What is a good free antivirus protection program? Is AVG a good free program?

Discussion in 'Virus Information' started by John (Zi Rong) Low, Dec 27, 2005.

  1. Topic Question. We already have Norton Anti-Virus protection but it has
    been outdated for some time and we don't want to pay money.
    Also, we already have VET but every time an update has occurred, the
    computer freezes a lot, or shuts down spontaneously.

    I was contemplating downloading AVG Anti Virus. If any of you people
    out there have this, can you tell me if this is really good, as in free
    updates that are often?

    Thank you in advance.
     
    John (Zi Rong) Low, Dec 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Leythos Guest

    AVG is an average product if you use the Free version, why not purchase
    a Quality solution and get a good solution?

    You've just stated that the computer/information is not worth
    protecting.
     
    Leythos, Dec 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John (Zi Rong) Low

    phil Guest

    I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down. I am an
    average internet user.
    Phil
     
    phil, Dec 27, 2005
    #3
  4. AVG free edition works for me and the three other users on my network..
    clients of mine all use AVG too with no problems..

    --
    Mike Hall
    MVP - Windows Shell/User


     
    Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\), Dec 27, 2005
    #4
  5. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Leythos Guest

    Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
    machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
     
    Leythos, Dec 27, 2005
    #5
  6. Checking www.av-comparatives.org , I would say that AVG or free solutions
    are better than none, but don't have as high a detection rate as the big
    companys' products.

    If you must go for something free, I'd recommend Avast! Home Edition since
    it has that awesome kernel mode scan.
     
    Matt Thompson, Dec 27, 2005
    #6
  7. John (Zi Rong) Low

    kazabe Guest

    If you dont have licence problems, avg is a good option (the free
    version is only legal with a home pc).

    another free antivirus, is clamav for windows.

    see you soon
     
    kazabe, Dec 27, 2005
    #7
  8. I have downloaded the Free version of Avast, and it appears to be nice,
    free updates for 1 year before you re register again. My parents are
    too cheap to purchase anti virus software in the thought that the
    program might now work on this computer, which is why I came here.

    Sorry about that. And thank you all for your information, I have learnt
    some stuff as of today.
     
    John (Zi Rong) Low, Dec 28, 2005
    #8
  9. John (Zi Rong) Low

    PA20Pilot Guest

    Hi,

    ......... I have learnt some stuff as of today.

    Don't miss much more school though, it's starting to show.

    ---==X={}=X==---

    Jim Self
    AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
    http://avanimation.avsupport.com

    Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
    http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

    Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
    Technical Counselor
     
    PA20Pilot, Dec 28, 2005
    #9
  10. In order to protect your computer you need much more than antivirus


    If you have problems with malware or to learn more about the online
    protection:
    http://free.hit.bg/fightmalware/Panda_man%20%20%20HOME%20PAGE.htm

    And remember Prevention is always better than cure !


    Panda_man
     
    =?Utf-8?B?UGFuZGFfbWFu?=, Dec 28, 2005
    #10
  11. [/QUOTE]

    First, exclude active malware already present. Malware may botch
    attempts to update any av; many kill a whole list of such products.

    Yep. I use AVG in this role, and it's fine.
    Because many feeware apps suck (e.g. built-in DRM malware and bloat
    such as Norton) or aren't better? A price tag is no assurance of
    quality, and an up-to-date "average" av will work better than a "good"
    av that can't be updated because the vendors want more money.

    Choice of the following free av...

    1) AVG 7

    Good as a resident Windows-based av, which is how I use it. Cannot
    run from Bart CDR, so useless for formal intervention. Good
    auto-updates, runs resident unless you tell it not to. Don't install
    the email scanning component if on dial-up and your email app
    automatically drops the line when "done", as this will lead to lost
    outgoing email that the app sent to the av but the av hasn't scanned
    and sent on yet (a fairly generic av-vs.-email problem).

    2) Avast

    Similar profile as AVG, thus good as resident scanner and useless for
    formal intervention from Bart. Avast have a separate product for
    Bart, but it is punitively priced.

    3) AntiVir 6

    Very good on detection, works as on-demand or resident Windows av
    (defaults to on-demand), auto-updates OK, works from Bart CDR boot and
    is thus good for formal interventions. Prone to diffident ("signature
    of XXX found in..." rather than "XXX found...") false-positives. An
    excellent choice as a 2nd-scanner behind AVG etc. (as it's less prone
    to going resident and thus clashing with 1st scanner) and Bart.

    4) BitDefender 8

    On-demand scanner, doesn't work from Bart CDR, good auto-update. Thus
    also good as a 2nd or 3rd backup scanner in Windows.

    5) Trend SysClean

    On-demand scanner, messy reporting, works from Bart, updates are done
    by re-downloading the whole thing. Good as formal interventional
    scanner, though not all scanning tests run from Bart (some skipped).

    6) Stinger

    On-demand scanner for a very limited set of malware, but often detects
    these where others don't, even though it is very seldom updated.
    Useful as a back-check when doing intervention scans. Tiny, updated
    by re-downloading the whole thing, works from Bart.


    Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Dec 29, 2005
    #11
  12. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Leythos Guest

    My experience with AV product has been different - In general, Symantec
    Corp software (AV and Mail Security) has been very reliable and in all
    the years I've used it on my own machines and clients machines, I've
    only seen one Virus make it through undetected for 4 hours (it was
    caught by other means). With Norton, as long as it's NAV and not their
    bundles, I've not seen a compromised machine while running a
    valid/updated/current NAV product. I have seen many compromised AVG
    (current/valid/updated) systems and many McAfee systems compromised.

    While I don't like the bloat of Panda, I've not see any Panda systems
    compromised either.
     
    Leythos, Dec 29, 2005
    #12
  13. Ah, whenever one writes about Norton (and possibly McAfee), one has to
    decide whether to include a thing on corporate vs. consumer variants.
    I do so if the thread looks "corporate" rather than "consumer".

    Yes, the general consensus seems to be that corporate Norton is a
    better product, with less adverse impact on the system. But one can't
    extrapolate those expectations to consumerland... prolly Symantec sees
    that market as one it dare not offend, so they don't pull the DRM
    stunts, and the nature of the product (near-invisibility for the user,
    cerntalized "push" maintenance by network admin) trims away the bloat
    and intrusivene eye-candy found in the consumer edition.
    I've seen a specific hassle with Panda that worries more than the
    alleged scientology connection; an uncontrolled spiraling of IE web
    cache bloat, across a number of XP, WinME and Win98SE PCs that ran it
    on a LAN. All PCs were set to allocate no more than 20M to IE cache,
    yet had caches containing over 1G in 20 000+ tiny files.

    I haven't seen this failure pattern anywhere else, and there was no
    malware factorin this case. Panda av was the only distinctive factor,
    so there's the implication of that as a cause.


    In summary, I don't think any av is going to be solid enough to allow
    one to get click-happy, relying on av as sole defence. Such habits
    might result in 4 successful attacks a year with a "good" av, vs. 10
    successful attacks a year with a "bad" one (or 200+ attacks a year
    with no av?); both are well short of the desired mileage.

    Also, keeping the av up to date, and making sure it actually scans
    everything, are IMO more important than "which?".


    Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Dec 29, 2005
    #13
  14. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Charlie Tame Guest


    Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down... :)

    Charlie
     
    Charlie Tame, Dec 31, 2005
    #14
  15. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Leythos Guest

    I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
    2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
    was no noticeable performance difference.
     
    Leythos, Dec 31, 2005
    #15
  16. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Phil Weldon Guest

    Another urban myth goes down.

    Phil Weldon

    | In article <>,
    | says...
    | >
    | > | > > In article <ebv$>,
    | > > says...
    | > >> I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down.
    I am
    | > >> an
    | > >> average internet user.
    | > >> Phil
    | > >
    | > > Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
    | > > machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
    | >
    | >
    | > Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down... :)
    |
    | I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
    | 2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
    | was no noticeable performance difference.
    |
    | --
    |
    |
    | remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Phil Weldon, Dec 31, 2005
    #16
  17. Phil:

    Once I got rid of Norton AV 2005, my paging file usage went down
    dramatically.

    I find a noticable difference in overall performance of my computer.

    Tom
    | Another urban myth goes down.
    |
    | Phil Weldon
    |
    | || In article <>,
    || says...
    || >
    || > || > > In article <ebv$>,
    || > > says...
    || > >> I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down.
    | I am
    || > >> an
    || > >> average internet user.
    || > >> Phil
    || > >
    || > > Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
    || > > machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
    || >
    || >
    || > Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down... :)
    ||
    || I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
    || 2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
    || was no noticeable performance difference.
    ||
    || --
    ||
    ||
    || remove 999 in order to email me
    |
    |
     
    Tom [Pepper] Willett, Dec 31, 2005
    #17
  18. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Leythos Guest

    Then you don't have enough memory in your computer for basic operation
    of it and the normal applications that one would use.
     
    Leythos, Dec 31, 2005
    #18
  19. Sorry, you are wrong. I have plenty of memory.

    Stop second guessing people. I'm not inexperienced when it comes to
    computers.


    Tom
    | In article <>,
    | says...
    | > Once I got rid of Norton AV 2005, my paging file usage went down
    | > dramatically.
    | >
    | > I find a noticable difference in overall performance of my computer.
    |
    | Then you don't have enough memory in your computer for basic operation
    | of it and the normal applications that one would use.
    |
    | --
    |
    |
    | remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Tom [Pepper] Willett, Dec 31, 2005
    #19
  20. John (Zi Rong) Low

    Robert Moir Guest

    kazabe wrote:

    While I too suggest ClamAV in appropriate scenarios, you should be aware
    that it does have some limits. Most obviously for the average home user, it
    is only an "on demand" scanner, not an "on access" one.

    There is also considerable debate over how good it really is when used as a
    general virus scanner.

    My opinion: I think it is very strong in certain areas; it is perhaps rather
    more limited in the amount of areas it covers compared to an "average" virus
    scanner.


    --
     
    Robert Moir, Dec 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.