certain products better scores, or modifying their testing methods to make certain products look better (which Kaspersky and Norton and Mcafee are consistently doing to make their products look better).

They determine scores based on actual real world usage and actual detection rates

If you want to see some real shockers, look at their latest Retrospective testing:

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Archive Main Tests

This test is at the bottom at 20. dated Nov 2008.

Avira 71%
avast 40%
AVG 43%
Kaspersky 71%

The rest vary from 66% to 18%

and your mention of AVG, it has been a good AV program up until they released version 8... then it became a resource hog... and now with 8.5 they have made things worse by locking down key Windows processes "in the name of security" but also means some system changes like changing the Photoshop swap file location popups up some errors.... so I have really gotten away from suggesting AVG.

Night Hawk · 15 May 2009

The only issue I've seen on 7 with AVG here was seen first installing the 8.0 build on the 32bit 7000 where Windows locked up during the first scan. Other then that the free 8.0 followed by the 8.5 has been running nice and quite on both RCs, Vista, and formerly the XP installation now departed on it's way.

Kaspersky doesn't come as any surprize there seeing a #1 rating overall while it took years before Symantec smarted up to get rid of their bloatware there.

screwballl · 15 May 2009

AVG 8.5 has been nothing but problems on ALL OS that I have dealt with so I have stopped suggesting it for my customers.

Night Hawk · 16 May 2009

When first trying to get the 8.5 on I had to take it off and revert back to the 8.0 build that always went on well except for the 32bit 7000 problem. That installation is where I suspect the actual problem was since that was later replaced with a second install as a stand alone dual boot with XP.

Funny how well the 8.5 has worked out ever since on any other installation and presently running on borh RCs as well as Vista. People were also what having problems with the ATI Cat. 9.4 that went on here as usual without problems as well. As a general rule I see few installation problems of just about anything here.

Jacee · 16 May 2009

screwballl said:

AVG 8.5 has been nothing but problems on ALL OS that I have dealt with so I have stopped suggesting it for my customers.

It's the bundled "LinkScanner" that's installed with it.

sexytool · 16 May 2009

Pitty there's no symantec corp edition tested there.
Version 8 was tested vs kaspersky abount 1-2 years ago, that's roughly how long ago i last reserched my data.

1-2 years ago KAV and SAV Corporate (Not norton, i know that simply doesn't cut it) were are #'s 1 and 2 respectively.

Why did they leave SAV Corp out, but test other corp AV's like Kaspersky?

Seems to me like AV-Comparatives is far more biased than you think it is.

Night Hawk · 16 May 2009

The thing I found besides any comparisons by this or that source still seems to hold true as far as finding whcuh works best by looking at what works best in your circumstance and not trying to generalize any one program for everyone. Besides various hardware combinations you also have to look at the various software environments as well as who is most likely to winged by something in the first place.

At this late most already know Norton and McAfee are scraping the bottom of the barrel there. The same could be said for any other softwares since these companies put far more efforts into the corporate editions over the freebies or basic home/small business releases. That's where their livelihood is found.

sexytool · 16 May 2009

True in a sense... i tend to think that the more situations a software will suite, the higher a ranking it achieves towards the ultimate label, "Best on the market".

That's why i use Symantec Corp. I've seen it stop a TCP/IP stack from a LAN PC, pick up virii in my Firefox browser cache, plus it has snap ins for email clients and in general, has the most features while requiring the least user input.

I've seen KAV's corporate system in the running and their "cut down" "mainstream" "home user" release honestly isn't any different, bar 1 feature;
You can't implement the "home user" release in a managed server environment.

Night Hawk · 16 May 2009

Another thing to look at as well is when any particular build is out for any lengthy period of time regardless of which brand someone will write a new bug to get past the protections. This is why you have to watch for the periodic updates and get familiar with the more specialized removal tools companies provide for particular types of viruses, trojans, and other malwares.

Another interesting item that surfaced in regards to 7 is the vulnerability some are now pointing at for the UAC itself.

"At this point in time, the default UAC level in Windows 7, and all levels below that, are insecure. You might as well turn UAC off completely, as it makes no difference to have it either off or at the default level. This entire flaw becomes null the moment you set UAC to its highest setting (as that disables auto-elevation). That's why I always advise you to do so.

Microsoft needs to address this issue before the release, or else malware and virus writers are going to have a field day. It's exactly this kind of braindead decision making that led to years of neglect of Windows NT's advanced security features, creating an environment where malware and viruses could prosper. With Vista, it seemed as if Microsoft finally got their act together, and now, with Windows 7, they're throwing it all away again." Why Windows 7's Default UAC Is Insecure