which antivirus is the best?
- Thread starter ashokk_15
- Start date
nottheguru
Contributor
Over the years I have used Norton, McAfee, Kapersky, Panda, CA, and PC Security Shield (aka The Shield). Norton and CA crashed my computer when I installed them so I would NEVER recommend them. McAfee is a resource hog although it has some nice features, but it allowed a virus to get hru which crashed my system.
2 years ago I finally settled on PC Security Shield. It was reasonably priced, you don't even know it's running in the background and I have not got one virus since installing it. You do NEED a good seperate spyware program which I would recommwend Ad-Aware by Lavasoft. I have the professional version but the free version works great as well. Give a trial version of PC Security Shield a try, if you haven't already decided on one. NEVER run 2 antivirus programs on your system at the same time, you most likely will regret it.
Gooooood Luck
2 years ago I finally settled on PC Security Shield. It was reasonably priced, you don't even know it's running in the background and I have not got one virus since installing it. You do NEED a good seperate spyware program which I would recommwend Ad-Aware by Lavasoft. I have the professional version but the free version works great as well. Give a trial version of PC Security Shield a try, if you haven't already decided on one. NEVER run 2 antivirus programs on your system at the same time, you most likely will regret it.
Gooooood Luck
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
@nottheguru: Do you mean "Security Shield" or "The Shield Pro" or "The Shield Deluxe"? In 2006 they were two different products. "The Shield Pro" uses Hauri Virobot scan engine which is pretty much crappity crap. Security Shield is based on F-Secure which is again based on Kaspersky (with 2 custom engines extra). "The Shield Deluxe" is based on Kaspersky AntiVirus 6.0. But PC Security Shield probably doesn't have the technical capacity to offer very good support, as it looks like a small company. 
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
virus.gr has had a history of having many corrupted samples in its test set which caused the results to be not so accurate. Currently, the results are still not accurate due to this:
These 4 types of "malware" are no longer relevant today from a home user standpoint, and neither do MS-DOS viruses execute completely in Windows 2000 and above. Many AVs have different definitions of what should be detected as a Virus Construction Tool or Polyengine. These do not pose a direct risk to the users. The inclusion of these 3 categories causes the test results to be skewered. So, for now, take this particular test with a grain of salt.
These 4 types of "malware" are no longer relevant today from a home user standpoint, and neither do MS-DOS viruses execute completely in Windows 2000 and above. Many AVs have different definitions of what should be detected as a Virus Construction Tool or Polyengine. These do not pose a direct risk to the users. The inclusion of these 3 categories causes the test results to be skewered. So, for now, take this particular test with a grain of salt.
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
You wasted your money on a crap AV, RiO - AV-comparatives tested CA Antivirus 2007 and it had a miserable 65% detection rate. See for yourself:
Go to AV-Comparatives, then click the "comparatives" button on the left side of the screen, and when you scroll down on the comparatives page, you will find a PDF report on the performance of CA Antivirus 2007.
In order to qualify to be a "good" AV product and to get regularly tested at AV-comparatives, it must get at least 85% detection rate at AV-comparatives. So your CA is quite the bit behind...
Go to AV-Comparatives, then click the "comparatives" button on the left side of the screen, and when you scroll down on the comparatives page, you will find a PDF report on the performance of CA Antivirus 2007.
In order to qualify to be a "good" AV product and to get regularly tested at AV-comparatives, it must get at least 85% detection rate at AV-comparatives. So your CA is quite the bit behind...
That's odd too, because I've had no issues especially with malware which normally wreaks havoc on a system. And yes, I do run counter-checks on my PC once a month with A-squared and Ad Aware.
I've always chosen to test my own AV programs, I was on NAVCE for about 4 years before I tried Kaspersky and then CA. Since it is working out for me, I trust it more than a review that someone else wrote
I've always chosen to test my own AV programs, I was on NAVCE for about 4 years before I tried Kaspersky and then CA. Since it is working out for me, I trust it more than a review that someone else wrote
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
One thing about CA, RiO - CA lacks mainly in trojans, spyware and other malware detection (and other OS, i.e. Linux, etc. malware). If you have PestPatrol installed along with CA Antivirus 2007, then you should have good protection because I know for a fact that CA puts lot of focus on trojans/spyware detection for PestPatrol only. And AV-comparatives tested only the Antivirus, so it does not give a complete picture.
Also, maybe you won't trust CA anymore after I send you some trojans. Are you game?
(just kidding)
ZoneAlarm, with version 7.0, has switched from CA's engine to Kaspersky engine. You should try ZoneAlarm Antivirus again, you may be surprised by its detection rates since it now uses Kaspersky engine.
AVG, you probably tried the free edition. However, since 2006 AVG's paid editions have improved like hell. Dealing with hundreds of samples, I know how AVG works, and the Anti-Malware edition is IMO better than NOD32 (but of course NOD32 still has better heuristics).
Also, maybe you won't trust CA anymore after I send you some trojans. Are you game?
(just kidding)Stick said:
ZoneAlarm, with version 7.0, has switched from CA's engine to Kaspersky engine. You should try ZoneAlarm Antivirus again, you may be surprised by its detection rates since it now uses Kaspersky engine.
AVG, you probably tried the free edition. However, since 2006 AVG's paid editions have improved like hell. Dealing with hundreds of samples, I know how AVG works, and the Anti-Malware edition is IMO better than NOD32 (but of course NOD32 still has better heuristics).
greyhoundpower
Apprentice
vishalk said:
It seems that all of u guys are really concern about how these suites will gobble up your system resources....I have Norton 360 on my 4 year old laptop and have no problems with it so far. Happy with it, in fact!
Perhaps you guys should look at the numbers on Home & Home Office - Symantec Corp. they claim to have rewritten 80% of the code to make if faster.
A bit of info there for you just to clear the clouds above your heads..
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
Yes, Norton's 2007 line up is faster and better.
According to which test result?Crazysah said:
Antivirus programs and protection guide, virus info, antivirus tests, Free Antivirus Tools!
AV-Comparatives
Darth_Infernus
Contributor
Crazysah said:
Norton 2007 is the best only for detection of polymorphic viruses. Otherwise, its not the best, but certainly good. But detection rates do not mean everything guys, support matters as well, price matters, interface matters, license matters etc.