QOTD: Is Free Antivirus as Good as Paid Software?

[jerther]

to this question: do you think free antivirus is enough for the average computer user?

I answer not always. Most people who come here with heavily infected computers use Avast. To them we install Avira and they go ok, and vice versa. Some people will find that AVG fits their needs better.

One sure thing, I've never seen a Norton 2008 or 2009 user come here with a virus problem.... yet

PS: Norton 2008 used to be a piece of crap but still did its job. 2009 however is a very nice one. I've been complaining against Norton since 1998 but for the first time, 2009 isn't that bat. It's actually good.

 

[AndrewMD]

The questions is what you want the end user to think about you. I had a similar question asked of me about LCD TVs. I own Dynex, Westinghouse and some other generic brands but I always recommend a Panasonic, Sony or Samsung depending on the customer or person I am speaking to.

To answer this question you must ask yourself, is the person you are loading the free AV a person that will not go to questionable sites or download questionable content? If you don't know then why put yourself in a position that would put your reputation on the line?

We can all agree that Norton isn't what it use to be from back in the 80's and it contents too much extra stuff and consumes way too much memory, but on the other hand if the customer gets a virus, they will blame the software no you.

I currently run MalwareBytes and Avast on my system and again, they work for me but for others, I have to provide them a paid solution.

 

[orbitron]

I noticed people are complaining Norton is a bloatware. But does it do it's job? Does it really protect computers well?

 

[Guest]

I use AVG on home computers and computers of others. At work, we use eTrust and it is great for a paid product. I have used norton and seen the norton effects on computers and wouldn't recommend to anyone. I wonder how the paid AVG product is? I should try that out.

Okay after the rambling I didn't answer the question. So let me say that my answer is yes. For the average user AVG would be good to use.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

That Norton my grandpa used to pay for.... all it did was block everything he needed for work. Not only was it Virus free , it told the user to "fuck off , this is my OS now bitch."

And Toms... you do know that the Youtube movie has been removed since last time you posted it right?

 

[digiex]

The best protection against malwares is really free. It's wisdom and common sense.

 

[enewmen]

Norton and McAfee was awesome 10+ years ago. Since then they tried to take over my PC. Free-AVG ONLY checks for viruses which is what I always wanted. Under System and Security (Vista & Windows 7) AVG is also seen as a valid virus checker. So in this case, free is better than paid.

 

[jeverson]

I would really like to see some real world #'s to support either side... independently gathered of course

As for my personal experience... I used to be a big time Norton user until one day it was time to renew again and they wanted $40 to renew. So I decided to look around and most of what I was finding was that BitDefender was a big hit. So I got it ($25 covered 2 systems for 2 years at the time I got it). I used to archive old data in zip files and one day I went to extract something out of one and BitDefender came up and said the there were several infections in the file. Norton never said a word!!! Now a few years have passed and I still like BD but it's time to renew again and I have friends that have sworn by AVG for the longest time. So I have it running on my HTPC since it rarely goes on the internet. Once my BD runs out I will most likely give MSE a shot. After all, Windows defender did a good job of preventing and getting rid of malware. Of course, if I feel it isn't doing the job I can always go back to BD.

Lastly, I have been supporting Windows based PCs for over 13 years in corp environments and all I can say is that McAffee and Norton have caused more headaches than they have fixed. I have seen Norton bring PC to their knees with resource usage and McAffee... well... let's just leave it at that.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]orbitron[/nom]I noticed people are complaining Norton is a bloatware. But does it do it's job? Does it really protect computers well?[/citation]
Old versions of Norton may have done their job well (but were also sometimes beaten by free stuff like Avast and Avira), but also made the computer it was on run much slower because it took up a lot of resources. I hear they've done a complete re-write in the 2009 version to make it lighter, but by this time I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

It's hard to say objectively what's "better." For the most part protection and threat handling is the main consideration, but I'd be lying if I said it was the only one. If you have the best security suite in the world but it makes your computer as slow as molasses, is that still the best?

Then there's also cost and subscriptions. Some people really do not need to be paying money every year for continued protection, that's money that could be used to put gas in the tank and food on the table. When you live check to check, you don't know if you'll always have that money on hand in 12 months.

For the most part, people can get protection that's not only "good enough" but among the best in the industry by selecting from a couple of free AV programs and an free spyware scanner or two. Honestly I'm hard-pressed to find any reason to recommend for-pay solutions when someone asks me what to use.

 

[crisisavatar]

I dont use antivirus but I have in the past and free has been better to me BY FAR than paid, namely better than Norton and McKafee ( ? ).

 

[ph3412b07]

Not for the average user. I know of quite a few people that have gotten viruses for no apparent reason. I visit my share of shady sites and still do not get viruses because of specific controls. annual reformat takes care of anything else presuming it hasn't wormed its way into BIOS.

 

[sailfish]

The question is somewhat of a strawman since it assumes "paid" AV programs are good. The paid programs I've used in the past have done more harm to my system than good. They've integrated, no, entangled themselves into several critical system processes to where they end up causing virus-like problems of their own.

Getting a portable (thumb drive) AV like Free-AVG is the least intrusive, least insidious way to go.

 

[eyemaster]

For large businesses, McAffee offers the complete suit of protection and is great for that. However, they are plagued with memory leaks and resource consumption (HIPS constantly causes problems).

At home, there's no reason to pay for antivirus, the free ones offer more than adequate protection.

 

[climber]

I think the problem with McAfee and Norton is that once they get these huge installed bases in government and the Corporate world, their ability to make vast changes to their core code base to keep up with the threat out there is limited as they have to keep their product compatible and not interfere with the other applications that these large $$$ customers use. So, they just build around their code and in some cases problems, rather than a redesign. Remember when DOS and Win 3.1 was a few 10's of MB? Ohhh nostalgia. A lot of software companies that have been around for a couple decades just build around their core legacy code with 32-bit shells or now 64-bit shells rather than a complete rewrite. I have no idea if this is the case with McAfee or Norton? Anyone here use Zone Alarm Internet Security Suite, I used to years back and it had an amazing firewall.

 

[the_krasno]

So far, ESET Smart Security (the successor of NOD32) is the best AV I've ever had, even better than Kaspersky!

 

[sandmanwn]

Symantec Corp rules. Why can't they make their traditional Norton stuff work that well?

 

[Major7up]

I have said this before but I like AVG and think it does a fair job at keeping out much. That said I do think that there are paid solutions that are superior and that I have and would pay for. It's called Vipre and I prefer that to AVG but I would not ever buy a norton or mcafee AV product. I would by some other norton products such as ghost though.

 

[soo-nah-mee]

[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]The best protection against malwares is really free. It's wisdom and common sense.[/citation]
I agree and gave this comment a thumbs up, but let's face it, the majority of PC users are not "us".

 

[werfu]

Depend what you're looking for, what you want it to do. In the corporate world, I'd say Symantec Anti-Virus is a realy strong solution. The other poppular solution, McAffee, is über shit, cause a whole lot of PITA and slow machines down as hell. For home use, I'd go for free, like AVG. And if you realy want to pay, then get the paid edition of a free one! And if you realy can't convince your mom that they are as good as the big ones, then get the latest norton, they made some improvements.

 

[buddhav1]

my Kaspersky takes up 36MB of RAM on my Vista Ultimate x64. considering i have 8 Gigs, i never even notice.

otherwise, McAfee and Norton are bloatware infested blobs of crap now. Avast! has always been more resource intensive than some other free AVs, BUT. it's also always scanning incoming documents, which is very nice, and usually worth the 128 megs it seems to max out on.

McAfee requires 256 free just to run it. same with norton. god forbid you ever need to scan.

i'm sticking with Kaspersky.

 

[cashkennedy]

Most people who say Norton or Mcafee are bloatware have not tried their latest light offerings such as Internet Security 2009 from Mcafee, or Endpoint Protection from Norton, both of which are much lighter then previous offerings from each company.

Both of those offer what id consider the basic 3 components of a av suite (av, firewall, and antispyware) and usually a fourth component for email scanning or internet site advising which you can choose not to install. Obviously its not a good idea to buy anything from either company that has a 2 page list of features and is called 360 or total protection.

In regards to the people who think that window's should make a definitive AV suite, thats not logical as having many different AV programs available ensures hackers cannot find a flaw in only 1 and take over every windows pc. And Norton is still very hard to uninstall, but definitely possible. But do you really want any virus that comes along to just be able to casually remove your AV suite or end it's processes?

I wish people would stop talking about old offerings from the big 2 companies, as they have changed substantially since 2005 when they were both bloatware.

 

[masterasia]

I've been using Free AVG for years and have never had a problem. When my clients' hard drives get infested with viruses I just stick in my computer and clean it with AVG. They pay me $60 to do this.

I just downloaded MS Security Essentials the other day. So far that's working out really good too. I hate Norton and McAfee. They are such resource hogs. We use Symantec here at work it seems to work fine on 32-bit systems, but sucks on 64-bit systems.

Has anyone tried FreeAntiVirus2009 yet? J/K.

 

[Codesmith]

Free antivirus + Free antispyware is all you need.

The pay stuff often is inferior and users often let the subscriptions expire. Replacing the two most popular AV solutions with free alternatives makes a system faster and safer.

I am a big fan of Nod32 if you have to pay for protection but I see no compelling reason to not to just use free protection.

 

[steiner666]

depends on the product. i think eset and kaspersky are the best AVs, and they aren't free. However, i would choose AVG free edt over any version of certain paid AVs like norton of macaffe

 

[antilycus]

I am sorry, but I've been in charge of multiple large corporate locations that use Symantec (which is also Norton, same company different name, same heuristics) Corporate edition and its PURE CRAP. The problem with being the largest anti-virus solution in the world is that virus's are written to not be detected by you. End Story. ESET (nod32) for the win.