ANTIVIRUS 4 FREE

[johnathon956]

when i used avg my pc os was dead in a week besides norton stops threats at the point of entry firewall never get a virus with norton i will try kaspersky when my norton subscription and try norton antivirus gamers edition that uses low amounts of your system resorces

 

i might try kaspersky in 2 years

 

and everybody has a personal favorite antivirus

Edited September 27, 2009 by johnathon956

[Girish]

and everybody has a personal favorite antivirus

It's not good to have a personal favourite anti-virus unless you have tried at least 3 to 4 different AVs. When it comes to protecting your computer, having a 'favourite' isn't really good because it restricts change and your chances of trying out a different AV. It's best to be logical and listen to people who have had experiences with other AVs.

 

If you're going to pay for the anti-virus, then go with Kaspersky. If you're looking for free anti-viruses, then go with either Avira or AVG. That's the conclusion I've drawn after trying almost every other AV out there. I haven't tried NOD32 or F-Secure though so I can't comment on them.

[micheal687]

i dont know how far it is true about kaspersky

but my friend said that its server is hacked then how can it protect ur system from hacker and viruses if  it cannot able 2 protect itself

It was no big deal. It was just the software on one of their servers that was hacked into. It was quite a few months back though and Kaspersky have since multiplied their server security many times.

 

Also, you have to know that viruses and hacking is a different thing. If some talented hacker wanted to hack into your system, no anti-virus will be able to prevent it. That is the same for every web server out there. Any server can be hacked into; just the level of difficulty varies. This is why you should always update your anti-virus but it does not guarantee a fool-proof protection against dedicated hackers. But hackers don't generally target personal PCs, so you're safe.

Thank u man

 

but still the kaspersky provide anti hacking systm for the user .. so in ur point of view are they waste..................

 

one last thing how much is the kaspersky 2010 internet security cost in india

[Girish]

 

but still the kaspersky provide anti hacking systm for the user .. so in ur point of view are they waste..................

Not at all. The anti-hacking system will easily protect you against weak to mediocre intrusions. What I'm saying is that if there's a dedicated hacker sitting at some far-off terminal determined to hack into your PC, then it's difficult for most anti-viruses to stop him. But why would he bother hacking into your personal PC? So, you're perfectly safe.

 

 

one last thing how much is the kaspersky 2010 internet security cost in india

Rs.550 for a single user pack, the last time I checked. But prices vary a bit depending on the seller.

[Haywood Giablomi]

I have been using Avast for years with nary a problem.

 

http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html

[johnathon956]

girishb you had problems with norton i never have

i have used pcs with

avast: crap

avg: good

nod 32: sh*te

avira: useless

norton: the best

 

but for free i recomend avg

Edited September 27, 2009 by johnathon956

[Girish]

avira: useless

I find it hard to trust your judgement if you think Avira is 'useless'. It's the best 'free' anti-virus out there, along with AVG. Those are the two free AVs I would recommend to anyone, any given day. But definitely not Norton.

[johnathon956]

avira: useless

I find it hard to trust your judgement if you think Avira is 'useless'. It's the best 'free' anti-virus out there, along with AVG. Those are the two free AVs I would recommend to anyone, any given day. But definitely not Norton.

he wanted free antivirus norton isnt free avira the reason i said that is i had nothing but trouble with it didnt block viruses at point of entry

[Alkocen]

if i need something fast and free i usually choose Free AVG.

For myself i use F-Secure, a little modified by my ISP. Only $3 a month doesn't kill me.

[micheal687]

avira: useless

I find it hard to trust your judgement if you think Avira is 'useless'. It's the best 'free' anti-virus out there, along with AVG. Those are the two free AVs I would recommend to anyone, any given day. But definitely not Norton.

after continuing discussion for 2 pages ...

please give me single word solution

 

which is the best free antivirus and firewall....... bcoz i dont like spending money

 

avg

avast

avira

commondo

etc

 

[SWEETSAPRIK]

You should just hit up a third party site that tests them and decide what you want out of the AV you choose. There really is no "best" AV, they all have strengths and weaknesses when compared to each other. For example, someone just mentioned F-Secure, which is supposed to be one of the worst performance-wise, second only to TrustPort. They're that much slower because they use more than one engine. Some people might not care how long a scan takes though.

 

I use Avira because it isn't as resource intensive as most others, and it catches more Windows viruses than any of the others. (Besides G-Data.) That said, it also has more false positives. So if someone isn't very savvy about what should and shouldn't be on their PC, they should pick something with less false positives, then cross their fingers and hope they don't get one of the viruses that their AV misses.

 

Personally, I'd rather get a false positive now and then, recognize that it's a false positive and ignore it, than having something malicious on my PC that neither me or the AV noticed.

 

But yeah, this site has some test results, look through them and decide what's more important to you.

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

Edited September 27, 2009 by Sweets

[Pico]

girishb you had problems with norton i never have

i have used pcs with

avast: crap

avg: good

nod 32: sh*te

avira: useless

norton: the best

 

but for free i recomend avg

Seriously, go away. Don't come back. Don't post here. Your opinion is terrible and many facts prove that so.

 

Sweets is right, they all have their pros and cons (especially free AVs). But Avira is notably better than others, even AVG.

 

So michael, I would personally suggest using Avira.

As for a firewall, I couldn't recommend one.

[Ryan]

If I may ask, why do you need a firewall? XP and Vista both have firewalls built into them.

[3niX]

Hmm...

 

Avira seems to be slightly better than Avast in a few areas... Ill have to try it out some time in the future (though as you can see from the link Sweets provided that both NOD 32 and Avast are among the cream of the crop).

 

I generally base my AV selection on similar tests.

[Edmachine]

For a firewall, I recommend ZoneAlarm's Firewall. It's great. The only problem with it is that it's incompatible with Kaspersky Anti-virus, which is a shame. I'd love to use that combo as Kaspersky's AV is the best I've ever used. The money I spend for it is worth it. I am considering buying the Internet Security, but I've had no problems so far with the XP's in-built firewall. That, and I am behind a router, which, as I've read somewhere else, adds more protection.

 

But if you don't want to spend any money, download Avira AntiVir. And if you are also looking for a firewall, download ZoneAlarm Firewall.

http://download.cnet.com/ZoneAlarm/3000-10...j=dl&tag=button

[johnathon956]

girishb you had problems with norton i never have

i have used pcs with

avast: crap

avg: good

nod 32: sh*te

avira: useless

norton: the best

 

but for free i recomend avg

Seriously, go away. Don't come back. Don't post here. Your opinion is terrible and many facts prove that so.

 

Sweets is right, they all have their pros and cons (especially free AVs). But Avira is notably better than others, even AVG.

 

So michael, I would personally suggest using Avira.

As for a firewall, I couldn't recommend one.

there my point of views

[Chargr]

I've been good with Comodo Firewall, no problem.

 

As for a best AV? I'm going with Avira, I don't really trust anyone to recommend AVG, since I've seen its horrible detection.

 

For a free AV its: Avira, then Avast.

 

Paid: Kaspersky.

 

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/...ree-winners.ars

[The-King]

avira: useless

I find it hard to trust your judgement if you think Avira is 'useless'. It's the best 'free' anti-virus out there, along with AVG. Those are the two free AVs I would recommend to anyone, any given day. But definitely not Norton.

he wanted free antivirus norton isnt free avira the reason i said that is i had nothing but trouble with it didnt block viruses at point of entry

I was running both Norton and Trend Micro at once on simultaneous free trials that came with my new PC and I can safely say that Trend Micro overshadowed Norton at every turn, constantly detecting every dirty file that tried hiding on my computer before Norton could even figuratively open it's eyes to look. Norton was and still is a constant annoyance, the f*cking program won't even let me uninstall it after it's trial time ran out, it's like a virus in and of itself, I can't even quit the useless program to free up some resources without going through some more bullsh*t.

 

Definitely use either Avira or AVG, I use Avira and haven't had a problem since installing it.

[johnathon956]

norton 360 detcect imedialty

[Pico]

norton 360 detcect imedialty

Jesus christ, you're 14 and you can only manage to spell 1 out of 3 words right.

 

There is plenty of information to be found on how Norton has a lower detect rate than plenty of other anti-viruses. Free ones, like Avira, do a much better job and run using lower resources. I hate having to re-explain myself but you keep coming back praising your sh*tty Norton. Yes it's your opinion but your opinion is a sh*tty one based on nothing but your "feelings" towards the software. All tests show it's just not worth the cost and resources of your computer.

[The Guru]

Avast

 

That's what I use and I don't think I'll be needing to change. It's free and does what it is suppose to.

[Fozzy Fozborne]

If you're going to post, at least make it comprehensible. Also, all AV programs will detect a threat immediately. For example, if you try to open a virus on AVG it'll stop you and ask whether or not to move to the virus vault where you can chose to move it back or delete it. That's not a Norton feature.

[micheal687]

norton 360 detcect imedialty

Jesus christ, you're 14 and you can only manage to spell 1 out of 3 words right.

 

There is plenty of information to be found on how Norton has a lower detect rate than plenty of other anti-viruses. Free ones, like Avira, do a much better job and run using lower resources. I hate having to re-explain myself but you keep coming back praising your sh*tty Norton. Yes it's your opinion but your opinion is a sh*tty one based on nothing but your "feelings" towards the software. All tests show it's just not worth the cost and resources of your computer.

Have u seen the norton 2010 resouce usage

 

i think its pretty lower than u think..... i dont know much about but the norton av has developed something new to use low resouces

than b4 but still norton remains as a good av in the hearts of many people rather than others

 

 

 

thank u

[johnathon956]

 

norton 360 detcect imedialty

Jesus christ, you're 14 and you can only manage to spell 1 out of 3 words right.

 

There is plenty of information to be found on how Norton has a lower detect rate than plenty of other anti-viruses. Free ones, like Avira, do a much better job and run using lower resources. I hate having to re-explain myself but you keep coming back praising your sh1tty Norton. Yes it's your opinion but your opinion is a sh1tty one based on nothing but your "feelings" towards the software. All tests show it's just not worth the cost and resources of your computer.

whats wrong with norton i think its the best its the antivirus thats on all the pc in my house and you may hate it but i dont norton 360 dont use all the resourses that other av and i would rather buy the av i like than use crap free ones as i trust symantec

 

and it dont use all the resources of your computer

Edited September 28, 2009 by johnathon956

[Slamman]

I bought Norton once, in 2006, then felt FREE for me, I still have the install disc, a number of old computers I collected DO have Norton, however, protecting Win98 and Win95, they are really dated. When I went online with Windows 95, I was attacked right away, however, that was a used computer downloading Apple QuickTime, versus installing offline from a source pre-downloaded for safety. It's also a matter of taking notice of what you do, going to sites that are verified. Inviting content on to your computer that you feel confident with, otherwise, you could be inviting Malware "trouble"!!