Which Antivirus is Best?????????

[Borg 386]

The best AV is the one you keep up to date, doesn't conflict with anything on your system and offers regular updates. The next best one is common sense. If you go looking for hacks/cracks or other questionable things, even the best AV will be overwhelmed.

This is not saying that staying on safe sites will protect you 100%, in the last few months, even well known "safe" sites have been hacked with malicious code and malware banners.

A little common sense and paranoia go a long ways on the net.

For a free AV, many people in this forum recommend MSE, with updates 3 or more times a day and low system resource usage.

For paid versions, you'll have to do the research. Don't be surprised if the one that ranked #1 on one or 2 tests ranks last in others. You can look at 20 different tests and get 20 different results/opinions. In the end, you'll probably have to choose which one you trust.

 

[yowanvista]

low system resource usage.

MSE uses 50MB+ compared to other products

 

[Borg 386]

Mines hovering at about 45MB, but it's never actually slowed the sys. Norton says 47MB, but I'm sure that all fluctuates. Comodos at 20MB

 

[yowanvista]

Mines hovering at about 45MB, but it's never actually slowed the sys. Norton says 47MB, but I'm sure that all fluctuates. Comodos at 20MB

Last time I tried MSE2 it used ~60MB, KIS used ~20Mb and Avast6b used ~15MB

 

[Borg 386]

I have my sys configured so it's running MSE, Norton 360 (AV & the other stuff) and Comodo Firewall & Defense. I know I'm taking a little hit, but it all plays well together. (knock on wood)

The Norton 360 was from a friend who had a 3 lic version and let me take it for a "test drive". So far it (Norton) seems to run smoothly.

 

[DBone]

I've tried all versions of MSE, and it just muches ram. v1, v2, doesn't matter. I keep reading on this forum that "MSE is light" and I wonder what people are looking at?

 

[baxxter]

Well i dont remember how much Mse used but it was lither than KIS 11 and Norton 11 but Eset is the lightest

 

[mickey megabyte]

here's my ram measurements: bear in mind that with mse, windows firewall is also running, taking up some more ram.





i'm not that bothered by a few megs here and there - i've got over 4000 of them, and that isn't the deciding factor over which is the 'best'.

i was a longtime kaspersky user since about 2007 i think. then kis2010 and an early build of kis2011 gave me problems in my fave online shooter (bfbc2) where i would freeze every now and then, presenting a juicy target. so i started using mse for a few months, with no problems - it's a great av, and i recommend it to everybody.

this kis/bc2 problem has now been fixed, and i've recently started using it again, with no problems - it's a great av (and more!).

i have to quote this post again - +1

The best AV is the one you keep up to date, doesn't conflict with anything on your system and offers regular updates. The next best one is common sense. If you go looking for hacks/cracks or other questionable things, even the best AV will be overwhelmed.

This is not saying that staying on safe sites will protect you 100%, in the last few months, even well known "safe" sites have been hacked with malicious code and malware banners.

A little common sense and paranoia go a long ways on the net.

For a free AV, many people in this forum recommend MSE, with updates 3 or more times a day and low system resource usage.

For paid versions, you'll have to do the research. Don't be surprised if the one that ranked #1 on one or 2 tests ranks last in others. You can look at 20 different tests and get 20 different results/opinions. In the end, you'll probably have to choose which one you trust.

 

[wds7]

here's my ram measurements: bear in mind that with mse, windows firewall is also running, taking up some more ram.


When it comes down to saving my Pc ....i don't consider Ram usage is a problem ...?
But rather how good the iob it does .....Make sense ...?
So far so good with these 2 ...

 

[Matt2488]

offers the best Internet security

There is no 'Best'

Registry cleaners

Useless on Windows 7

Windows is a closed source system. Developers of registry cleaners do not have the core code of Windows 7 and are not working on definitive information, but rather they are going on past knowledge and experience. Automatic cleaners will usually have to do some guesswork.

Modifying registry keys incorrectly can cause Windows instability, or make Windows unbootable. No registry cleaner is completely safe and the potential is ever present to cause more problems than they claim to fix.

Registry cleaners cannot distinguish between good and bad. If you run a registry cleaner, it will delete all those keys which are obsolete and sitting idle; but in reality, those keys may well be needed by some programs or windows at a later time.

Windows 7 is much more efficient at managing the registry than previous Windows versions. Even if you use the CCleaner registry to delete keys left over when uninstalling programs, these few keys will not make 1 millisecond's difference in performance. If you run CCleaner or any other registry cleaner and do not know precisely what you are doing, you will have problems down the road. There are no gains to be had from using a registry cleaner and the risk is great.

Forget all the "wisdom" you learned about XP. Windows 7 is not XP and does not manage the registry the same as XP.

I wasn't aware of that improvement in W7. I'm still using Vista and XP, and should be getting my upgrade sometime this week or next week hopefully.

As far as Comodo being the best, I believe their security software is the best. The companies main focus is prevention rather than detection. Preventing your system from getting effected is the best defense and that's what Comodo does, detection and removing threats is the 2nd priority.

Blacklisting is ineffective because new viruses and malware are being created constantly on a daily basis. Whitelisting is the approach Comodo takes which is much more effective, if it's not a known safe application, it doesn't get through.

 

[Solarstarshines]

I use Webroot Spysweeper with Anti virus it also has a Gamer Mode as well

 

[DeanP]

Microsoft Security Essentials

Why?
1. It is free.
2. Does not bug me.
3. Personally, it seems to find more virus/infected files than NIS.

 

[Phone Man]

AV-comparatives still has MSE 1.0; actual version is 2.0.657 and is a lot better, I use it and prefer it over EsetNOD32, AVG, Avira and avast! which I used in the past.

It doesn't seem very accurate to me to compare Norton 2011 with MSE v. 1.0; why they don't compare Norton 2008 with MSE 2.0?:sarc:

MSE 2.0 was still in Beta until Dec 2010 and these companies don't test Beta software. I am sure going forward MSE 2.0 will be included. Its good to keep looking at new results as malware is always changing and the AV companies need to keep up.

Jim

 

[wds7]

Microsoft Security Essentials

Why?
1. It is free.
2. Does not bug me.
3. Personally, it seems to find more virus/infected files than NIS.

Really ....????:banghead:
THe Only good thing is it's FREE ...I'll pick Avast "Free Version" in the heart beat ...
You don't know how many infected pcs customers bring in a day and the only AV program that they have is MSE .....
Which is OK though ...i still have job to do ...
Peace .

 

[Daave]

Go for Mac-cafe it is good, even i use the same.

 

[yowanvista]

1. It is free.

Free but basic protection for the average user, it does not compete against the features of a complete AV suite

2. Does not bug me.

All AVs including MSE cause problems and BSODs(mpfilter.sys) on some Win7 systems

3. Personally, it seems to find more virus/infected files than NIS.

As nothing is 100% effective MSE also misses a lot of malware in some AV tests, it is not ranked as the 'best'

 

[Borg 386]

As nothing is 100% effective MSE also misses a lot of malware in some AV tests, it is not ranked as the 'best'

That's it right there....nothing is 100% effective.

 

[Fayla]

Nor is it a real requirement (100%), UNLESS you visit every existing dodgy website and open every spam email with virus attachments and fall for every social network scam that comes your way. Even someone with little computer knowledge would find it very hard to encounter every type of virus dispersal platform. A high coverage is all that is needed really.

As nothing is 100% effective MSE also misses a lot of malware in some AV tests, it is not ranked as the 'best'

That's it right there....nothing is 100% effective.

 

[marsmimar]

 

[MadSupra354]

I'd recommend Norton, but I've heard Kaspersky is really good to. I've owned Norton 360 for 2 years and I've not had any problems. Norton only eats 6MB's of RAM on idle and about 70MB's when scanning.