I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago
because they tended to
take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
wanted to use it. I have
been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it due
to spontaneous reboots
that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not
respond at all to my
complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic update
seems to mysteriously "break" a few
weeks before it's time to renew the license.

This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
McAfee?

TIA

Ed

Ed wrote:
The best security is to recognize that no software is better than paying
attention to what you click on.

That said, AVG is quick, free, and isn't a resource hog. The number of
opinions on which AV is best is the number of anti-virus programs ^
infinity, so your best bet is to evaluate several, and make sure you
know security best practices.

--
http://weblog.mkronline.com/

Thanks, Michael.

I have seen others here recommend AVG. I'll take a look.

I don't mind paying for good software, but get irritated with it when
it brings my machine to it's knees.

I agree about not clicking on things... I'm even a little worried
about clicking on your link :-)

Ed

"Michael Robinson" <mkr@mkronline.com> wrote in message
news:47e75$46ebf4fc$471d0bf2$4651@ALLTEL.NET...

"Ed" <jag_manR__EM*-0_V_E653@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5oSGi.9484$924.1270
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

There are a number of effective AV programs which are quite lightweight.
Of these NOD32 is highly regarded.

In the heavyweight category are such as Kaspersky and Bitdefender (which
uses two engines, one of which is Kaspersky's).

Regards,

PS Norton is a pig which will bring even a powerful system to its knees,
and besides being bloatware it puts down roots which can be very difficult
to remove. (Not for nothing has Symantec been forced to provide a "deep
removal" tool.)

Ed wrote:
The link is safe - I keep WP updated religiously, and most of the
potentially hackable scripts (in wp-admin) are locked down, so the risk
of a compromise is low. :P

If you're using Firefox (highly recommended, if only because of
noscript) you can install noscript and negate the vast majority of
potential website based attacks, though you might still need to worry
about image and markup rendering-based exploits (rare).

As for paying for software, AVG is only free in the sense that you can
use the free version as a regular usser. It's commercial, but they (and
most "free" AVs) get their money from volume licenses. You're
essentially participating in wide-scale testing so Grisoft can tell
volume buyers "Look how popular it is!". I think trading a statistic for
a good AV is worth it.

--
http://weblog.mkronline.com/

"Ed" <jag_manR__EM*-0_V_E653@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5oSGi.9484$924.1270@newssvr23.news.prodigy.ne t...

I use AVG although it is the free version (the paid version includes
more coverage, like for script blocking). It incurs little impact to
my host (versus Avast! which had a significant impact). Antivir has
good coverage but be prepared for nag screens on updates in the free
version prompting you to buy their product and which interfere with
fullscreen apps. I don't recall the impact on responsiveness to my
host when using Antivir because I won't tolerate nagware (you can use
IPS products, like System Safety Monitor, to keep their avnotify.exe
program from loading but I shouldn't have to load more software to
keep the nagware out of my face). However, if (more like when) I buy
an AV product then Avira's AntiVir or Eset's NOD32 are likely
candidates - but I'd first test it within a VM (in VMWare Server which
is free) to guage its impact on responsiveness (for example, see what
happens when you copy a couple thousand files with the AV configured
to scan all files, not just executables - which is a stupid setup
since any file regardless of filetype/extension can be executed if
loaded into memory and has a header saying it is executable).

McAfee will incur some impact to your host but how much depends on how
much of their bloatware you install. My ISP provides a free copy to
the McAfee suite. Their firewall is not very good (easy to terminate,
bad or no logs, no HIPS to verify the parent that called the child
that is making the connection is allowed, etc.). Their AV product all
by itself isn't bad but unfortunately their coverage has been dropping
over the last several months.

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

Remember that these are tested using the full versions, not the free
versions (which often lack several features, like script blocking,
PUPs whitelisting, etc.). Panda has always rated so bad for on-demand
scanning coverage that, as I recall, it has never made it into their
top-most products table.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...isplay=vendors
(you need to register to see their results)
Use this VB100 award list to check on their *history* of performance,
not on their coverage.

Some examples of VB100 results:
Alwil Avast!: 24 Success / 19 Failure (44% failed)
Avira Antivir: 10 Success / 1 Failure ( 9% failed)
Eset NOD32: 45 Success / 3 Failure ( 6% failed)
Grisoft AVG: 18 Success / 22 Failure (55% failed)
Kaspersky: 39 Success / 14 Failure (26% failed)
McAfee: 32 Success / 19 Failure (37% failed)
Microsoft OneCare: 2 Success / 1 Failure (50% failed)
GeCAD RAV (*note1): 6 Success / 19 Failure (76% failed)
Panda: 1 Success / 3 Failure (75% failed)
Symantec CE (note2): 39 Success / 6 Failure (13% failed)

*note1: GeCAD's RAV is what Microsoft bought to include as their AV
product.
*note2: Corporate Edition, not the Norton version.

I use AVG (free) although it shows with a high failure rate. You have
to look at the history to see how it fared in the latest tests (those
most applicable to its current performance). The vast majority of its
failed VB100 certification were before November 2002 (5 years ago).
Do the same with other AV products in which you are interested since
the overal failure rate may not reflect the current performance.
Similarly, Avast's majority of failures were before Feb 2002. Go to
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2007/08 (after logging in) and
click on a vendor to see their history.

Michael Robinson wrote:
is far better than either Norton or McAfee. Norton really took over my machine
and I had to pay to have the last vestiges of it removed when I got rid of it.
McAfee's version of update was to send you to its home page and dump you there.

AVG (because I asked it to) sends a message every time there is an update.
Sometimes there will be more than one a day. I pause, right click my icon, hit
update and it goes up and gets it, installs it, and lets me know. All of this
takes about 30 seconds and I'm back at work. It checks incoming and outgoing
mail, etc. etc. See the bottom of this message.

Finally, when I have had the occasional problem (once a scan picked up a NOAA
navigation chart) and told them, they had a complete plan for a one-step
download of your important config and logs and you add the file they fingered
and they came right back and gave a full report. Real service.

'nuff said

Give NOD32 a try.


"Ed" <jag_manR__EM*-0_V_E653@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5oSGi.9484$924.1270@newssvr23.news.prodigy.ne t...

If you don't mind paying NOD32 is a very good AV it has a small footprint
and doesn't try to take over your machine and it updates it's def files
without any problems or without you having to stop what you are doing.
I don't think you'd be sorry if you gave it a try.
Joan


Ed wrote:


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 16-Sep-2007, Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote:

There must of been something wrong because I have installed it on many
computers and has never slowed any computer I have put it on. NOD32 runs as
if there is no AV installed. None of those computers have not been infected
yet.

In what way was it slow, during a scan, installing, loading ?

I have never had problems with it and know a lot of knowledgeable people
who would recommend it.
Joan

Jim Watt wrote:


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jim Watt wrote:

Nod runs very slowly and Norton
And lots of luck doing that!

True, which is why you will always get different opinions as each person
goes by personal experience and the way things run on their machines,
which are never the same as someone else's. <g>
Joan


Jim Watt wrote:


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com