is 2 antivirus excessive

[jhd17]

hi i have always used avg free. It has worked well, but was wondering whether it "cover all bases" is it good to have another anti virus aswell or will the performance hit be too great to value this. I recently have downloaded microsoft security essentials as the possible other. One of the reasons i ask is that it i trialled a different anti virus and did a scan and it found about 10- 15 threats although these could have been cookies, i then did an avg and it didn't discover these. (the trail couldn't heal as you had to pay, or something). However about a week later i did notice avg pick up the same threats leaving me to feel it dosn't fully protect the computer. If neither of these is an option does anyone have a recommendation thats 100% free.

 

[richc46]

I will give my answer and then wait for all that will disagree. The answer is yes. Just use Microsoft Security Essentials and Malwarebytes with the Windows Fire wall. That is enough if you have the last component, common sense. Without that component a dozen A/V will not be enough.
The more you use the more Ram, and the slower the computer. Use enought AV, you can even slow down the computer enough to cause HD damage
Make a system Image once a month, on an external hard drive. If you make a mistake, just use the image.

Now lets wait for the disagreement to start.

 

[Jacee]

Anti-virus programs are resource hogs, they will fight for your system's resources, plus they may detect each other's definitions as a virus.

If you're happy with AVG, then keep it. Download and install Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware as an extra scanner.

There are also 'online' anti-virus scanners, so you could use one of those without installing two on your Machine.
See a list here Google

 

[jhd17]

i only just installed microsoft sercurity essentials and shall wait for the sca to finish, see what it brings up and maybe uninstall it or the avg. One complaint about other av i have tried is that scan time seems to be long but the files it scans is les than avg. I think it was norton that scanned 20000 file. Yet avg scans around 500000, so what about all these other files. Why is this

 

[The Howling Wolves]

Welcome jhd17 to Windows 7 Forum.

There are a lot of free AV's out there. Some are better than others

If you want you computer to be 100% free of threats then mission impossible. It is virtually impossible to keep up with all the threats, spam, hits and viruses that occur daily.

The only way NOT to get computer threats, hits or viruses is not to OWN a computer.

 

[Petey7]

It is generally a bad idea to run two real-time protection antiviruses. It isn't a matter of performance. AV programs tend to interfere with each other, and cause a number of issues, including causing the computer to crash immediately after logon, having one AV mistake the other for a virus and trying to delete it, and causing both to not function properly, leaving you unprotected.

The best idea is to use a on-demand scanner such as MalwareBytes Anti-Malware free version. MBAM only runs when you start it and does not cause the problems I listed above.

Also, Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) performs better than AVG in every test, and had earned a number of awards from independent groups since its release less than a year ago. Also, it is a proven fact that MSE and Avira AntiVir free (another good AV program) can run side-by-side without issue. I would not run AVG and MSE at the same time, as a variety of problems have been reported, including resulting networking issues and recurrent Blue Screens of Death.

 

[jhd17]

ok, on thing looking at task manager that avg had about 7 or 8 processes all going this seems a bit of resource waste, but can i ask again the question of why avg scans so much vs others and thanks for the warning

 

[richc46]

Do you have MSE scanning for a full scan or quick scan?

 

[Petey7]

IIRC, by default AVG does a full scan, while most others do a quick scan. I don't think this applies to your question but I will also add that AVG deletes most cookies, while many other programs do not, resulting in it reporting it removed threats when other programs do not.

Personally, I use a combo of MSE, which does a full scan at 1AM, and MBAM, which I use to scan my computer every sunday, or when anything weird happens.

 

[jhd17]

Do you have MSE scanning for a full scan or quick scan?

it just did it automatically after install, my guess is quick so i am now doing full

 

[richc46]

I think MSE is set for quick on defaualt, check the settings

 

[jhd17]

i think i shall go for it, uninstall avg and keep mes, and maybe look into other av metioned in the thread. I was never sure about microsoft sercurity essentials when i saw it in other threads due to the fact that some of there software such as WMP and ie8 both seeming to be a bit glitchy but this looks good

 

[richc46]

Based upon the opinion of most members MSE is best. It was made just for windows. The others are "one size fits many"

 

[Petey7]

Based upon the opinion of most members MSE is best. It was made just for windows. The others are "one size fits many"

Not only is it made just for Windows, but MS has made multiple versions specifically for different versions of Windows (Win XP, Win Vista/7 32-bit, and Win Vista/7 64-bit). As you said, most other companies use a "one-size fits all" mentality.

 

[jhd17]

why do people say macs are pretty much virus proof

 

[richc46]

For the money they cost, they should be made of gold.

 

[Wishmaster]

They aren't. Macs are just targeted less in the wild than Windows is.
On occasions they have competitions to see who can hack what the fastest for cash and prizes.
Macs are usually the first to fall from the ones Ive seen.


Norton scanned less files because it flags certain "known good" or "trusted" files and does not rescan them unless:
The file changed or its doing a full system scan.

A few other AVs have a similar behavior.

I agree with the others however, find one you like and run just the one active scanner.
As well as Malwarebytes as a secondary on demand.


MSE is probably the best free alternative out atm.

 

[jhd17]

has anyone heard of ParetoLogic, rad that it's pretty good but just wanted an opinion

 

[Petey7]

why do people say macs are pretty much virus proof

The "pretty much" is the most important part of the claim, because no one can say what "pretty much" actually means.

Basically, the claim is made because not too many people use Macs. 90% of computers run windows, but only 7% run Macs. Like most software, Viruses made for one will not run on the other. So a virus maker wanting to hit 97% of computer users would have to do almost twice as much work than if he just made the version for Windows. The main purpose of Malware these days is to make money. Rogue security software alone make virus makers millions of dollars each year. When it comes down to it, that 7% seems insignificant to most virus makers.

On the other hand, Macs cost a lot compared to PCs. Some Virus makers also come to the conclusion that anyone willing to pay twice as much for a Mac, most have a lot of money they don't mind spending. Going off of this assumption a minority of virus makers take the time to create viruses for Macs.

Macs have less viruses made for them, but staying virus free is a very bad reason to buy a Mac.

 

[richc46]

There are many more windows users than Mac. Those jerks that write these virus are very proud. They actually have meetings on how many computers they infected. I say proud to be nice, but there are a lot of other words I prefer to use.