Do you use : No Antivirus , FREE Antivirus , or PAID Antivirus and why?

[Deleted member 1300495]

Avast seems very popular among the FREE versions.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Great site to compare ^

I really wish Comodo was in that comparison chart. Would be nice to see how many false positives they would have found, since I had a fair amount with Comodo. Bitdefender looks like the best for protection/false positive ratio.

I recently started using Bitdefender's free version, just to see how much resources it uses, and how reliable I find it to be (does it trigger false positives/etc. during my particular uses). No real complaints, but it does bog my slower computer down a noticeable amount. It's okay, but by no means would I personally use it for anything more than peace of mind. I won't ever trust an AV software for security, but that's for my own personal use.

It looks like TrendMicro has the best overall protection. Bitdefender would come in second; Kaspersky would be in third; Avira and Emisoft would come tied in fourth. The only reason I would place Avira so low is because of their false positives. Depending on how TrendMicro works, I might consider recommending that one in the future. I might just happen to take a look at their free software and check it out soon. I know some people who are in the need for something free and effective. Gotta love incompetent husbands who trust everything the internet says, and then blame it all on the wives! hahaha

I wonder why nobody like windows security essentials as I believe it is the safest, with no download needed. Also, most of these AV programs say that they have a small footprint but in reality are supposed to be monitoring EVERY single part of a system. This is always going to slow down a system but for you guys, it is nothing as you proably own a pc with a 4790K and 2 780tis installed. This would not let any slowness evolve in your computer thus allowing you to download 5 AVs and not noticing it. On a side note, to download almost any computer program, I use ninite as it disables all the bloatware that comes with everything.

 

[spooky2th]

I'm using Kaspersky 2013, bought the license from retailer. So far so good. I'm satisfied with the performance of this AV. That is why I've been using this AV for like 4 years.

You can upgrade to the latest 2015 version any time as long as your subscription is active. The 2015 version is already out plus they just came out with a newer 2015 version.

Go to kaspersky.com, downloads, software upgrades and choose your software then download it. Delete your old version and your activation code should work on the new version. There are also several options that you might want to use when removing the old software, like keeping your subscription info so you won't have to reactivate the new software after the install.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I am currently using Bitdefender Internet Security 2015 , and it is very light and no false positives so far.

 

[Guest]

I decided to make the switch to Avast! Free after a few comments here.

Fairly good I must say. Completed a full scan with nothing detected, considering I've been using MSE pretty much since it came out then I suppose that's a testiment to the common-sense browsing thing. Providing MSE is as bad as they say.

My gripe is exactly what I disliked about alternative software - Annoyingness.
It takes a good 10-20 minutes to go through all the settings and find out exactly what it can and can't do. Too many 'features' enabled by default that no user should want (Such as, audible notifications).

I've gone through the lot and set things how I want them to be. However, I've also turned on 'Silent' mode. While realising this won't notify me should a virus pop up without my knowledge, it certainly gives me some peace. Guess I'll just do regular scans.

My primary annoyance comes on behalf of its in-app advertising. Bleeding every anti-virus company that offers a free version likes to plaster adverts for the paid all over it. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't pop up in the corner of the screen periodically...


In short, I guess I'll stick with it. It's really quite disappointing how no company has figured to come out with a free, light anti-virus that doesn't bug you to death.
Bitdefender Free was an option, but I found the interface too limiting.

 

[Skylyne]

I wonder why nobody like windows security essentials as I believe it is the safest, with no download needed. Also, most of these AV programs say that they have a small footprint but in reality are supposed to be monitoring EVERY single part of a system. This is always going to slow down a system but for you guys, it is nothing as you proably own a pc with a 4790K and 2 780tis installed. This would not let any slowness evolve in your computer thus allowing you to download 5 AVs and not noticing it. On a side note, to download almost any computer program, I use ninite as it disables all the bloatware that comes with everything.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Great site to compare ^

The reason no one uses WSE is because it's the least reliable. Open the link, and read their real-world protection reviews. The baseline comparison is the Windows AV protection, which is at an 85.5% protection rate... and that's the lowest scorer. You're better off using any of the reviewed AV wares than WSE. For lack of a better way of putting it, Microsoft sucks. I don't know how else to say it. And yes, I'm a Windows user, but not by preferential choice.

As far as having a 'fast' computer, I'm running a Core2 with 4 GB of memory. I don't know why you mentioned having dual high-end GPUs, since those do nothing for overall computer speeds... but I don't even have a 750 Ti right now haha. I run a single AV ware, and my computer gets slowed down significantly. There are also plenty of people out there with dual-core Pentium chips, and i3 chips, which will see significant speed drops with these resource hungry wares. Making a lightweight security software is pretty important to a lot of people.

I'm also surprised people are switching to Avast... it's quite demanding for resources, fails to prevent a lot of infections, and requires the end-user to do frequent scans to make sure they aren't harbouring anything. I've seen plenty of Avast users scan their computers, and have numerous infections that Avast failed to catch. There are better options out there that are much more lightweight, and far more effective.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I agree the AVAST free is a little heavy to run on lower spec computers.

 

[Guest]

I wonder why nobody like windows security essentials as I believe it is the safest, with no download needed. Also, most of these AV programs say that they have a small footprint but in reality are supposed to be monitoring EVERY single part of a system. This is always going to slow down a system but for you guys, it is nothing as you proably own a pc with a 4790K and 2 780tis installed. This would not let any slowness evolve in your computer thus allowing you to download 5 AVs and not noticing it. On a side note, to download almost any computer program, I use ninite as it disables all the bloatware that comes with everything.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Great site to compare ^

The reason no one uses WSE is because it's the least reliable. Open the link, and read their real-world protection reviews. The baseline comparison is the Windows AV protection, which is at an 85.5% protection rate... and that's the lowest scorer. You're better off using any of the reviewed AV wares than WSE. For lack of a better way of putting it, Microsoft sucks. I don't know how else to say it. And yes, I'm a Windows user, but not by preferential choice.

As far as having a 'fast' computer, I'm running a Core2 with 4 GB of memory. I don't know why you mentioned having dual high-end GPUs, since those do nothing for overall computer speeds... but I don't even have a 750 Ti right now haha. I run a single AV ware, and my computer gets slowed down significantly. There are also plenty of people out there with dual-core Pentium chips, and i3 chips, which will see significant speed drops with these resource hungry wares. Making a lightweight security software is pretty important to a lot of people.

I'm also surprised people are switching to Avast... it's quite demanding for resources, fails to prevent a lot of infections, and requires the end-user to do frequent scans to make sure they aren't harbouring anything. I've seen plenty of Avast users scan their computers, and have numerous infections that Avast failed to catch. There are better options out there that are much more lightweight, and far more effective.

Mind listing a few?
I need something light and out of the way.

I very much dislike the transition period that comes with a lot of these headlining free versions. MSE was perfect in every respect minus one - Its ability as an anti virus.
Need a replacement, not sure which.

 

[Skylyne]

Mind listing a few?
I need something light and out of the way.

I very much dislike the transition period that comes with a lot of these headlining free versions. MSE was perfect in every respect minus one - Its ability as an anti virus.
Need a replacement, not sure which.

Don't take this the wrong way, mate... but have you not been reading what we've been posting? Twice, already, have I said something very specific to help people choose the right AV software. I'm not trying to get snappy at you, so don't take it personally; I'm just surprised you are asking that. The first time was the very last post on the first page (in which I answer your question directly). The second time was in the post that you quoted to ask me what I would recommend.

Please read everything before asking a question. Again, it's nothing personal; but the information you're asking for has already been provided for you within this thread... by me. I don't mind repeating myself in other threads, but not within the same one. Again, nothing personal

EDIT: here's what I meant by "The second time was in the post that you quoted to ask me what I would recommend."... "Open the link, and read their real-world protection reviews." It wasn't that I was intimating you read between the lines. I was getting at the fact I was explaining a way to look up some information to help you make an informed decision, albeit in a different context.

 

[Guest]

Mind listing a few?
I need something light and out of the way.

I very much dislike the transition period that comes with a lot of these headlining free versions. MSE was perfect in every respect minus one - Its ability as an anti virus.
Need a replacement, not sure which.

Don't take this the wrong way, mate... but have you not been reading what we've been posting? Twice, already, have I said something very specific to help people choose the right AV software. I'm not trying to get snappy at you, so don't take it personally; I'm just surprised you are asking that. The first time was the very last post on the first page (in which I answer your question directly). The second time was in the post that you quoted to ask me what I would recommend.

Please read everything before asking a question. Again, it's nothing personal; but the information you're asking for has already been provided for you within this thread... by me. I don't mind repeating myself in other threads, but not within the same one. Again, nothing personal

Indeed I have, but you seem to lack any definitive answers. Although I can see why such a topic would, unfortunately, be a result of that.

I've looked at all the popular free versions listed on this page and the last. I did try Bitdefender Free for a short period this evening. They all seem to be lacking something, hence why I asked, essentially to find out if I've missed something.

I've got to admit. I'm mildly tempted to go back to MSE and live in blissful ignorance.

 

[Skylyne]

Then maybe you're not asking a direct enough question for me to give you a better answer?

 

[Guest]

Then maybe you're not asking a direct enough question for me to give you a better answer?

I guess in this case there isn't a direct question.
I could make requests for what I want to see in an antivirus all day, but the sad reality is none of them are going to tick every box. The free versions at least.

I suppose I'll do my research, see which one goes best for my use.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Bitdefender and Norton Internet Security have served we well and both are really light.

 

[Skylyne]

I guess in this case there isn't a direct question.
I could make requests for what I want to see in an antivirus all day, but the sad reality is none of them are going to tick every box. The free versions at least.

I suppose I'll do my research, see which one goes best for my use.

That would be the best route for you to take. From my short-term experience, Bitdefender is an acceptable solution for those who don't want to expend much energy into protection, want something very lightweight, and has a good report card. Comodo is a nice free security suite that provides (from what I've seen) the best overall protection; however, it is fairly resource demanding. AVG is not a personal recommendation, as the reviews I've seen are mixed at best. Kaspersky seems to be the only other quality AV ware with a zero false positive rate; and that's a requirement for my personal recommendation. I'll have to give TrendMicro a go, but no promises I'll recommend it...I don't like a software that leaves a genuine virus up to the discretion of the user. I'd rather it have less than 5 false positives (in the av-comparatives real-world chart), or none at all with a minor rate of failure.

You're better off with something that has a smaller rate of failure, and take extra security measures outside of AV software, than with one that gives you an option to allow a blatant virus onto your system. The real problem with the allow/deny programs is the command prompt could [in theory] be bypassed by a decent programmer.

 

[Skylyne]

Bitdefender and Norton Internet Security have served we well and both are really light.

You know, I've heard more people complain about Norton than praise it. I know people who've struggled with Norton for many years, and pay for it, and they're never happy. I've not really met anyone happy with Norton, at all. Then again, that's my sample of people.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Norton recoded all their software about 5 years ago , it's very light except for the 360 version .People are still rating it from the time period before that.

NIS is very light on a system.

 

[Skylyne]

I know someone who was running Norton, about a year ago, on a brand new laptop, and it was slowing down her system pretty good. Not to the point of things being substantially slow, but it was definitely noticeable to me. I don't think she really noticed, because there was no complaints about speed (then again, her last computer was terrible), but Norton took its toll. You really can't prevent a security software from slowing a system down; it's just a side effect of running that kind of software.

But, that aside, I wasn't really talking about speed. I was really talking about overall user reviews. I just haven't heard too many people who are genuinely happy with the job that Norton does. I've definitely not heard a positive review from anyone I've talked to in person; I've only seen positive reviews of Norton on the internet. I should definitely consult my local computer shop, though... I'll have to make a note of that.

On a side note: I will say that I've had one noticeable problem from every security software I've run... video streaming. For some reason, every single security software I run has to screw up my video streaming experience. It doesn't matter what website I'm using, I have that problem. It's weird. The only time I have a good streaming experience is when I'm not running AV software. I think part of the problem is the overwhelming amount of flash video on the internet, as Flash itself doesn't seem to like letting me multi-task while I'm running AV software. It could also be my browsers causing part of that problem, but I'm not about to leave them for anything else.

And yes, I'm having this same recurring problem with Bitdefender. It's relatively lightweight, from my experience, but it still bogs down slower machines in some ways.

 

[USAFRet]

The last AV or firewall I paid money for in a home setting was Black Ice Defender, back in the late '90's.

I have had zero uncaught infections this century.

 

[Guest]

Welp, I moved back to MSE.

It's by no means the best, but it stays out of my way and that I can live with.

Scanned with Avast!, Bitdefender and Panda Cloud yesterday, finding nothing. I like my current combo of this and MalwareBytes if and when I suspect something.

Here's what I found from yesterday evening:

Bitdefender Free - Nice, but limiting. I dislike 'cloud' scanning in general and this is no exception. The scan was slow and there wasn't much information as to what it was actually doing.

Panda Cloud Free - Better than the above as far as usability is concerned. Also scanned quicker. I was very much tempted to stick with it, but again, I dislike anything relating to the fabled 'Cloud'. (Just ask Jennifer Lawrence).

Avast! Free - As I said above. Certainly the cleanest looking, with the most support and the most customisability options, but let down by its overall annoyingness attempting to get you to pay for a premium version of at least one of their other services. Also had the longest setup time due to too many annoying settings turned on by default.

AVG Free - Didn't try yesterday, but have tried recently before. I would give it points on overall design versus pretty much every other option out there, the scanner isn't the worst either, but I've had far too many issues with AVG in the past.

MSE - Arguably the worst of the bunch, but also the least annoying. Take precautions at the browser level and it's unlikely something will slip through without your say-so.


I guess the only real way to get the perfect blend is to pay for it. For that, Kaspersky, NOD32 or Bitdefender would be topping my list. Preferably in that order.

 

[Gibu]

I use the paid version of Bitdefender and I really like it, it's lightweight and the scan seems to pick up threats. And it looks nice too.

 

[spooky2th]

I think you get what you pay for. But, I know some friends that use the free AVG.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I agree with Bitdefender , it's super light and seems to block the threats that are out there.

 

[Skylyne]

I think you get what you pay for. But, I know some friends that use the free AVG.

Yes, and no. Free doesn't always have to mean lower quality. Free can simply mean "you're on your own if something stops working." That's how a handful of the current wares work, and it's perfectly fine for those willing to learn about computer security. The only downside with free software is the trial and/or freemium software; the kind where you pay for certain features to no longer be restricted. That kind of software is going to give you more security problems, because it gives you a false sense of security. Typically, those types of software are going to give the user just enough security at the beginning, but eventually the user will have no real choice other than to pay to fix things. I just don't approve of that practice.

Sure, you can avoid it with a little quality research, but those particular wares are aimed at the individual who can't be bothered to learn about computer security.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

A lot of people seem to use Avast FREE , seems like one of the top in the FREE category.

 

[Skylyne]

I'm honestly surprised at that, Blackbird. I mean, I don't find the UI appears to be gimmicky at best, it bogs down your computer significantly (compared to other wares I've tried), and it doesn't even come out as one of the top performers. I'm struggling to see why it's so common. I'm assuming it's the user-friendly customisation; but it genuinely lacks compared to any half-decent security suite I've ever used. Avast just seems to be one of those middle-ground programs that people use, and gravitate towards, but without any real explanation. Maybe they just haven't used enough software, and the popularity has given it a collective feeling of familiarity? I really am failing to see why it's so popular. I just haven't found it to be appealing in any way, whenever I've used it.

 

[thetechnoobguy]

I have been using AVG for some time now, before I had been using Norton, both great. In my opinion a paid anti virus is mandatory if you're someone who values the protection and security of your files and computer, or you visit more risky parts of the internet. Generally smart browsing practices will help prevent a lot of viruses but I've had dozens of instances where my anti virus has protected me against a virus in real time.

Here's all that I use:
AVG Internet Security 2014
TDSSKiller (Anti-rootkit tool, free)
https://www.virustotal.com/ (free browser file scanner)
OpenDNSCrypt (free encryption software)