Antivirus: Free vs. Paid Detection

I want to add something... I have experience of using therr free av programs viz Avast, Avira and AVG . Other than avast , the rest two are adware . After the first upgradation, there come a nagging pop up saying "buy the full version or you will be in problem ... etc etc

Some sites like mediafire wants to scan your hd, and says that you are to install our av program otherwise your career, occupation, social reputation, marriage (in short ... everything) is under threat, coz your machine is being used as porn server, while the installed av program founds nothing there at the same time. What is this matter?

Dinesh said:

Antivirus: Free vs. Paid Detection




Avira, Microsoft Security Essentials, Kaspersky and avast!

Taking care of your system these days seems to be a less complicated task than it used to be a few years back. Now, protection against malware begins the moment you install your operating system. Windows 7 offers some basic security through Windows Defender and also provides a better solution under the shape of Microsoft Security Essentials, which is free of charge and can be installed on systems passing genuine validation. So, going with Windows 7 may be the winning hand after all.

Source: Antivirus: Free vs. Paid Detection - Avira, Microsoft Security Essentials, Kaspersky and avast! - Softpedia

To be fair you nee to read the rest of the article at the link. Then you begin to see that many of the paid solutions offer more robust protection. The powerful A/V's do slow a PC a bit, I'll admit but that aside I go for my tried and tested A/V having had no prolems in the last 7 years! Touch wood!

Here ya go..

The free AVs like Avira & Avast are at the top of theie game as far as the free market goes.

If you want the absolute best protection some people belive that the best are the ones that top the charts at the comparatives.

Gdata has had the best rateing for awhile "but" it runs the Kaspersky engine and slows average systems.

ESET on the other hand has always protected systems without impacting performance.

Which brings us back to layered protection.

Even useing Gdata would not be enough by itself. You still need your layers, A squared, Malwarebytes and so on. More load on the system.

What I don't care for with free AV's is all the stuff they don't do. It's different for each so just go to the AV's site that you use and compare features between free and Pro.

You usually give up something somewhere to get free.

Again the best protection combination I have found is as follows.

ESET Smart Security 4.2 (Current)
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (Bought it)
A Squared Anti-Malware (Bought it)
IOBIT 360 (Bought it)
Superantispyware (free version) Yes I saw the difference between free and pro. Its my real point. With all that I felt I didn't need the paid version.

AS for Norton (where do I begin?)

It sucks!!

It was good at one time and they just screwed it all up.
Maybe the new versions are fixed but after the way they treated their loyal customers for so long Symantec has lost all my respect and trust.

If I baby sat your kid for 3 years and had earned your trust and then one day you come home and your kids arms and legs are broken and I had the attitude it was your fault, would you ever trust me with your child again. Even if I had been given 3 years of rehab.

You would be insane to.

Trust sysmantec and you will regret it.

joel406...you crack me up mate!!
back to the topic. i have to say that I'm a firm believer in "You get what you pay for" and I believe this is particularly true with AV software. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent free programs out there (MSE is NOT one of them IMO) but for me, I'll stick with NOD32 + Malwarebytes Full Version as I have used these 2 for years and NEVER been infected!

I use Avast! free AV and I've had no problems with it whatsoever. I also have the paid version of MBAM and the free version of Lavasoft's AdAware.

I have, in the past, used both Norton and Kaspersky (paid versions), but both had issues which led me not to renew.

tw33k said:

joel406...you crack me up mate!!
back to the topic. i have to say that I'm a firm believer in "You get what you pay for" and I believe this is particularly true with AV software. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent free programs out there (MSE is NOT one of them IMO) but for me, I'll stick with NOD32 + Malwarebytes Full Version as I have used these 2 for years and NEVER been infected!

Dwarf said:

I use Avast! free AV and I've had no problems with it whatsoever. I also have the paid version of MBAM and the free version of Lavasoft's AdAware.

I have, in the past, used both Norton and Kaspersky (paid versions), but both had issues which led me not to renew.

I second both of you . If it is a paid av, no doubt the best choice is ESET , Norton and kaspersky are huge names, but problematic .
But as there is avast which doesnt reduce your pocket, it works somehow better than the paid programs. When determining the performance of an av program, my criteria is it should be capable to distinguish between the things as malicious and Non-malicious . Avast does it really well, whereas the big names catch the things as virus which even I know that is not. It is really ridiculous .

tw33k said:

i have to say that I'm a firm believer in "You get what you pay for" and I believe this is particularly true with AV software.

While there is a lot of merit behind a statement like this, I also believe in "Do you really need what you are paying for?".

For my own personal needs, I haven't found a need for a more robust AV solution than I have gotten from the freebies over the years. My surfing habits are safe, I don't visit nefarious sites, I don't download much software, I don't use disks and devices from others on my computer, I test most things in a VM not connected to the outside world and I use Linux quite extensively for my web surfing, etc. Thus, spending money on a higher quality AV solution for me, is like donating it to charity without the tax write-off. It doesn't benefit me in any way.

pparks1 said:

tw33k said:

i have to say that I'm a firm believer in "You get what you pay for" and I believe this is particularly true with AV software.

While there is a lot of merit behind a statement like this, I also believe in "Do you really need what you are paying for?".

Yes..I do anyway

I still feel that my daily imaging protects me the best. I always run an image at boot-up in the morning and also set SAS to run at boot-up. If there is any problem, I just go back to yesterday. I found that MSE does not protect me enough, NIS seems to be doing better. But who knows, may be just circumstantial.