[coltm4carbine]

Kaspersky or McAfee. Difficult choice.

McAfee haven't let any viruses into my desktop since I had it and Kaspersky has caught over 6 viruses which symantec/norton missed.

Norton was preinstalled on my laptop, but i uninstalled it within 2 days because it caused too much trouble [Performance, BSoD, viruses]. lol

My cousin uses Nod32 but i haven't tried it myself but from what I heard it's the fastest scanner there is.

Avast didn't catch anything on my Windows 98 so i ditched it and swapped it with AVG free.

This post has been edited by coltm4carbine: 19 April 2006 - 12:46 AM

[Jeremy]

I tend to think that faster scanners aren't scanning as thoroughly as ones like Kaspersky which scan all filetypes. In the future I hope it only scans files that can be infected. HTML, GIF, etc cannot be infected (as of yet, anyway) so no use scanning those. But, then again, a file could be masked as a .txt file and be an .exe so I guess there's a point to it. We scan all our customers' PCs with Kasp 6 but install AVG Free, even though Kasp found 6 viruses that AVG missed. Having to clean viruses off half a dozen PCs really gets you confident about an anti-virus program quickly. Also, Kaspersky has a great GUI!

[N1K]

Nod32 all the way

[Jeremy]

I feel like taking a day at the shop next week to just compare Anti-virus programs.

[gunsmokingman]

I use AVG free I like it, it automatic update works well, I have not caught any viruses with this.

[Jeremy]

gunsmokingman, on Apr 20 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

I use AVG free I like it, it automatic update works well, I have not caught any viruses with this.

Jeremy, on Apr 14 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

We install AVG Free Edition for people at the tech shop, but we have Kaspersky 6 on all of our PCs, whereas we also had AVG. Once we scanned with Kaspersky, 6 viruses were found on the network where AVG was sitting for over a year.

AVG's GUI could be better, and if an anti-virus didn't automatically update, I doubt many would use it.

[gunsmokingman]

Jeremy, on Apr 21 2006, 02:18 AM, said:

gunsmokingman, on Apr 20 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

I use AVG free I like it, it automatic update works well, I have not caught any viruses with this.

Jeremy, on Apr 14 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

We install AVG Free Edition for people at the tech shop, but we have Kaspersky 6 on all of our PCs, whereas we also had AVG. Once we scanned with Kaspersky, 6 viruses were found on the network where AVG was sitting for over a year.

AVG's GUI could be better, and if an anti-virus didn't automatically update, I doubt many would use it.

Truthfully the GUI does not matter, I would rather have some thing that works well and look crappy, then some thing that looks great and runs crappy.

[Jeremy]

So you're saying you think Kaspersky is crappy and AVG is awesome? Yeah, the results at the tech shop sure do justify that assumption.










To reference the options in #10:
iChecker and iSwift

Quote

During the first anti-virus scan of the object and its contents for an infected code, the scan sum and some other service parameters of the object are counted, fixed and saved. These parameters define the state of the object by the moment of scan completion.
The data received during the scan (CRC object, service parameters, date of the first scan) are registered in the object stream (if the object is located on the drive with NTFS file system) and in internal database (if the object is located on the drive with FAT32/NTFS file system).
During the next anti-virus scan of the object the object data (CRC and service parameters) are compared with the data saved in the stream (if it exists). If there is no stream and data do not coincide, the parameters saved in the data base are scanned. If the data coincide, the object is not scanned.

PDF

This post has been edited by Jeremy: 20 April 2006 - 09:55 PM

[gunsmokingman]

I did not mention nothing, all I said was and

Quote

Truthfully the GUI does not matter, I would rather have some thing that works well and look crappy, then some thing that looks great and runs crappy.

I did not mention no other AV, being dislexic can you point out where I said any thing like that. I assume nothing you have made all the assumtions.

Quote

So you're saying you think Kaspersky is crappy and AVG is awesome? Yeah, the results at the tech shop sure do justify that assumption.

Rember the more prettier a app is the more resources it will use, any coder will tell you that.

[Gouki]

gunsmokingman, on Apr 21 2006, 06:00 AM, said:

Rember the more prettier a app is the more resources it will use, any coder will tell you that.

AMEN brother!

Performance over eye candy!

[DysfunktinaL]

I preffer Ewido Security Suite.

www.ewido.com

[Jeremy]

Gouki, on Apr 21 2006, 01:03 AM, said:

gunsmokingman, on Apr 21 2006, 06:00 AM, said:

Rember the more prettier a app is the more resources it will use, any coder will tell you that.

AMEN brother!

Performance over eye candy!

What saddens me is that you guys would never think twice about what you're actually saying. Sure it's commendable to say you prefer the performance over eye candy, why else would someone like me use nLite? I've been preaching about that for the past 2 and a half years and will until the day no one uses XP anymore.
But, what I mean is, you'll never take the time and effort to compare different anti-virus programs to see which one actually has the better feature-set and how well it performs those features. You'll just get used to which ever program your friend brings to your house one day, notice that you don't have to bother with the GUI very often and say it's the best one in your own opinion. See, that's where I come in, to go beyond my own comfort zone and see which one(s) are the best for people to use. I'm not biased in the comparison, either. Anyone with any knowledge on anti-virus software at all knows that Norton is not recommended due to being the hugest memory hog out there. Anyway, I took a few moments this morning to compare Kaspersky and AVG in VMware. Kaspersky has 2 processes, the Service and the GUI. AVG has 4 processes. Kaspersky took up about 30 MBs of RAm while AVG's 4 Services combined were around 15 MBs. Don't feel so righteous just yet there Gouki... the scanning options and advanbced features of Kaspersky outnumber and outperform those of AVG's by far! And I won't just leave that to the mere statement that it is. I\m going to do a full analysis of each Anti-Virus in this poll, then I won't be blindly saying "<Insert AV program name here> Rules!" There is the reason for it, and the info to back up the reason.

[DigeratiPrime]

Jeremy if you do a antivirus comparison could you also note the size of the programs installer and number of services/processes it uses? And the Mem Usage?

[Gouki]

@ DigeratiPrime: He did take that into consideration on his tests.

@ Jeremy :

Posting that to me is not the best idea. (I didn't even talked about AV Software)

I can't talk about AV, since the last one I used was probably 7 years ago. When I said "performance over eye candy" I was not specifically talking about AV applications, since I barely know wich ones are out there.

I can't and won't discuss something that I do not know, and like I told you already, I was *never* being specific to AV software on my previous post.

Software today is betting allot on graphics. People prefer to have a cute program that does not do what it is supposed to then a ugly YET functional application that "just works".

As you may remember, RogueSpear and I were talking about how much we trust on OSS. The main reason for that is that they usually code something 'clean'. Not bloated software like we can see on todays applications.

(THIS IS NOT REGARDING AV SOFTWARE)

i.e: I recently installed a Epson printer. I went to Device Manager and tried to update the drivers, since I did not want to use the Setup.exe that came on the CD.

Believe it or not, that method (Update Driver) got Epson Software installed on my machine, 2 Hotfixes downloaded and 3 registry entries on the RUN folder.

[DigeratiPrime]

@Gouki oops, somehow i overlooked post #52.

[jago_lfn]

Press any key, on Mar 28 2006, 01:55 PM, said:

I do not believe that you should have to pay to protect the operating system; that's a defect; no matter that some third party is attacking your business - you should protect your users free.

Good point. Maybe the AV companies are paying virus writers off so their products sell? Something to think about.

[gunsmokingman]

Quote

What saddens me is that you guys would never think twice about what you're actually saying. Sure it's commendable to say you prefer the performance over eye candy, why else would someone like me use nLite? I've been preaching about that for the past 2 and a half years and will until the day no one uses XP anymore.

Now a a statement like that is making a assumtion, I do think about what I am saying. Me I do not use Nlite,
I prefer to do things by hand, it makes for a better learning experience.
Example if I had used Nlite, I would of not learned how to script in these languages, CMD, VBS, JS, HTML and Vb.net.
Now I understand that you are trying to quantify the best anti virus out and that find, but the thread
reads What Anti-Virus do you Use/Recommend and not What the best Anti Virus
When you have finish testing all the listed AV then maybe a new thread with all the results would be better.

[Gouki]

Let's keep the discussion from now on within the real point of this thread.

Like gunsmokingman said, NOT what AV is the best, but what do you use and recommend.

[andrew84uk]

I Use Mcafee VirusScan Enterprise 8.0. Its because the business I work for uses it.

[Jeremy]

Gouki said:

Quote

Software today is betting allot on graphics. People prefer to have a cute program that does not do what it is supposed to then a ugly YET functional application that "just works".

There are a lot of programs that have a very nice GUI and do work very effectively. JV16 PowerTools, CCleaner, nLite, Opera, etc, and none of these are open-source. Saying "software" today" isn't very accurate, more of a slightly inappropriate generalization, also taking into account that you stated you haven't used anti-virus in 7 years.

gunsmokingman said:

Quote

Now astatement like that is making a assumption...

No, I do feel my statement is justified because you guys defend a product like AVG while praising performance over GUI, when AVG's performance and feature-set compared to that of Kaspersky is not something to write home about. As I said, that's where I come in to show which anti-virus can be properly praised about. You can be used to it all you like, but even if the GUI sucks, if the feature-set and performance are superior to many others of it's kind, it's getting a medal.

Gouki said:

Quote

Like gunsmokingman said, NOT what AV is the best, but what do you use and recommend.

I'd rather people have a proper and unbiased analysis on the truly superior anti-virus programs out there instead of having more people post, exciting the enthusiasts, just to see some n00b say "Norton rules!". That's a waste of time to say that, a waste of space on the forum, and when in reality Norton is the most problematic and memory hogging anti-virus in existence.