Technical advice
Which is better for my computer?: OneCare or AVGFree
jeu 25 sep 2008 23:53:33 UTC — PHManI was wondering which antivirus is better for my computer. Should I use OneCare? Should I use AVGFree? Or should I use them both as they are both efficient? Just needed some technical advice for securing my computer. Thanks in advance.
PHMan
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I'm not that familiar with
ven 26 sep 2008 00:32:49 UTC — BobJamI'm not that familiar with OneCare, but I do know that if you have two antivirus programs running at the same time it can either crash your machine or slow it down considerably. Even if you have two on your machine and only one running at a time, they are notoriously cranky about playing well with another one on your machine. So, it's not a good idea to have two on your machine.
It's just a matter of 1) What you're comfortable with, and 2) What "plays well" with the other stuff on your system. Nevertheless, all of them may exhibit some problems. As I said, Antivirus programs are notoriously cranky.
The most common bash on McAfee and Norton are that they are resource hogs.
AVG, Avast, and Avira's Antivir are three that have gained a reputation for not taking up much resources, and they all have good detection capabilities.
As far as virus detection itself, they are all pretty good . . . retail or free, and the ratings that the trade magazines give them are all within a few percentage points, so I don't think any one is a whole lot better than the other (of course, there are a few slackers out there, but if you stay with the brand names and exercise good security best practices, you'll be pretty safe).
Bottom line: As I said, it's mostly a matter of personal preference and what you AND YOUR SYSTEM (Norton is notorious for not playing well with systems) are most comfortable with. No doubt, though, you'll find plenty of people that will bash individual products. (And I think I just bashed Norton there!)
Ultimately, the only protection against phishing, forged Web pages, downloading malware, and other threats is the technology located between the user's ears.
And if you visit Manufacturer forums, just keep in mind that most people come to those forums to complain about problems they've had, so your information from them is going to be skewed. Very few people visit a forum just to say "Atta' boy".
And what ever you decide to pick, it's a good idea to run an on line scan now and then, because what your local protection misses (and they all miss some things), an on line scan may detect.
1. Panda ActiveScan 2.0 - http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/a...
2. Kaspersky - http://www.kaspersky.com/virusscanner
3. Symantec Security check - http://security.symantec.com/sscv6/default.asp?lan...
4. Trend Micro Housecall - http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
5. McAfee - http://us.mcafee.com/root/mfs/default.asp
6. BitDefender - http://www.bitdefender.com/scan8/ie.html
7. VirScan - http://www.virscan.org/ NOTE: This is just for selected files, NOT the whole machine.
8. Virustotal - http://www.virustotal.com/ NOTE: This is just for selected files, NOT the whole machine.
I would suggest
jeu 02 oct 2008 09:36:09 UTC — T3KKHi,
I would strongly suggest Avast! its free and year after year is shown to be one of the very best anti-virus programs available.
Recommendation: CA
jeu 09 oct 2008 13:41:18 UTC — hmichaelyoungMost of the recommendations are probably fine. I have experience with most of them. However, OneCare, in my opinion, is intrusive and tends to be a little confusing when it comes to knowing what action to take.
Norton AV or Symantec AntiVIrus requires a lot of resources, causing your computer to slow down a bit.
CA AntiVirus with AntiSpyware is a very lean, easy to understand, but very powerful alternative to the others. CA, or Computer Associates has long provided security software for big corporations with huge networks. They have a top notch product that usually comes with a license for up to three computers. If you have more, there are products for five computers, 10 etc. I have put this product on countless machines with ultimately no complaints.
KIS 2009 for protection and Dr.Web CureIt! for thorough scan
jeu 06 nov 2008 04:10:24 UTC — JadeyesIf you are online games fan, if you often visits porn sites or if you downloading torrents your computer is obviously much more vulnerable to threats like trojans, worms, DOS attacks. So I'd recommend you KIS 2009 which comes with firewall. Since I have KIS my computer never get caught by malware or virus. KIS isn't slowing down computer start or computer performance in general. The complete computer scan is quiet fast too.
Before Kaspersky I used Norton Internet Security 2008 but it affected my computer performance and seemed do nothing.
If you just using computer for safe internet search, office applications and you download programs from vendor's well known safe sites so you don't need to spend your money in shareware program. Free antivirus will be good enough. I recommend you Avira AntiVir http://www.free-av.com/
I also scan my computer with Spybot Serach&Destroy http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.... and with free version of Dr.Web CureIt! http://www.freedrweb.com/ Dr.Web it's really great application and you don't need to install it, because it has no installer and no built-in updater and you use it only once. For next scan you'll need to download new one which will contains new threats database. It is recommended that you disable your current antivirus before you start scan with Dr.Web CureIt! to avoid conflicts and that you will do a full computer scan.
One more...
ven 26 sep 2008 12:18:50 UTC — phantazmThanks for the looong list; I can only add a single online scanner, from F-Secure: http://support.f-secure.com/enu/home/ols.shtml
Avast
dim 28 sep 2008 19:57:37 UTC — SueblimelyI moved from AVG to Avast when I had a few problems with AVG v8. I believe free AVG v8 misses out one of the internet security features which is is now only available in the pro version.
I am an AVG defector and use
mar 30 sep 2008 19:26:02 UTC — YoKennyI am an AVG defector and use Avast! and Avira.
I was really miffed when they insisted that I had to update to V8.0 that was a much bigger resource hog and I refuse to use their forum due to the abusive moderators.
AVG is much better
jeu 02 oct 2008 00:13:15 UTC — RayQuangI would advise you to use AVG free with Comodo firewall pro which are all free. Also use FireFox to avoid getting attacked by bad websites.
BitDefender
jeu 02 oct 2008 01:54:47 UTC — ErupI split bit defender with my sisters and i ended up paying 20$ it works great if you want to spend the money but i haven't tried any other ones so i cant truly say.
AVG vs. Avast!
jeu 02 oct 2008 06:38:55 UTC — petersohnI tried Avast!, but I really didn't like it's user interface, so I switched to AVG. Now I think that AVG is also a bit faster, but I'm not totally sure about that.
I also use Sunbelt Personal Firewall, and Firefox with add-ons like WOT and AdBlockPlus. They simply rock.
You can more with Firefox
jeu 06 nov 2008 04:16:23 UTC — JadeyesI added to my FF Ad Block Plus, WOT and also McAfee SiteAdvisor. But for safety sake it is highly recommended to use NoScript add - on too.
Another Avast! User Here
jeu 02 oct 2008 11:26:43 UTC — GrayFoxDownI've been a dedicated Avast! (Free Version) user for over a year now. Even though I also like AVG and have used it in the past, its scan seems to take forever and it tends to slow down my computer. I agree that Norton and McAfee, while probably being the most accurate, are also the biggest and most notorious power hogs. Avast! runs smoothly without sapping any of my pc power and its accuracy could, I believe, hold its own against any competitor...even though its interface DOES stink.
In addition to Avast!, I also use Site Advisor, WOT (of course) and Online Armor Firewall (its Free Version is marvelous!!!). I agree that an online scan should be done every so often: I use Windows LiveOneCare.
Tried Avast
jeu 02 oct 2008 11:36:15 UTC — BobJamI agree with you . . . the Avast interface DOES stink. That's one of the reasons I switched to Avira's AntiVir. That's in keeping with my notion to go with whatever you're comfortable with. Out of AVG, Avast, (I tried them both), and AntiVir, I have been most comfortable with the AntiVir GUI.
Interfaces and Speed....
ven 03 oct 2008 16:53:34 UTC — T3KKI am not convinced the interface or indeed the speed is that important when it comes to securing your data. The only consideration we should be making is how accurate the AV software detects the nasties. As stated earlier, Avast! has for years proven itself to be one of the very best. AVG is very popular but it lets way too many trojans, viruses, and worms through to be really regarded as anything other than a placebo.
Three considerations
ven 03 oct 2008 19:58:33 UTC — BobJamThere are three elements to consider here relative to evaluating a particular antivirus program's efficiency.
First, as T3KK says, the detection rate.But I disagree that this is the only consideration, or even the primary considerationas long as you stick with the mainstream vendors(as I said in my previous post). And here's why (again, as I said in my previous post): ALL the mainstream vendors are within percentage points of detection rates.To support that argument, take a look at some
independentcomparative reviews . . . which I'll cite in a moment. The key here is the word "independent". Not the company sponsored or clearly biased comparisons that I see out there. By "independent", I mean that they have no interest at all in who wins or to test only the areas a certain AV will do well in. Totally unbiased tests are rare to find and the AV areana is no exception. Many vendors sponsor reviews that are of course favorable to their product . . . the fox guarding the chickens. To get an accurate comparison, you need to get a review that isNOTbiased or backed by a particular vendor.About 95% of reviews are vendor sponsored, and thus, IMHO, biased. PC Magazine, for example, conducts reviews all the time. But vendors advertise in that magazine, so an unfavorable review would put advertising revenue in jeopardy. Not that PC Magazine DOESN'T publish unfavorable reviews for some advertisers . . . they do . . . but I wouldn't use their results to support my argument. I think independent reviewers that don't have any stake in the outcome are just more credible.
OK . . . those independent review sites:
AV Comparatives at http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.html?http://w...
If you scroll down and get the August 2008 test (in .pdf format), you'll see that the mainstream antivirus programs (particularly AVG, Avast, and Antivir), are all within a few percentage points of each other. Indeed, AVG has a rating of 97.5%, hardly what I would think of as a program that "
lets way too many trojans, viruses, and worms through to be really regarded as anything other than a placebo"(BTW, even though the tests were done on the premium paid versions, the free versions use EXACTLY the same scan engine, so the results would be essentially the same).
And AV Comparatives is a site that is well known and thought of highly on the Wilders security site.
Another independent reviwer is Virus Bulletin at http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?disp...
(If you do a Whois search on that site, you might find out that they occupy the same building as Sophos, nevertheless they are independent of any revenue from Sophos or any substantial connection to them).
Now Virus Bulletin's test results are simply "pass/fail", but again all the mainstream products have "passed".
Second, I think another consideration is how the product functions on YOUR machine.Since no two machines are alike, in both config and software installed (nevermind platforms), this may account for T3KK's bad experience (I assume) with AVG. On some machines, a particular antivirus program can either function efficiently . . . or not. This is the main reason you will see different people recommending one instead of another (or bashing some products), and why AntiVir works for me . . . it may not for YOU. Which is why I say "another consideration is how the product functions on YOUR machine".And finally, my third consideration is comfort level. If you don't like a particular GUI because it's hard to navigate for you, then you are more likelyNOT to use it. And you might as well not have ANY antivirus if you're not going to use it.And as far as "
how accurate the AV software detects the nasties" goes, some may miss what others catch, which is why I say to run on line scans periodically. On line scans are a good way to detect what your local protection may miss. And they ALL miss some things . . . no protection is 100% accurate.Personally I like AVGfree
ven 03 oct 2008 18:25:22 UTC — EdtheAminalI use AVGfree on my other computer. It has caught everything so far which I cannot say about Mcafee or Norton. It was Mcafee That I used mainly, before it let spyaxe onto my computer. AVG along with Microsoft Defender have virtually stopped everything malicious from gaining an access into my computer
May the Good Lord keep you always in His loving arms!
Use your brain first! Infected computer is always users fault
jeu 06 nov 2008 04:28:44 UTC — Jadeyesnot antivirus program! Think what you doing, what you downloading and from where. If you downloading torrents, cracked programs, opening every web page, every link in email so what do you expect? Clean system??? No antivirus program event the dearest one will not protect you from your irresponsible and rash behavior.
Infected computers are not always the user's fault
lun 20 avr 2009 10:36:36 UTC — JustAMomI do hope that we can collectively begin to recognize that even though many have problems because of the questionable sites they visit and lack of caution, there are ample situations in which users can become infected through no fault of their own.
There are more and more high profile sites that have either been hacked or their advertising partners are serving malware infested ads that can cause drive-by downloads. Advanced users who are knowledgeable enough to use a good layered approach to internet security, may be protected, while the average person may not be.
Add to that, the fact that there are always new techniques employed in various forms of malware, and you now have things like fake antivirus scans that download and possibly install even when you click on the "close" or "cancel" buttons on the screen. Not everyone knows that suspicious screens need to be closed through the Task Manager or some other method.
JustAMom
lun 20 avr 2009 10:39:14 UTC — cod head (non vérifié)I agree with you.When everyone starts out on any endeavor they are green at first.New users are the most vulnerable.Wisdom comes through time and problem solving.You learn by your mistakes and we all have made some at some point.All we can do to help them is point them in the right direction and not say I told you so.(G.O.M.with Honours).
I am an Expert
lun 20 avr 2009 14:24:17 UTC — YoKennyI am an Expert
I think I have made just about every mistake with computers that anyone could make but it has been a great learning experience.
I started using PCs when IBM first delivered their first PC way back in the early 80's as I was fortunate to be in IBM support for them when they cost about $5000 and only had 2 5.25in floppies and 16K RAM that ran MSDOS 1.1 and IBM brought out PC-DOS.
I became aware of viruses and the harm they could do and how hard it was to remove some of them and what to do to prevent them from invading the system as IBM came out with there own anti virus but it did not last long.
My latest experience I am getting is to do a complete install of my Vista system as it has begun to act really weird in that Explorer keeps crashing and I have to use System Restore to return to when it did not crash but now when I install an application Explorer crashes.
It is a miserable day with rain and gusty wind so this is a good time to gain some new experience and to install what I want not all the junk that came installed on it.
Same Engine, Different Signature base
sam 04 oct 2008 11:03:58 UTC — T3KKAlthough the same engines are used, free versions invariably use a cut down signature database, which is why AVG lets too many nasties through. I guess this is because their cut down database is "too" cut down compared to everybody elses. Or, perhaps, they have just cut out too many regular hits so they can find many of the lesser known viruses and miss some of the well known viruses.
The problem with all the free versions except Avast! - or at least this was true last year, not sure about this year as I haven't had any contact with them this year, but out of all the free companies, Avast! used a different engine but the same signature base - they were much slower but because of their passive background scanning you never can tell when you are being scanned unless you take a proper look. AVG can tie up hard drives of lesser powerful machines, or those which are being used for complex tasks.
Indeed, how a product performs on your particular rig is important, but as we can only give advice and suggestions on how the software performed on our equipment this is what we have to do. The only AV software I have had no problems or complaints against is a commercial package which costs a bomb in licenses... but it is very effective. However, we were really looking at free options and OneCare. Between AVG and OneCare I would go for OneCare hands down the better product.
Of course all AV products miss somethings sometimes, what I was eluding to was consider how often a particular product fails to catch the viruses - the more often the fail, the more to avoid them.
Good AV saoftware should run independently of the user, far too many users do not know how to schedule complex tasks, or even how viruses work. The software does not need to be told to scan, it should always be scanning. Scanning after you have been infected is a little pointless. So, again I would not be that interested in the interface. It has been so long since I looked at my AV software interface I am not even sure what it looks like again. That goes for the Windows, Mac and Linux based packages.
But you are correct in that, for some people they need to see what is happening, they need to see the virus scanner in action, counting through the files, showing what its found or not found and how long it has to go. I personally, like to be told by my software that a file I have only half downloaded is dangerous, that the web site that I am trying to open is attempting to push a trojan or worm at me... I like these things to happen in advance of the files getting on my machine, and this can only really happen if the AV runs without the intervention of the user which means the UI is irrelevant.
But nice post though.
Main AV this year.
mar 07 oct 2008 11:31:51 UTC — AthloniteYour help is always needed.
Hey Everyone!!
Would just like to add a few points of my own. As Bobjam pointed out , Two AV
running in real time will definitely cause hardship to your PC. They will conflict
resulting in no protection whatsoever. You can have a real time AV and a stand alone for back-up with no problem. The one I always suggests as back-up is
DrWebCureIt. This one does not require an install and the version you download is always the up-dated version. I have been using it in XP and Vista along with Avira
AntiVir for a couple of years with no side effects and since there is no install, there
is also no resources lost.
Two good sites were mentioned for a independent review of the best AV for 2008 in both detection rate and prevention. The first being AV-Comparatives and the second is
Virus Bulletin. One site that was missed though is the matousec firewall challenge which describes the best firewall in the paid and free versions.
You also forgot to mention AntiSpyware / AntiMalware which has a different signature data base for detecting such pests as Vundo and CoolWebSearch
along with other nasties.
For those we use SUPERAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes AntiMalware. They are
highly recommended by such malware fighting sites as AumHa.org , Malware
Removal.com , CastleCops.com and obviously, MalwareBytes.org. They are free
to download and can be up-dated manually every day. You also have the option to purchase for real time security.
On the web browser front , Firefox is one of the safest but not the only one. We must not forget Opera which does a admirable job. there are a myriad of add-ons
for Firefox and one that was mentioned is AdBlocker. Another one would be
the NoScipt add-on.
If you still insist on using IE6 or 7 or the Beta 8 then, do yourself a favor and install IE7Pro. It has a long list of enhancements along with AdBlockers and
FlashBlocker.
In summing up this letter size post , you will need
ONE AntiVirus
ONE AntiMalware
ONE Firewall
ONE good and safe browser with WOT
ONE good back-up scanner
and , of course,
A safe browsing habit
With these tools at your disposal , you should have a good surfing experience.
ATHLONITE
my opinion
mar 07 oct 2008 21:13:06 UTC — Alex_The_ScorpioRemove it all and just install ESET NOD32 or ESET Smart Security - it will be the best solution
the best antivirus
mar 07 oct 2008 21:26:21 UTC — outlaw911i recommend you use nod 32 antivirus or avira antivir they are the best nod 32 uses the less resources from your computer they both have the best virus detection rate if you have more resources to use you should try eset smart security it also uses very little resources but more than just the antivirus nod 32 they are the same company avira uses more resources but it is light
I really think One Care is a
mer 08 oct 2008 04:43:57 UTC — go4th88I really think One Care is a very good program. I have used AVG for years and i used One Care for one week and got rid of AVG.
Unsubscribing from One Care
lun 20 avr 2009 08:55:17 UTC — richard142I subscribed to One Care before I had fully explored the installed firewall within Windows Vista. One Care automatically renewed my subscription after one year and I don't know how to unsubscribe now. Plus I'm using a different computer.
Any tips please!
Many thanks.
Richard142
One Care
lun 20 avr 2009 10:16:00 UTC — cod head (non vérifié)As far as I know onecare is changing its name to morrow and is becoming free this year.To unsubscribe do not pay them.If they took your money out of direct debit put in a complaint to microsoft to say you no longer want onecare and could they give you a refund.Then uninstal it.(G.O.M.with Honours).
Hey Richard !! (LiveOneCare)
mar 21 avr 2009 21:34:05 UTC — AthloniteOk, upon doing a little bit of research on your part , I was able to find a Forum for this purpose. IF you Register as a member, post your concern . (it has to be posted first) in the thread which I will post , you can then , E-mail the Moderator of this forum who will then help you with your cancellation.
But first , I would suggest you try out the suggestions for reaching the Support for Live OneCare.
Here is the thread for the cancellation of your subscription :
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/onecarege...
There is one of the members who gives a description of how it worked for him but, BE SURE TO USE INTERNET EXPLORER. Sorry abut the caps but , this has to be the way you do it.
IF you scroll down to the LAST post , you will see instructions for sending the Moderator of the forum a E-Mail so he can promptly help with your situation.
he is also a MVP .Please , be as precise and give as much information as possible.
I hope you can resolve this issue. If you have any questions or concerns then, I will do my best to help out.
Athlonite.
Your help is always needed.
They are all top-tier AV
jeu 09 oct 2008 17:28:08 UTC — lordpakeThey are all top-tier AV software.
Just have a look at the AV-Comparatives link provided earlier. All those software represent the best of breed in AV software. It is up to the user to find the one that suits his/hers need most, and that has the best 'feel' in it.
Commercial versions usually have some advantages over Free versions, one key difference often is access to official support.
"Men make good pets."
Better brevity
jeu 09 oct 2008 19:16:53 UTC — BobJamHey lordpake,
My compliments to your ability to compress. You said in one short paragraph what it took me to say in several.