Slashdot Mirror


Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices?

iamjoltman writes "I've been looking to replace the McAfee anti-virus on my parent's XP machine. So, I've been looking at the three free anti-virus choices, AVG Free Edition, avast! Home Edition and AntiVir Personal Edition. I know there are other options, but I believe any others are only on-demand scanners, and that's not an option. So, what does the Slashdot crowd think is the best of these choices? Keep in mind, I'm only looking in anti-virus, I'll go elsewhere for firewall or malware protection."

499 comments

  1. Oblig: ClamAV by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd reccommend clamAV for windows or clamwin, both are windows ports of the excellent GPLd clam AV.

    But I'm also going to make an obligatory dig at windows. Consider downloading some software that means you wont have to run anti-virus software.

    (Staying true to my username, I would also like to reccommend os x, but as it's not available for download, and requires new hardware, I won't).

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by essdodson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you've ignored everything that the requestor said he wanted in a product. Good job.

      --
      scott
    2. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by jawtheshark · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you missed: I believe any others are only on-demand scanners

      ClamAV is an on-demand scanner. Do not despair: with WinPooch, you can make it a resident scanner. Alas, I only read about it here on slashdot and didn't try it myself. Anyone here knows how good it is?

      I personally use AVG Free Edition and it works just fine. It's non-intrusive and does its work well. That's the reason why I didn't uninstall it to try out WinPooch.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Problem ClamAV for windows does only triggered scans and will not do an active on access scan yet.

      I also would be all over it if it did the Processor sucking on access scanning that the other virus scan products do.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by h2g2bob · · Score: 1

      I use ClamAV when I'm on windows, but I find it's quite slow to do a scan compared to the other propriotory (read symantic) AVs.

      ClamAV also lacks (I think) "real-time" protection, whatever that means. Of course this "real time" protection makes your PC go slower all the time.

      I'm also not sure how good the scan is on ClamAV for viruses that hide themselves. While ClamAV won't put a rootkit on your PC (unlike the propriotory model), I'm not sure if it'd pick up a virus hidden in one or in the BIOS or something.

      Of course ClamAV is FREE, which is important considering how much the alternatives are.

      Finally, by far the best protection is education, at least with viruses. Don't trust anything on the net, don't just click yes, blah blah.... That's worth at least 100 AVs

    5. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I don't mean this to be a flame, but since detection rates are generally more important than software license in these cases due to the risk one would take with a subpar AV, I wonder if there's any statistics on detection rates that include clamAV?

      Again, I'm not looking to discredit the tool, because I love OSS as well. Actually, one could say it would be a way to in the future credit it. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      I think you missed: I believe any others are only on-demand scanners

      But, it's not the scanner's job to schedule scans, or monitor changed directories/files. There are other programs for that. The scanner could just as easily scan the results of an IDS. The OP probably doesn't see the benefits of have a collection of more "narrow-minded" tools that can work together.

      I apologize for not knowing windows enough to suggest a solution using a scheduler and filesystem monitor. I think this is a more ideal solution, because you are not putting all of your eggs in one basket. I personally would not trust any scanner that wasn't open source.

    7. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by i621148 · · Score: 4, Informative
      after you install clamwin:

      open notepad and paste the below,

      # Save this as C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin\freshclam.conf
      DatabaseMirror database.clamav.net
      MaxAttempts 3
      then do as the first line suggests and save it in the location.

      then open notepad and paste the below,
      echo off
      cls
      echo Clam Scan Open Source Virus Detection and Removal Script
      chkdsk /f /r
      cd C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin
      freshclam --datadir="C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\.clamwin\db" --config-file="C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin\freshclam.conf"
      clamscan --database="C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\.clamwin\db" --recursive --verbose --bell --remove C:\
      echo .
      echo beginning hard drive maintennance...
      defrag c: -v
      shutdown -r

      save this as tune_up.bat somewhere and click on it when you
      are done with your work everyday.

    8. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by dunxd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Research documented at Linux Pipeline showed that ClamAV did a lot better at responding to new viruses than any of the paid for apps, which is pretty cool. I have tried WinPooch and ClamWin on my PC. Gave up after a week. It gave so many warnings when I ran anything that I couldn't tell what was legitimate and what was nasty. Too many false positives means you end up ignoring all warnings. The lack of documentation just had me scratching my head. It seems to me that WinPooch does much the same as Spybot's TeaTimer, but a lot more intrusive. Can't really say whether the on-access av scanning worked. I didn't find much to have faith in with WinPooch. Shame as ClamAV would clearly be the best option if only it did on access scanning. Who can rely on on-demand scans in these days of 500Gb hard drives anyway? DunxD

    9. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
      ClamAV also lacks (I think) "real-time" protection, whatever that means. Of course this "real time" protection makes your PC go slower all the time.


      "Real-time" or "on-access" scanning means that files are scanned when the OS attempts to access them, as opposed to when you explicitly request ("on-demand") or schedule a scan. It does have the effect of slowing the machine. In my experience, it's also invaluable if the system isn't being operated by someone who is going to spend considerable energy policing their own machines.

      On-demand scans won't protect you, for example, from software which invisibly installs on your system without your knowledge (say, via e-mail, courtesy of MS Outlook). Once installed it can disable your AV, meaning that an on-demand scan won't detect it.

      Don't pooh-pooh on-access scanning.
    10. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Seeing how clamwin has autoscheduling and integration with Outlook to autoremove virus, it goes beyond on demand scanning.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    11. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by i621148 · · Score: 1

      also if anybody knows how to make the chkdsk /f /r
      work without answering yes, it would make the script better.

    12. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      ClamAV is an on-demand scanner. Do not despair: with WinPooch, you can make it a resident scanner. Alas, I only read about it here on slashdot and didn't try it myself. Anyone here knows how good it is?

      I use it on my virtualized Windows 2000 Server box running inside Qemu on top of Ubuntu.

      Not sure if it's a result of running under Qemu (and I use kqemu acceleration, BTW) or if it's just the code itself, but WinPooch seems to take a long time to start up, but once it does the performance hit doesn't seem too bad.

      The only thing is that it seems to turn up a bunch of false positives. I think it might be due to ClamWin returning some result code, but a lot of times WinPooch will popup even when ClamWin hasn't detected anything (and it says right in the report window that 1 file(s) were scanned and 0 viruses were dectected.)

    13. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by sunandsea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No OS should go without antivirus software. A lot of people are going to get caught with their pants down when some virus writer decides they want to write a nasty one for Linux. Security through obscurity isn't really security.

    14. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use echo Y | chkdsk /f/r

    15. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by erktrek · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Winpooch does more than just ClamAV it also monitors processes via API Hooking.

      For me most of the warning popups occur when (un)installing apps - which is what I want. I believe you can set your own filters to mitigate this behavior.

      Winpooch seems like a great app. I've been running it for a while with no major complaints. Not sure how good it is for non-tech users though. Also it would be nice to get some stats on how effective it + ClamWin really is.

      E.

    16. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      > Consider downloading some software that
      > means you wont have to run anti-virus software.

      Like free vms? http://freevms.free.fr/indexGB.html

    17. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Linux isn't obscure anymore, so your statement fails.

      There is a mindset difference when it comes to security - user accounts that don't NEED Admin access, Not autoexecuting everything in sight, etc. The Mac does well in this regard too.

      Other advances such as selinux are making a difference too.

      Maybe, some day, Microsoft will start taking security seriously, but they have only given it lipservice to date.

    18. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      No OS should go without antivirus software. A lot of people are going to get caught with their pants down when some virus writer decides they want to write a nasty one for Linux. Security through obscurity isn't really security.

      Well, to date the record says otherwise. More people on OS X have suffered because of tragically faulty anti-virus software from major vendors than from malware. Furthermore, most OS's that don't rhyme with "Kin-blows" have low enough density to make propagation slow unless very well targeted or multi-platform. They have fewer openings for attacks. They have a stronger security community to detect attacks quickly, and they have faster fixes for both vulnerabilities and exploits. Attackers, are motivated to hit big targets and most have a very narrow skill set based entirely upon Windows.

      Most alternate OS users are better off with some general tools (application level firewalls or even MAC) that mitigate the problem and make the user aware in general, rather than traditional signature based anti-virus. Enough people have been burned by constantly running a anti-virus application with no signatures installed on it, that slows down their machine and damages files all by itself. Until there are some signatures, it is mostly pointless.

      Now I'm not saying security measures are a bad idea, but most of the pro-anti-virus stuff and scary press stories you hear originate from companies trying to make a buck, not solve a real problem.

    19. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      But I'm also going to make an obligatory dig at windows. Consider downloading some software that means you wont have to run anti-virus software.

      Every computer needs antivirus software, period. Sure, Linux hasn't been the target that Windows has because it has been a niche product. The same used to be true of Macs, but now we are beginning to see viruses for OSX. And since OSX is so close to Linux, one has to wonder how long it will be before we start seeing Linux viruses. If you truly think that you are immune from viruses simply because of the OS you run, then you are deluding yourself.

    20. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      Windows does have a task scheduler. I haven't found it to be nearly as useful as cron, but it will run batch files so you can set that to run in the evening automatically.

    21. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Linux, if a virus were known well enough to detect it, the fix would be applied to the kernel or related application. The only point of having a 'virus scan' against known patterns is to catch the ones that the OS or application vendor doesn't bother to fix.

    22. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by i621148 · · Score: 1

      that actually works really well but you have to remove the chkdsk line...

    23. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by javanree · · Score: 1

      First of all, there's no single Linux... with the big differences between distro's (not to mention Linux vs *BSD) it's hard to target any major Linux group. Even if they all ran distro Linux-XYZ, some will run a plain XYZ, others patch it, some stay up-to-date, others never update. Linux is a much more moving target to hit... exploits are patched rapidly, and it's already more secure by design. For any serious damage you'll need (local) root. Hardly anybody is stupid enough to run under root all the time, so if user X get's infected, only stuff user X owns gets nuked (again, unless he IS root, in which case he deserves to die; as unpleasant as possible even) So anybody that adheres to the common safety rules that have been part of the UNIX world for dozens of years already has one major defense layer up and running. But even though, I agree the BSD/*NIX world needs to be pro-active wrt security, and have anti-spam/virus measures / firewall and such in place anyway. Better safe than sorry!

    24. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Malc · · Score: 1

      Does it work like a Windows app, or does feel like a UNIX port? I can't stand the latter, no matter how good they are, and they often involve more work and maintenance.

    25. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Linux virus list
      The following are viruses in the Linux Group:

      Linux.OSF.8759
      Linux.RST
      Worm.Linux.Adm
      Worm.Linux.Cheese
      Worm.Linux.Mighty
      Worm.Linux.Ramen
      Worm.Linux.Slapper

      Then there is the long history of sendmail relay installs, kernel exploits, apache exploits, etc that had to be manually patched via someone in systems administration keeping track of bugs and current versions of every package installed.
      My last job as a system admin involved tracking down the source of their virus problems. It turns out, samba shares were where 100% of them were hosted because the previous admin thought the same way. It turns out, the samba share WAS propagating the spread of the virus infestation passively by infecting a client when they opened a file then infecting every other file that client opened on the server.
      ClamAV on the Samba shares as well as a strict workstation virus update policy resolved this problem. All of the Windows servers had antivirus on them all set up for automatic updates.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    26. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by disasm · · Score: 1

      I agree clamwin is good, even though it isn't interactive, it can sorta be made interactive with the web browser with ClamWin Antivirus Glue for Firefox, and as a tech, the best thing about clamwin over any other antivirus program I've tried is it e-mails me so my clients don't even need to bother doing scans. It does a scan every night, e-mails me if it finds something, I remote in and fix it, send client a bill with the log file it e-mailed me. Works really great! Clam Mail is a pop3 proxy that will scan all incoming mail as well, so even though clamav is minimal in just scanning, it's easy to plugin to other apps. Also, clamwin is over 80% done with realtime scanning feature so it won't be long!

    27. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What is your point? You neither contradict any of the points I made, nor address the topic directly. Yes, there is malware for Linux and for OS X. That does not make the statement that all OS's should be running anti-virus software a truism. For the last four years, if you've been using OS X, you have been safer not having anti-virus software installed.

    28. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      With Linux, if a virus were known well enough to detect it, the fix would be applied to the kernel or related application. The only point of having a 'virus scan' against known patterns is to catch the ones that the OS or application vendor doesn't bother to fix.

      You make the mistake of equating a virus with an exploit of a security hole. They are usually two different things. But assuming that they were the same thing, and assuming that the kernel or application is patched as soon as possible, there is no guarantee that everybody can (or would) update the application or kernel (or at least do so immediately).

    29. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by spun · · Score: 1

      Works like a windows app, systray integration and everything.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    30. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      Like free vms? http://freevms.free.fr/indexGB.html

      Why did you waste your time posting that URL? I checked-out "FreeVMS" and found the web page hasn't been updated in three years. Most of the vital parts of the OS are "not started - people needed".

      I used to make a very good living managing OpenVMS systems so I'm pretty familiar with that OS. I wouldn't waste ten seconds downloading that piece of crap (freevms).

    31. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by in10d · · Score: 1

      Why the hell chkdsk & defrag everyday? You are wasting your hard drive this way.

    32. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I have been using AVG Free on 2 machines for more than a year without problems.
                                      Gene

    33. Re:Oblig: ClamAV by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Schedule the scans via root/Administrator, then don't worry as a virus will have to gain elevated permissions to infect the machine, and if it can do that, it's probably a trojan anyhow, so you have worse things to worry about.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  2. Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    This is the best free anti-virus product by far.

    I'll go elsewhere for firewall or malware protection.

    No need...the above link has that covered, too.

    Seriously, though, what exactly do your parents use the XP machine for? Is there a particular reason an alternate, less susceptible OS wouldn't suffice?

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by murrdpirate · · Score: 0

      Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux.

    2. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is OT but though I think your post is amusing, I personally cannot run linux. I'd rather go to a MAC first. I do a ton of music and linux doesn't cover things like Cubase or Professional sound editing software.

    3. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like my mum then it has to be Windows i'm afraid. Yes Ubuntu or another noob distro (No disrespect meant, i use Dapper) would solve the virus/malware problem - but my mum wants to learn how to use a pc. She can learn Windows for Free at the local library &or community centre. If she wanted to learn linux she would need to pay for books and wouldn't have anyone but myself to ask about it. Maybe one day, but for lots of people in the same boat it has to be Windows.

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    4. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My mother and brother can't handle using Firefox instead of IE; I really can't see them coping with Linux rather than Windows. (My father, on the other hand, is perfectly happy with FF, as is my fiancée now that she's stuck with it for a while)

      Is there a particular reason an alternate, less susceptible OS wouldn't suffice?

      Blah blah only a matter of time blah blah no OS can save your machine from a rogue user with the root password blah blah.

      Seriously, the vast majority of viruses and other malware are user-initiated; true worms (that exploit holes in server/daemon processes) are very rare. Linux will save you from the former only as long as it's obscure. Security through obscurity, and all that...

      (Cue over-rated and troll mods)

    5. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux.

      And why not? They couldn't understand it any less than they understand XP...and since they don't understand how to defend themselves from viruses and malware either Linux makes more sense for them.

      The only reason they aren't on Linux right now is because they're still connecting via dialup (They live in northern lower Michigan), and to date, I've been unsuccessful in getting their dialup to function reliably under Linux. If I can resolve that issue, or if they make the move to DSL (recently made available), they will run Linux, and I will sleep better at night.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    6. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux.

      If my mom didn't need Windows for work, I'ld totally put Linux on her PC. I gave Linux to my technology-clueless best friend, and she's doing just fine. Linux has really made big stides in usability over the past few years, and I'ld recommend anyone who's clueless about Windows (and thus likely to download massive amounts of malware) to switch to Linux.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    7. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Mac perhaps. Linux no.

      People love shinies, Flash gives them those shinies, Linux's Flash plugin is bollocks. That and mplayer and xine both having terrible, eye splitting guis make it a nono.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    8. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by b17bmbr · · Score: 0, Troll

      this isn't too bad either.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    9. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I do some volunteering work teaching people how to use the free computers we're giving them. Unless the user has requested them to be blank, the machine they receive runs a linux distro. (Mandrake 9.1 for some mysterious reason, but still...) Every single user seems to get along fine.

    10. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what some people love to say, linux - or any other option - is NOT for everybody.

      On the other hand, it is for a lot more people than those people believe, I'd say.

    11. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by manusmc · · Score: 1

      ...and you should totally use a dictionary

    12. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by jimicus · · Score: 1

      How many of them are still running the OS you sent them out with?

    13. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      People love shinies, Flash gives them those shinies, Linux's Flash plugin is bollocks.

      That's funny...Flash is one of the few things on Linux that hasn't given me grief.

      That and mplayer and xine both having terrible, eye splitting guis make it a nono.

      You might want to take a look at some of the flashier frontends out there, like Kaffeine and amaroK. Both of these were available in my OpenSuSE installation, and they look great and work great.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    14. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      I do some volunteering work teaching people how to use the free computers we're giving them. Unless the user has requested them to be blank, the machine they receive runs a linux distro. (Mandrake 9.1 for some mysterious reason, but still...)

      Mandrake 9.1!? You so need to get them Ubuntu or Mepis, or at least a recent version of Mandriva. Even then, I'm sure as soon as you go away they'll get the neighbor kid to pirate Windows for them, but you could at least try to give them something modern and useable.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    15. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Oh it's easy to install, it's just that the plugin is of such pisspoor quality (a/v sync issues mostly) than it's not worth it.

      I know about Kaffeine and AmaroK, they're good enough, but there's still a lot to be desired.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    16. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by MarkByers · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is the best free anti-virus product by far.

      It's a bit risky mentioning 'the Other operating system' on a story which only Windows users need to read. They have safety in numbers here.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    17. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by MooUK · · Score: 1

      It's not my choice. And some of them do take PCs with nothing on ready for them to install windows. Most of the people we give the linux machines to seem perfectly happy to stick with what we give them, particularly when we point out that it's free. They don't care what they use so long as it works.

    18. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by MooUK · · Score: 1

      The ones who are planning to put Windows on generally take a blank machine, not a linux machine. We give them the option.

    19. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      First of all, I recommend Avast! If they're running Win 98 or (heaven help them) Me, Avast! won't work so I recommend AVG. But I also recommend Win Patrol; it blocks a hell of a lot of spyware as well as most of the kind of malware (trojans, etc) that can download themselves into your system just while you're online.

      "Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux."

      Indeed, they should try Xandros. I've tested several of the easy-to-use distros and I think it's the easiest and most user-friendly. And as I said quite recently, explaining the difference between root and a regular user account and pointing them to the Xandros is much easier than trying to teach novice Windows-users about computer security. When will people learn that Windows is not really easier to use but simply presents the illusion of being easier to use? It should be pretty obvious that it's just an illusion as soon as system is infected with malware to the hilt because the novice user simply installed whatever came with their computer, ususally McAffee or Norton's (both of which suck like black holes, in my experience). Most novice users don't even realize that anti-virus won't protect against spyware and vice versa. Take my word for it, fixing problems like that is my job.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    20. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny...Flash is one of the few things on Linux that hasn't given me grief.

      Then why the hell would you recommend it to someone who doesn't want to spend half their life dealing with grief from everything other than flash?

    21. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Twat. Sorry, couldn't resist it.

      He asked specifically for AV software. Chiming in with linux doesn't make you look good or even further the linux movement one iota. It just pisses people off.

      And, maybe, he wants his folks to download whatever software they want off the net. Maybe some Sudoku software, or genealogy or whatever. Linux isn't for everyone. In fact, Windows is more suitable for many, many people than linux simply is not. No amount of fanboyism or selective representation can skew that (though I'm sure someone will try).

      Assume that someone using an OS is using it because they want to. Assuming otherwise means you think they're an idiot.

    22. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your karma whoring know any bounds?

    23. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Brainiac, check how your "karma whore"'s post is modded.

      Then tell us again how "karma whoring" works, idiot.

    24. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is OT but IE Tab is an excellent extension for FireFox. Just click on the little icon on any FF unfriendly sites and it uses the IE engine for that page. Right-click and you can save the preference so that everytime you go back there, it's loaded with the IE engine. It also lets you open an IE windows a la the IE View extension.

    25. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Slithe · · Score: 1

      So what is so non-usable about Mandrake 9.1? That was my first Linux Distro, and I found it to be very usable, much more so than any other one since then. DrakX could repartition my FAT32 partition (I do not know if it could repartition NTFS, but I would not be surprised), it gave me a nice selection of packages to choose from, it autodetected and set-up my sound card, network card, parallel-port printer, and it seemed to have a sane desktop layout. It was a little slow, but I think that problem could be solved by modern hardware (well, more modern than my 1.5 GHZ Pentium IV with an Asus K8N-E mobo, 256 MB RAM, and an Nvidia Riva TNT2 {I have since upgraded to a MUCH more modern system}). The only problem is that you have to pay for upgrades, and some of the packages were not the latest, although they seemed to be stable, which is what desktop users want anyway.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    26. Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all attempts are successful, fuck face.

  3. Linux? by Who235 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But seriously, I like Antivir. I think it makes catches that others miss. The newest version seems a little bloated, but I have always liked their product.

    1. Re:Linux? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Antivir is quite nice, but until recently it suffered from the update servers not being capable of handling the load of the requests - it was next to impossible to update your virus definitions during the day.
      It seems to have improved a bit, but OTOH they added nag screens in the recent releases.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Linux? by koweja · · Score: 1

      AntiVir is good, though the pop up you get everytime it updates is rather obnoxious. Is there a way to disable it?

  4. Elsewhere.. by goldaryn · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, what does the Slashdot crowd think is the best of these choices? Keep in mind, I'm only looking in anti-virus, I'll go elsewhere for firewall or malware protection."

    You going to ask on Digg about those two then? :-)

  5. AVG here.. by the_rajah · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been using the free (as in gratis) version of AVG on all the Windows computers in the family for a long time and have been very pleased with the results.. No successful virus attacks in 9 computers over a period of at least 3 years. The hard part, and this is not specific to AVG, is getting the family members who still use dialup to stay current with updates since some of the downloads take quite a while.

    I can't comment on the other free antivirus programs as I've not tried them.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:AVG here.. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. I recommend AVG to most people I know and haven't had any complaints about it.

      I even know of several instances where it stepped in and prevented potential infections so I would say it has been doing it's job.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    2. Re:AVG here.. by OhRicky · · Score: 1

      I can also attest to the effectiveness of AVG. I haven't tried the others, mainly because of that fact. My experience includes a period of time when I used Kazaa heavily (a practice that I would never recommend to anyone). It did catch viruses and trojans regularly, and my computer has never had damage from virus infection. I've also supplemented that at times with the free online Trend Micro HouseCall scanner, but it never caught anything that AVG didn't.

      --
      -- Statistics are often used as a drunk uses a light pole: For support rather than illumination. --
    3. Re:AVG here.. by twilightzero · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll third this comment also. I use AVG Free at home, my parents use it on their computers, my siblings use it (at my insistence), and the church I run IT for uses AVG Network edition.

      The client is very light and non-intrusive as opposed to some well known others *COUGHNORTONCOUGHSYMANTECCOUGH*. I actually like that every email, both incoming and outgoing, gets a stamp that it was scanned. Lets me know that yes, it's still working properly and lets everybody else know that the email was definitively scanned.

      The corporate network edition we use at the church is definitely VERY nice to work with. For $250 we got 10 licenses, 2 years of updates, and a central administration program. Installation is the easiest I've ever done on any networked antivirus:

      1) Turn on all machines
      2) Install AVG network admin tool on your file server (or any other machine)
      3) Click Services > Install Antivirus, put in the relevant info, click Scan Network, and it will find all the active computers on your subnet.
      4) Select the workstations you want done and click Install.

      It's that simple. I think I installed all 8 workstations in under 5 minutes (and that includes turning them on and waiting for them to boot). You can also very easily set the server admin to download updates and push them out to the clients however often you want so the clients aren't bogging your network down with update requests.

      I haven't used Avast but I've heard both good and bad things about it from other people, but I have yet to hear true negative feedback about AVG (true as opposed to fanboy whining).

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
    4. Re:AVG here.. by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've used AVG free edition a lot, even persuaded my parents to use it.

      In fact, I've even ended up paying for a licensed version at work, rather than the Norton that the company uses...

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    5. Re:AVG here.. by ender- · · Score: 1

      I actually like that every email, both incoming and outgoing, gets a stamp that it was scanned. Lets me know that yes, it's still working properly and lets everybody else know that the email was definitively scanned.

      I LOVE AVG but I turn this off on all my installs. It's just way too easy for someone sending an email virus to add "This email scanned by so-and-so Antivirus" to really be useful at all.

      But I do love AVG, especially the fact that it scans email no matter what client you are using, whereas the McAfee crap that my work wants us to use only integrates and scans email from Outook.

    6. Re:AVG here.. by DarkShadeChaos · · Score: 1

      Interesting... I've also used the network edition and I have one question for you: were the clients XP SP2? If so, you needed to open ports / program access in your firewall. I know because the push feature does not work with the default firewall turned on. Other than that, my experience has been wonderful with AVG. I've only seen a few viruses that it couldn't clean, and at least in those cases it detected them so that I was able to manually remove them.

      --
      The machine unmakes the man. Now that the machine is so perfect, the engineer is nobody. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
    7. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hard part, and this is not specific to AVG, is getting the family members who still use dialup to stay current with updates since some of the downloads take quite a while.

      AVG is perfectly capable of initiating a dialup connection in the middle of the night. I've set up my grandmother's to do just that.

    8. Re:AVG here.. by cixelsyd · · Score: 1

      Another vote for AVG here. We use it on all our in-shop machines, as well as recommend the Pro version for customers who can afford it, and the Free version for those who can't. I have used the Free version at home for several years now with no problems whatsoever.

      --
      Take a dollar, divide it by 100, take two and call me in the morning.
    9. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, I have a genuine bad experience with AVG. This was back in 2003 I think. I was at university on the halls network when one of the big worms infected someone. My windows computer was running Norton at the time, and at any rate I kept a router between me and the university network.

      Every one of my friends that had a pay-for AV program installed had warnings popping up about the worm hitting them, but the payload was stopped from activating. Even the people with Sophos were safe.

      But I had a few friends running AVG. They got infected badly. So I cleaned one up, reinstalled AVG from behind my firewall, got everything patched back up to date and handed it back. AVGs website showed that they had a pattern for this virus. The computer had the latest updates downloaded to it, so I returned it to it's owner. 5 minutes later, it was rooted again.

      Since then, I haven't trusted AVG at all.

    10. Re:AVG here.. by erple2 · · Score: 1

      I've noticed some odd behavior with AVG's Free anti-Virus. It seems that when it notifies you with the fact that it's about to do an update, and has finished an update, it's very focus-grabby. While knee deep in a ZG run in WoW (while playing a full screen game, for those of you that don't understand the previous...), I've noticed that AVG drops me to the desktop to tell me that it's updating, and that it's finished updating. I can still click back on the WoW taskbar and get back, but it's kind of annoying. I also notice the same behavior in Oblivion...

      I'm sure that it's a configurable item somewhere in AVG Free to not "pop up" status to the front of the screen, but I didn't find it (but didn't look that hard). So, I wound up just removing AVG (lazy).

      That's my gaming computer, which I never use for email, never use IE, and rarely (if ever) go to "untrusted" websites. I never use any kind of shareware on that computer, no silly internet games (boggle online?), no screensavers outside of the default Windows one, no free "Icon packs" or any of the sort. While I'm not immune to viruses, I've tried to minimize my exposure.

      Other than the "Extremely Focus Grabby" behavior (which I'm sure is a settable thing), AVG seemed fine.

      Others have rated Avast! as good, and I'm sure there are others.

    11. Re:AVG here.. by Petaris · · Score: 1

      I quite like AVG as well, I like the fact that it has very low overhead for the residential scanner. However it does suck reasources when running the active scan. It is easy to manage and is very acurate, this is what I install if people are in need of an anti-virus software.

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
    12. Re:AVG here.. by wuff · · Score: 1

      I looked at using AVG briefly - but went with AVAST after I actually read the license information for AVG. From their website:

      Grisoft makes available two versions of AVG Anti-Virus: AVG Free Edition and the commercial versions of AVG Anti-Virus.
      Please, note that the AVG Free Edition is available for single home use only. According to our AVG Free Edition license policy, it is strictly prohibited to use AVG Free Edition for:

              * Professional or commercial use (including non-profit organizations),
              * Installation and use on more than one computer per user (single use)
              * Installation and use in a network environment.

      The restriction on use on more than one computer and the prohibition against a networked environment pretty much said - this ain't for you.

    13. Re:AVG here.. by Aliencow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stamped email are so ridiculous, what the hell is to stop a virus from sending an email saying OMG SCANNED BY AVG NO VIRUS IN HERE LOLLLLIPOP!|!!111 nothing. Yeah that's what I thought, so when you stamp your email, you only give false security to the people reading it.

    14. Re:AVG here.. by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

      I've had the exact same experience, but swap pay-for program and AVG.
      In short, I don't think one event is enough to judge a program like that.

      --
      :x
    15. Re:AVG here.. by Mortlath · · Score: 1

      I don't know about changing the "Extremely Focus Grabby" behavior, but couldn't you just schedule the update to run at a time when you are not gaming?

    16. Re:AVG here.. by Malc · · Score: 1

      The certified mail feature is far to annoying and pointless. It's the first thing I turn off. It really wound me up the first time when I noticed it stamping email in a PST of archived work email. Beyond that's it's a waste of space. What purpose does it serve? Absolutely none. Anybody could add such a foot to an email message, including viruses. Don't get me wrong, I like and use AVG, but that's one feature that should be dump. It's as useful as mail servers sending delivery failure message whenever they encouter a virus (hint: the from field is ofter faked).

    17. Re:AVG here.. by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that, but can't say I found a way to disable that behavior. Instead I just set it to update daily at an hour I'm mostly sure I'm asleep (4 am in my case), and then it does a full system scan half an hour later, just in case.. :)

      I tried Avast before going to AVG, but uninstalled it because it seemed to me to take too many system resources when doing something. At least I noticed a half a second delay or something like that when I was gaming anytime the little blue ball spinned on the traybar, so I uninstalled it.

    18. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second the high marks for AVG, the free version I use at home has automatic updates and scheduled scans, takes very little resources, and includes plugins for Outlook (and I presume, Outlook Express) with attachment scanning, and has been nothing but great for me for the past year I've been using it.

      <ebay> "A+++ Highly Recommended Would Download Again! A++" </ebay>

    19. Re:AVG here.. by douthitb · · Score: 1

      I've also been very pleased with AVG. I started using it about 6 months ago. At the time, I was running Norton AntiVirus, and immeditaly AVG detected and removed a virus that Norton had not found. I immeditaly uninstalled Norton, and have been happily running AVG virus-free every since.

    20. Re:AVG here.. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Well I just got done diagnosing and removing a trojan on my mum's machine the hard way because neither AVG nor Spybot Search and Destroy picked it up even with the latest definitions.

      It was running a process msmgs.exe (not msmsgs.exe, which is windows messenger) which was then saturating her dial up connection when she tried to hook herself up to the Internet for the first time. Only way to work out what was happening was to connect, then use netstat to work out there was definitely something suspicious then go through the task list to see what could be doing it. Quite frankly if she didn't have a geek for a son she'd have been in deep doo doo.

      Virus makers are scum. They shouldn't be shot but they should definitely go to jail.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    21. Re:AVG here.. by davmoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what he says. Any time I set up a computer for a relative or a friend, I put AVG on it. Never had any problem other than drilling in to their heads "when it says it wants to update, **LET IT UPDATE**!!". I finally got my mother (dial-up) in the habit of every morning when she first dials up, update AVG...but it took almost a year of constant repitition and bitching to do it :-)

      As I've said a number of times in here, ultimately it does not matter what anti-virus software you use, nor does it matter what OS you use. The most important component in the prevention of virus infections is the device located between the seat of the office chair and the keyboard. You can have the most effective software in the world running on the most secure OS in the world all behind the best firewall in the world, and an idiot can still fuck it up :-)

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    22. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the church I run IT for uses AVG Network edition
      Don't church computers heal themselves? Or are you using a secular virus scanning program to avoid the refrigeration costs for all those loaves and fishes that multiply in the server closet? =8P

    23. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man put that sucker in Windowed Maximized. See how it works for you.

      Running a 9800Pro here. For me alt-tabbing was a tedious procress in Full Screen mode.

      Went Windowed Maximized and have never gone back to Full Screen. Alt-tabbing is swift and painless. Hasn't hurt my frame rate either. No different than alt-tabbing among normal windows apps.

    24. Re:AVG here.. by triso · · Score: 1

      I vote for AVG too. I was impressed with its installation process that didn't require rebooting--unlike Norton whuch required at least three reboots.

    25. Re:AVG here.. by Walzmyn · · Score: 1

      If I boot into Windows, AVG free is there - but I never boot into windows. Something that would be much more of an answer to the guys question is that I've got all the folks around me that ask me computer questions useing it. This would be a lot of people that have trouble useing the power button. You know, the ones that look around for the "any" key. AVG free works for these folks. In that Getting-Stuff-for-the-Parents catagory, user-friendlyness goes a *long* way.

    26. Re:AVG here.. by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      This is a good observation.

      We use XP SP2 at work with CA E-trust AV which is not free, I know, but bear with me - it deploys the same way, by "pushing" out from a server.

      Even with the firewall turned off, we still had to use a registry tweak to turn on remote access for the push to work.

      Of course, then it had to be set back after the push or else it would be the same security risk it originally was with SP1.

      FWIW, I use and recommend AVG Free myself! I heard Intel was buying/thinking of buying/getting in bed with them.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    27. Re:AVG here.. by Danga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      * Installation and use in a network environment.

      Nowhere does it say environment and I highly doubt that was what was intended and more than likely was a typo by the attorney. What is says in the license is "You must not use the program in a network or on more than one computer." If they didn't intend it to be used in a networked environment then why would they even include the internet updater since the internet is the biggest network in the world? The other reason I believe this to be a typo is because if you look at the feature limitations found here http://www.grisoft.com/doc/289/lng/us/tpl/tpl01#Li mitations it says:

      "AVG Free Edition cannot be installed on server operating systems (such as Windows Server 2003), nor can it be used for the scanning of network drives."

      By reading that it looks like they intended "in" to be "over" in the license and that was the attorneys attempt to say you can't use it to scan drives over the network. I think someone should contact them about that (I would but I purchased a license so its a non-issue for me).

      I also don't see a problem with the single computer restriction. If it is going to be used on multiple computers owned by the same person then they shouldn't be a total freeloader and pony up the whole $109/2 years for the SoHo license which gives you 5 licenses so its only $10.90 per computer per year (there is also a 2 user package available). If you can't afford that then how can you afford to have so many computers (both purchase and/or if you got them for free pay for the electricity for all of them)? Also, the single user restriction should not be a limitation for a family that has children and computers for each child since each family member is entitled to their own single user license. This restriction is only an issue for the freeloaders who don't think that maybe the developers of the software might like to be able to eat something besides Ramen noodles all the time.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    28. Re:AVG here.. by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

      Further agreement here. I like AVG, it works unobtrusively, and seems to be diligently updated. So far, in a year, it has allowed me to avoid paying the Windoze av security protection racket; may it put the McAffees and Nortons in the poor house.

    29. Re:AVG here.. by viktor · · Score: 1
      Stamped email are so ridiculous, what the hell is to stop a virus from sending an email saying OMG SCANNED BY AVG [...]

      Hopefully AVG itself prevents such emails from passing. After all, it sees all emails, and can modify all emails. Nothing prevents it from removing any "CLEAN"-stamp on incoming email and replacing it with its own CLEAN/DIRTY stamp. In other words, your objection is IMO a non-issue. Nothing ridiculous about it.

      However, changing message headers is a problem, when the message has been signed. I therefore agree that changing existing headers is not as good a solution as adding a clean/dirty-header is. But it is in no way less safe because of your above idea.

    30. Re:AVG here.. by garwain · · Score: 1

      I tend to work with AVG all the time as well. -Thursday night: A client's machine was taking about 10 minutes to boot (with McAfee) Removing McAfee and installing AVG, the system boots in about 2 minutes -I support several offices using licenced versions of AVG, and have had very few problems. Other offices that I support, who use Trend products, Norton, McAffee, etc seem to call me at least once a month to re-image a machine because of virus problems.

    31. Re:AVG here.. by twilightzero · · Score: 1

      Nope, they were Win2K clients. However, even if they were XP clients I'd have their Windows firewall turned off anyway. That thing annoys me to no end and I never, EVER run it inside a secured environment. I've got a NAT box and a separate firewall/VPN gateway on the incoming side, so I'm decently secure there.

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
    32. Re:AVG here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The client is very light and non-intrusive as opposed to some well known others *COUGHNORTONCOUGHSYMANTECCOUGH*.

      Isn't it incredible how no matter how slow or incredibly fast your computer is, once you install NAV on it, it becomes the same 2-legged-dog slow peice of crap machine that all the other machines running NAV become. You can have the latest, fastest MP Opteron number smasher which runs like a dream and then you install NAV on it and it is suddenly the dribbling-retarded-kid of computers. Slow and falls over a lot.

      It's like they all become "NAV speed" computers or something. Of all the times I've been asked to install NAV, probably 1 out of every 2 somehow goes wrong. Examples like: The installer fails mid-install on the first go and then won't install again until I spend time searching documents at Symantec for error numbers and then downloading one of their VERY MANY custom fix utils for that problem. Or you install, it finishes and then you go about downloading 60 megabytes of updates over dial-up, requiring many reboots in-between, only to find that somewhere in those updates, your install has become completely fucked and Symantec's advice is to re-install. Re-installing of course, does not work without once again scouring their support docs, finding the right one and then choosing the best out of FIVE terrible options to fix their crap (which includes downloading yet another bloody fix util to uninstall their software which won't do it itself). Then you fearfully try again and amazingly, in this finite machine, you find that it worked this time (why?). You get called weeks later because NAV is fucked. Again.

      You try to tell your customers that the free options are actually better, but they apparently don't beleive, perhaps because they spent the money and want to get the full value out of their money or something. 366 days later, they've fogotten your advice and just went out and bought NAV2006 and want you to install it for them. *sigh*

  6. AVG is good by whizkid042 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I've always had good luck with AVG, but YMMV.

    1. Re:AVG is good by LeastWorst · · Score: 1

      The Grisoft product has worked very well on my home machines for several years. It doesn't seem to burn too much CPU. My wife's machine did pick up some sort of malware a few months ago, which it took me a while to clean off, so it's clearly not foolproof. OTO it's certainly worth what I pay for it.

  7. Avast! by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see no need to repeat myself, so I'll just link to my previous post on this subject.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:Avast! by OctoberSky · · Score: 1

      I can only speak of Avast! antivirus in the Windows XP X64 Environment, and I have to say I don't like it.
      It is one of the few AVs that actually support Win XP x64 (at least when it came out) and it was bloated. There were constantly pop-ups and it was a memory hog (again, can't speak for x86 Windows & Avast).
      I mainly got rid of it for the pop-ups, even with notifier off it still told me things that I really didn't care to know, mainly that it was running.

      A good antivirus (IMHO) should start, update and run on its own. Tell you when there is a threat/infection and tell you how to fix it. It isn't the Weather Channel, I don't need the constant updates.

    2. Re:Avast! by fruity_pebbles · · Score: 1

      Avast! is good stuff.

    3. Re:avast! by hobot · · Score: 0

      This is a pretty great antivirus for all the noobs out there, simple, clean interface, looks shiny, and it will also run boot time virus scans if you need it to.

    4. Re:Avast! by IngramJames · · Score: 1

      My only gripe is that the small alert notice that lets you know Avast has been updated does not play well with fullscreen 3D apps. Everything stops for about five seconds, then the framerate drops to about 3 FPS while the box moves on and off the screen.

      I have the exact same gripe about the Firefox Download Manager notification.

      If anyone knows how to prevent this, please feel free to reply here :)

      --
      'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
    5. Re:Avast! by caluml · · Score: 1

      What!? Are you insane? Repost it, and get the karma again - that's what we all do!

    6. Re:Avast! by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      A good antivirus (IMHO) should start, update and run on its own. Tell you when there is a threat/infection and tell you how to fix it. It isn't the Weather Channel, I don't need the constant updates.

      FYI, all notifications from Avast can be turned off in the 32-bit edition, including the "spin-while-it-runs" system tray icon. The system tray icon can be removed entirely in the network-managed version, but I don't know of a way to get rid of it in the Home edition. Although, since Alwil is quite responsive to suggestions posted to their forum, you might suggest it to them if this is important to you.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    7. Re:Avast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can prevent avast from displaying popups when a full-screen game is running.
      See Settings -> Troubleshooting page.

  8. AVG by gowen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I like it. I've used commercial AV before, but the free AVG is as good, or better than those. And it can be set to auto-update and auto-scan.

    I haven't used the other free ones; AVG has never given me a need to switch.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re: AVG by kb0rwi · · Score: 1

      I have used AVG and probably was one of the few sites to recommend AVG along with several other mal-ware applications before the general computer community took note. After 5 years, and many installs on others systems, it runs nicely on all systems and is the least intrusive on your RAM. You can't go wrong removing McAfee and Norton AV - they control your system resources for you.

    2. Re:AVG by bogie · · Score: 1

      Without stating what I currently use now, I'll stand up and say I've used AVG for years. I also of course read a lot of anti-virus test scores, most of which are complete crap btw. The bottom line is what I found was AVG while average in known virus detection is terrible in Heuristic detection. Example http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/chart_test_report/0 ,chid,6214,prodid,27567,00.asp

      So I'm starting to move myself and everyone I know to a new product which by all most reviews does a fanatastic job. For advanced users AVG still might work ok, especially when you consider its low impact on system resources. But for average users I simply can't recommend it anymore.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    3. Re:AVG by gowen · · Score: 1
      virus detection is terrible in Heuristic detection
      That may be. I have no faith in heuristic virus detection at the best of times, so if AVGs is terrible, I simply won't have noticed.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:AVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AVG is as good, or better than those. And it can be set to auto-update and auto-scan.

      Yes, but it won't auto-update unless you are logged on as an administrator. Quite annoying, since security is much improved when you are logged on as a regular user.

  9. RTFSummary by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Informative

    He wants scanners that provide real-time protection, not just on-demand scanning.

    And I've often wondered why Clam doesn't make a real-time protection piece. With all the other stuff they have I figure they're already 97% of the way there, with the AV signature databases and all. I'd use it, or at least give it a try.

    AVG by grisoft is where its at though.

    1. Re:RTFSummary by elmuhfuh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      on top of that he links pirated software.

    2. Re:RTFSummary by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He wants scanners that provide real-time protection, not just on-demand scanning.

      Fair enough, I read it too quickly. However, clamwin can be integrated into outlook & ie (two major vectors), and be setup to run periodically.

      As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:RTFSummary by erktrek · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can use WinPooch in combination with ClamWin to allow for active scanning type goodness.
      Cheers,
      E.

    4. Re:RTFSummary by martinultima · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd have to say I recommend AVG from what little experience I've had working with Windows lately (a couple years ago I ditched my last Windows 98 install for Linux, and haven't had anything Microsoft branded on any of my own machines ever since). Not only is it a very high-quality free virus scanner, it's also got probably the most colorful interface I've ever seen – if you've seen all their Easter Island-ish clipart images, you'll know what I mean. Highly recommended.

      Although if you get tired of Windows, I know this great little Linux distribution that's got your name written all over it... well, maybe not, but it has my name everywhere ;-)

      --
      Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
    5. Re:RTFSummary by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      You are correct - thanks for the link :-)

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    6. Re:RTFSummary by BiggyP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But does it integrate with Firefox and Thunderbird, it's a serious question, i haven't tried clamAV in a while. AVG's personal email scanner solution sits between any mail client(using standard protocols) and the mail servers and performs transparent scanning of messages sent and received, and a very good job it does too.

      ClamAV, well the win32 ports, does look like a promising prjoect and i look forward to seeing a more feature complete version, until then i'm afraid i'll continue to recommend AVG free to non-technical windows users and i might even give the free desktop-linux AVG scanner a quick test at some point.

    7. Re:RTFSummary by japorms · · Score: 1

      Real-time scanning is being worked on by the Clamwin guys. Not sure when it will be released though.

    8. Re:RTFSummary by de+Selby · · Score: 4, Informative

      "As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation."

      For Windows, I've been happily using NOD32. The install file is about 11 meg, the install dir is about 25, and the memory footprint I'm seeing right now is about 16 (and I think I could get it lower by turning off some options). I haven't noticed any delay in booting and I haven't received any false positives. (It's even found things on my system that Norton didn't.) Best of all, the only two times I've ever received a popup were when it actually found a virus/trojan -- and you can even turn that off and have it act on its own.

      The downside, though, is that I don't think it's grandma-friendly; options galore.

      They have a free 30 day trial version if you're game. // That's my product placement for the day.

    9. Re:RTFSummary by skiflyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AVG's personal email scanner solution sits between any mail client(using standard protocols) and the mail servers and performs transparent scanning of messages sent and received, and a very good job it does too.

      Has something changed since I last looked? I thought it was protocol... as in POP3 only, leaving me and my imap solutions out of luck.

    10. Re:RTFSummary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that clamav *does* provide realtime email scanning during reception which is all a reasonably-firewalled system should need.

    11. Re:RTFSummary by kubevubin · · Score: 1

      Have they released a new client update in the last few months? I used to use NOD32, but I began having serious issues with it at one point. I'd download a file (any file), and NOD32's CPU usage would jump to 99% until I deleted the file. I could never get around this issue. It was a shame, too, as I used to recommend NOD32 to everyone. Now, I'm using AVG until I'm positive that NOD32 is fixed.

    12. Re:RTFSummary by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      I haven't had that problem, but a quick search found others. A common solution is to run msconfig, find tcpsvcs.exe, uncheck it, and restart.

    13. Re:RTFSummary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about AVG. It seems pretty good, but I've gotten more viruses over the past few months than I did when I had Norton.

  10. AVG Camp by karrde · · Score: 1, Troll

    I don't know if it's the best, but I'm in the AVG Free camp myself. Auto-updating was big. nice side effect that you can't really turn that part off. I work on family and friends computers, and I've started dropping this on thier computers. Espically when I'm working on them because of a virus. That way I know if I have to work on the computer again, it shouldn't be because they've contracted another virus.

    1. Re:AVG Camp by Shabbs · · Score: 1

      Same here - I alays setup AVG Free and Zone Alarm Free for family and friends. I used to buy Norton Internet Security for my own machine but their 2006 edition was so bad, I moved my own machine to AVG Free and Zone Alarm Free. Much better now. Not as much control on the firewall as I had before, but that's ok.

      --
      Mark
    2. Re:AVG Camp by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Friends don't let friends use Zone Alarm considering their recent history of critical bugs allowing bypass or subversion from outside.

      But since I don't know you, I won't try to stop you. :)

      Still, I recommend checking out Sunbelt (formerly Kerio) Personal Firewall. Sunbelt bought it from Kerio back in December when Kerio was dropping support. It comes with a 30-day full version, and gracefully drops to a free version at the end of the trial (I think there's one notice at the time) where some of the higher-end features are disabled.

      There is an issue with the 4.2 version set, in which some have had with a BSOD when clicking through approvals or denials quickly (maybe a race condition, but I don't know the back-end details), so YMMV, but if you run into it, contact support and they'll provide a link to a development 4.3 version which, to my experience, has not had the problem at all.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:AVG Camp by Shabbs · · Score: 1

      Interesting - I was not aware of the issues with Zone Alarm. I do see they had issues with v6 calling home to a number of servers. Do you have any specific links? I will take a look a Sunbelt as you mentioned. I also see Outpost has free Firewall that is recommended.

      http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpostfree/

      Cheers.

      --
      Mark
    4. Re:AVG Camp by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Secunia has eight listed vulnerabilities, including three of Moderately or Highly Critical status in the last three years or so for ZoneLabs products (mostly parts that are included in ZoneAlarm), and I'm fairly certain that they're missing one or two. It is, of course, better than nothing, but it has lost at least my trust.

      BTW, if you want to test for the BSOD issue that I mentioned, the easiest way is to install a program when the firewall is in learning mode (particularly one that gets files online, like Yahoo Instant Messenger) and click the Approve button as quickly as it appears (and it will appear a lot if you don't allow it to set rules). The solution is to wait for about a second before clicking (hence my suspicion that it's a race condition), but that delay wasn't always stored in my muscle memory. :)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:AVG Camp by pfunk · · Score: 2, Informative
      After I helped my dad manually remove a trojan horse from his computer, I had him uninstall Norton Antivirus (which was completely updated and current) and install AVG Free Edition. The only reason he even found out he had a Trojan Horse to begin with was because Norton crashed every time it tried to fix it. On the first virus scan AVG did, AVG found 4 other viruses that Norton totally missed.

      I have used AVG for a couple years now and whenever I get a new computer or work on a family member's computer, the first thing I do is uninstall the commercial Anti-Virus and install AVG Free Edition

    6. Re:AVG Camp by Danga · · Score: 1

      After I helped my dad manually remove a trojan horse from his computer

      Dang, do you have a personal mainframe or something to be able to fit that trojan horse in? :-)

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  11. AVG by GundamFan · · Score: 1

    I use AVG at home and would recomend the free version to anyone.

    --
    I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
    Mark Twain
  12. AV Comparison by OneFix+at+Work · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would say according to this comparison, AntiVir is the best...and of course, this is the only comparison that really matters...

    1. Re:AV Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
      You aren't allowed to say that! From the site:

      It is forbidden to provide the tables or results in full or in parts on other sites! Please just refer a link to www.av-comparatives.org

      You also aren't allowed to link to anything but the front page, so you are in double-dutch.

      "forum/site admin", please remove the parent post.

      What a crock.

    2. Re:AV Comparison by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's a pretty nice website, and being updated too!

      The AntiVir suggestion goes well with what I've heard too.

      Generally I think many suggest AVG because it's what they've tried, and it works. It somehow seem to be the most used free AV, but I'm not convinced that's founded in detection rates, resource usage, etc. It could be the ZoneAlarm case -- the by far most popular one, but from my experiences, e.g Kerio has interfered with other system/network-close tools far less. I can't count how many times I've heard people complain about Kerio, but this is steering off-topic. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:AV Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) that comparison tested PRO not FREE versions

      2) antivir did NOT have the highest score

    4. Re:AV Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't count how many times I've heard people complain about Kerio

      Bah, last part should be "ZA" of course... :-p

    5. Re:AV Comparison by votum76 · · Score: 1

      That's what I noticed that is PRO who knows how much more code and features are enabled in pro I have depended on avast for years for a number of other people's computers who didn't want to spend the money on norton or mcafee, personally I run norton I download alot and find it provides better protection than any of the free stuff, but for general websurfing and email users I recommend avast and haven't had many problems supporting them since. I combine this with spybot and windows defender as well for spyware for firewall I find windows simple firewall does wonders for simple web and email users.

    6. Re:AV Comparison by mindflux · · Score: 0

      AntiVir and AVK (The one that ranked best on your URL) are completely different products.

      Just FYI.

    7. Re:AV Comparison by king.nerdhome · · Score: 1

      Actually, not to be contrary, the site lists G DATA Security's AntiVirusKit to be the best (in the most recent test), with a report and explanation of the rankings available at http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/r eport09.pdf/.

    8. Re:AV Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it free of charge?

    9. Re:AV Comparison by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, according to the latest on demand scanning test from this site, Norton Anti-Virus scored a very high grade in this test (better even than AntiVir and Avast!) and the highest possible mark (100%) in detection of polymorphic viruses.

    10. Re:AV Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Offtopic? The mods are certainly hitting the crack hard today. The moderations I've seen on this topic have been just strange.

      The cited website does not allow people to put their results on another website (without written permission). Furthermore, it does not allow people to link to any of their pages other than the front page.

      This makes the website pretty worthless as a resource for a discussion on slashdot. Besides, the original +5 Informative posting was confused about which product was rated highest.

    11. Re:AV Comparison by ampathee · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, does anyone know if they have a legal leg to stand on regarding deep linking?

    12. Re:AV Comparison by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      They don't. If they really want to, they can use technical means to stop it, but it is 100% legal.

    13. Re:AV Comparison by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't trust anything that awards McAfee an "Advanced +" certification

    14. Re:AV Comparison by The+Mongoose · · Score: 1

      AntiVir has always blown the doors off AVG and Avast,but the new AntiVir 7 has been giving false positives and not detecting some that Avast and AVG detect.I'd still use it but would recommend using TrendMicro House Call every now and then for a second opinion. I also wouldnt put too much stock in those review sites,they all seem to have a different percentile of detections an antivirus program has from site to site.

  13. AVGfree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I use ezAntivirus, the AVGfree thing, but there was recently a 1 year free promo of the registered version - I dont have the link atm, but that might be worth checking if it's still an active promo.

    It was listed on slickdeals.net if that helps.

    It's MUCH less ressource craving than the norton package it replaces for me ... :)

  14. Does Free Achieve the End Goal? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    That of not only protection but saving the time wasting recovery from infections?

    I don't know the answer on that one.

    1. Re:Does Free Achieve the End Goal? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That of not only protection but saving the time wasting recovery from infections?

      If "free" meant "less effective" then you would have a good point. But it doesn't - The three mentioned in the FP all perform comparably to Symantec, and (from at least one independant review I've seen) considerably better than McAfee.

      Not to mention, they consume FAR lower system resources. At work we run Symantec corporate edition, and I actually need to disable it to burn a DVD rather than a coaster (and I don't run on old or low-end hardware). At home, AntiVir chugs away without making a nuissance of itself or reducing all disc access to a crawl. It also doesn't install six services, two autoruns, and a handfull of TCP/IP stack hijacks, which Symantec does.


      Personally, I long for Clam to support on-demand scanning. But until then... AntiVir wins, with AVG a close second (and the only free on-demand choice for server versions of Windows).

    2. Re:Does Free Achieve the End Goal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At work we run Symantec corporate edition, and I actually need to disable it to burn a DVD rather than a coaster (and I don't run on old or low-end hardware).

      Must be a site-configuration error or a conflict with your software.

      We've used Symantec's corporate edition for 4-5 years now and have never run into such an issue.

      Heck, SAV has been just about as close to painless as we could want in our installation. No muss, no fuss, does its job in the background without constant tweaks or manual intervention.

    3. Re:Does Free Achieve the End Goal? by pla · · Score: 1

      We've used Symantec's corporate edition for 4-5 years now and have never run into such an issue.

      Have you moved to v10 yet?

      If not - Don't.

      v9 worked just fine for us as well. No fuss, no muss, much like you described. Then we switched to 10... Initially it looked good, until we discovered that some of our older laptops (not ancient, just older) had gone from "a bit slow" to "unuseable" the moment we installed the AV client.


      SAV has been just about as close to painless as we could want

      For most of our users, it doesn't cause problems (that they notice) either. But like I said, the big problems we see occur during intense disc I/O... Most noticeably, it kills the power-to-(useable)-desktop time and makes DVD underruns all but certain. And on servers... Ouch! Our poor NAS sits there with rtvscan constantly sucking at least a quarter of the CPU - And that just with on-demand scanning, no "active" scanning at all.

      And yes, we know about the problem with the default configuration where it tries to actively scan network drives, as well as always running rather than waiting for the machine to idle. Even fixing those, it still causes a drastic slowdown.

  15. I just investigates this this week. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was using AVG and my system had been very sluggish. After several spyware scans with Spybot S&D, Ad Aware and Windows Guardian I was comfortable that I had no spyware or adware on my system. So, I decided to try a different virus scanner. I tried Avast first, it located one infected file that AVG did not.

    I removed the file and my system immediately began to run faster. I wondered if AVG missed something, could Avast miss something, so I downloaded and installed AntiVir. AntiVir drove me crazy with all kinds of false positives. AntiVir picked up many security audit tools that I was evaluating as trojans. I'd never be able to use my system if I left it installed. I went back to Avast. For the time being, Avast is my personal virus scanner of choice. Apparently no false positives and it found a virus that AVG did not.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:I just investigates this this week. by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've also seen Avast find things which both Symantec and AVG had missed.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    2. Re:I just investigates this this week. by btrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had the same experience with AVG. Sluggish and not finding anything, I used Trend Micro's online housecall and found viruses. I ditched AVG for Avast and have been pleased with it so far.

      I would be like to hear about the OP other ideas for firewall and malware.

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." --Unknown
    3. Re:I just investigates this this week. by nickname225 · · Score: 1

      I think you have to be careful about this kind of claim. If the virus missed was a new variant, you may just be seeing a difference in updating the virus definitions database. And it might be caused by your database update setting rather than the supplier not having updated their database. And even if it is caused by one vendor being first to market with updated definition - the same company might be second to market another time. I've used both AVG and Avast! and have seen each catch something the other missed...

    4. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Redundancy is the key here. I've had AVG pick up things that other solutions had missed, just as Avast! picks up things that AVG misses -- it seems that no single library is complete.

      My machines are set up with AVG auto-scanning and updating, but about once a month I pop in and do manual scans with other software, which one it is varies month-to-month -- usually Avast or AntiVir. AntiVir, as someone else pointed out, does turn up some false positives -- which is why I only use it as a secondary sweeper when I can devote an afternoon to cleaning machines.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:I just investigates this this week. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Finding one extra virus doesn't necessarily mean it's the better scanner, of course.

      Maybe you just never got one that AVG could detect that Avast! couldn't.

      I think the approach of running multiple virus scanners is the best choice because you're less likely to let one slip through.

    6. Re:I just investigates this this week. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, have the manual filesystem scans every found anything that the normal auto-check stuff missed? Of couse not counting the one time you run it after you install the software for the first time.

      At most it seems like you should only need to run the manual scan after a virus database update, but even that's probably overkill. The tradeoff (especially with scheduled scans) is that it significantly impacts performance.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is that the manual scans are using a different software and library to scan. Maybe two or three times over the past year have the manual scans turned up a positive that the autscans didn't -- all on my wife's machine.

      I get paid to manually scan 12 laptops a month -- I run my manuals at the same time. The laptops, the use of which is completely outside my control, regularly have malware on them that I catch via the manual scans. I suspect the users cancel the autoscans because of the performance issues you mention.

      Scheduled scans shouldn't affect performance at all -- that's why you schedule them during downtime (eg, 3 AM). I suggest to my users that they turn their laptops on before they go to bed the night of the scheduled weekly scans -- that way no performance issues the next morning.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I switched to AVG because it found many objects that NAV did not. These objects were a year or more old.

      My girlfriend's computer was infested because of all of the bullshit games that her kids were downloading and playing. AVG found them and cleaned them, while Norton missed them completely.

      My switch to Avast was prompted by this incident. I checked for def updates at least once per day, often more than that. I had my computer do a scheduled scan two hours after it checks for def updates. My defs were up to date and something slipped through. I'm not blaming Grisoft, it's a cool thing for them to make a free virus scanner. I think that they have a good product, but this one failure was enough for me to look into something new. If and when Avast fails to find a virus, I'll give something else a try. Maybe AVG again.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Xerp · · Score: 1

      Personally I'd say F-Secure. Small footprint, not annoying in any way. It just works.

      Failing that, ensure you only do "dangerous" operations (browse, use Microsoft Word, etc) inside a virtual machine.

    10. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point! We're talking about FREE (Beer) software.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:I just investigates this this week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe you just never got one that AVG could detect that Avast! couldn't."

      Let's hope he didn't, since he was running AVG...

  16. ClamWin by fak3r · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm sure that this will be covered, but I have installed ClamWin on my Mom's and Mother-in-laws computers to cover their anti-virus needs. Every now and then I'll get a call or glance at it when I'm over, but the most complicated thing for them is when they get a 'new engine available, click to download' link; which the click, it's installed, and they're done. All virus updates happen daily and it'll report that to them so they know things are working via the icon in the taskbar. At home on my FreeBSD mailserver I trust GPLd clam AV and BitDefender in parallel, so I know it works, no reason for this 40$ a year McAfee with the all the bloatware you'd never need! ;)

    1. Re:ClamWin by frankie · · Score: 1

      Clam is on-demand only, it doesn't have stay-resident live scanning, therefore doesn't meet joltman's stated requirement.

    2. Re:ClamWin by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      But there's a diff between ClamWin, ClamAV for Windows, and ClamAV. Some have command line scanning and/or daemons for cygwin/Linux/BSD.

  17. AntiVir by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've recommended AntiVir to a number of family and friends. The usability increases with each iteration, and gives you options to schedule automatic updates. The only downside is during updates, it sends up a single advertisement for thier full-featured product. So far, I've installed it for my girlfriend, sister, mother, and grandmother. No one has yet had a virus breakout - of course, the promotion of Firefox to Default Browser(TM) and a little user education goes a long way.

    As a sidenote, check out the Anandtech Consolidated Security Thread for great commentary on a slew of security products. As of version 6, (now version 7) AntiVir is rated at a 84.5% detection rate.

    As for myself, I just use good ol' common sense and a router.

    1. Re:AntiVir by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Agreed. AntiVir gets the job done. No fancy graphical interface, no abusive CPU usage, no unwanted services running. It's easy to use, easy to update, it scans rather quickly and I've never seen one single computer running AntiVir that got infected.

      I've used AntiVir to countless a dozen PCs that were running Norton and got infected anyway. I recommend it to all of my clients. So far, I'd say there are around 40 computers I'm taking care of here and there that are running AntiVir without any problem. I am highly satisfied with this product. No, I don't work there.

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    2. Re:AntiVir by randomErr · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Geek Girlfriend Joke:

      You have a girlfiend?

      Please return to you normal /.'ing.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    3. Re:AntiVir by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      during updates, it sends up a single advertisement for thier full-featured product

      true.

      and so when I run an update, I have my trigger finger on the ENTER key of the keyboard. as soon as I see ANY popup, I hit the enter key and for once, the auto focus of XP works in my favor and the nag goes away.

      its almost a game to see who is faster - me or the popup ;) if its me, then I can close that popup so fast, I can't read the writing. if that happens "I win" so to speak ;)

      I have not had any false positives and a few times, the buzzer did beep and show me some virus or trojan.

      what I don't like is that in the new version, its hard to control th auto update behavior. it would constantly try to run until I went into 'services' and stopped the updater service. now, I'll start the service manually, do the update then stop the service. I much prefereed the way the older version did the updates - oh well.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:AntiVir by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      AntiVir gave me WAY TOO MANY false positives. It detects many security tools as malware. It was unusable for me for that reason alone.

      For parent's or girlfriend's machines, I'd say that it's a good product because it's very sensitive but for a geek, I can't imagine wanting to add every file in your security toolkit to the exception list.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:AntiVir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only downside is during updates, it sends up a single advertisement for thier full-featured product.

      that's "avnotify.exe". I just deny that program permission to acces the 'Net (via Zonealarm) and that takes care of the popup. I keep Zonealarm asking about it instead of always blocking it, however, so I can let it through when it accesses at odd times, in case they decide to communicate something important that way.

    6. Re:AntiVir by imess · · Score: 1

      I used to like AntiVir Classic, but switched to Avast Home because AntiVir could not be used to scan folder or a group of files manually.

      Also, none of them seems to be able to give me any kind of report after a manual scan (or the report just flashes away) by a non-admin user. Is it just me?

      I haven't tried AVG for a long while, so I can't comment.

    7. Re:AntiVir by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      install your security software to program files\security then exception the whole folder.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:AntiVir by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it can now, not sure if they advertise that fact but select any folder rclick>scan with anti-vir ***FROM LOG FILE*** Used time: 02:15 min The scan has been done completely. 351 Scanning directories 1891 Files were scanned 16 viruses and/or unwanted programs was found the 16 files it found was my most recend download of sub7 and BO2K

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:AntiVir by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      That would work, but software is supposed to fit into the way I do things I'm not supposed to fit the way I do things into the way software works.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    10. Re:AntiVir by Eil · · Score: 1

      I installed AntiVir on my wife's Windows computer last about a year ago and it has apparently worked fine. About two months ago, I'm doing something on the machine an AntiVir starts complaining about a super duper new version that I need to upgrade to or I won't be protected against viruses anymore. What the heck, I figure, and upgrade it. Aside from some annoying ads, everything went fine. A month after that, I get a popup message saying something to the effect of, "Your free demo of AntiVir has run out. Please pay us money now."

      Cute. I installed AVG instead and it seems to work well enough.

      My wife's computer is the only Windows machine in the house, but luckily is due for an upgrade relatively soon. I'm going to coax her into a Mini Mac or iMac partly because desk space is at a premium in our office and partly so I don't have to worry about any of this anti-virus and anti-spyware business.

    11. Re:AntiVir by Kecut · · Score: 1

      I just ran into the timeout business as well cause I'd somehow disabled the auto-update. It ran again without complains after an update.

  18. AVG here by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    If you want an open source product, I think Clam AV is the only option. I am a pragmatist and have found AVG free edition fine for personal use. It has pretty good detection and does not destabalize the system like some well known non-free antivirus products. It is not the best for virus removal, but I concentrate on prevention.

  19. Consider Clamwin by wherrera · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Open source. Not realtime, but does integrate with email applications. Check it out at http://www.clamwin.com/

    1. Re:Consider Clamwin by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      what use is an anti-virus program that doesn't do real-time scanning? while it might be great if there is a virus infection, you should be proactive and not get it to begin with... which clam cannot do.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
  20. Firefox? by rizole · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've installed AVG and Avast on other peoples systems and for the non-technical, AVG seems to be the least scary and easy to use for them. It's the one I use and it's done the business for me for 4 or 5 years. Of course, some of the best anti-virus software I've used is Windows update, Firefox and Thunderbird. (I'm not quite linux/mac troll yet)

    1. Re:Firefox? by kextyn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because all viruses are transmitted through email and web pages and Microsoft patches EVERY flaw in their products, right?

  21. BitDefender by Digital_Mercenary · · Score: 1

    BitDefender 8 free edition, lacks real time scanner but has scheduler, auto updates and so on.

    1. Re:BitDefender by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      BitDefender 8 free edition, lacks real time scanner but has scheduler, auto updates and so on.

      How can you possibly recommend an anti-virus program - free or otherwise - that doesn't do real-time scanning? Especially when the OP specifically stated that they were excluding products that don't do real-time scans? The whole point of anti-virus software is to prevent a virus from damaging your system. To be effective it has to catch the virus before it installs. If you catch it via a scheduled scan later that day, it could have already delivered it's payload and done the damage.

    2. Re:BitDefender by Digital_Mercenary · · Score: 1

      I use a combination of tools to lock down my registry, find and destroy adware, monitor mail and new files as needed.

      If AVG or any of the packages listed have a good real-time scanner great, more power to ya. I don't see real time scanning as the most important feature in desktop security.

    3. Re:BitDefender by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      I use a combination of tools to lock down my registry, find and destroy adware, monitor mail and new files as needed.

      If AVG or any of the packages listed have a good real-time scanner great, more power to ya. I don't see real time scanning as the most important feature in desktop security.


      Great. Now if we could only convince the other 99.99999999% of computer users that your method is the best way to do things, then we'd be in great shape. Maybe. But probably not.

      In the meantime, we're going to need antivirus software with a real-time scanner.

  22. again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can't these people just search slashdot? i swear i've seen this same question in the past... it doesn't belong on the main page (or anywhere since it's already been asked in the last year).

  23. AVG requires periodic reactivation by stankulp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    AntiVir doesn't, which is why I prefer AntiVir.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by Spaceman40 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've never had to reactivate - how long are the periods?

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    2. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by ultramk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm, yeah I've had AVG installed and running for 3 years, without having to reactivate.
      Is it every 4 years or something?

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    3. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by mlk · · Score: 1

      I have never had this.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    4. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by rob1980 · · Score: 1

      What is this reactivation you speak of? I've installed AVG on dozens of computers and have never seen this.

    5. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by galdur · · Score: 1

      He may be thinking of Avast!

    6. Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Avast. ;)

  24. Avast vs AVG by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Avast has an excellent feature that nobody else has, which is the ability to scan in command line mode on reboot before major services load, similar to running chkdsk. This enables you to kill a lot of things that fire up as a wndows service. They get a gold star for this.

    AVAST also has plugins for about a dozen IM and p2p services. This is excellent for a number of reasons.

    On the other hand, the free version does not seem to have a scheduled scan feature, not that I've noticed.

    AVG is more user friendly, does have a scheduled scan feature that Avast does not seem to have. It does not seem to have a plugin for IM and p2p networks.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Avast vs AVG by solafide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Avast, having tried it, is not pleasant for me. Avast seriously slowed the computers I installed it on (and they sped up again when I uninstalled it), while AVG - I can't tell any difference. Been running AVG for nigh on 9 months now, and no virii yet.

    2. Re:Avast vs AVG by Cylix · · Score: 0

      I'm going to disagree on the userfriendly part with AVG.

      I had too many problems with individuals actually understanding what to do once they found a virus from a scan. It's not a bad lightweight av solution, but it seems really dated in terms of how it actually finds infection (ala scan only).

      On the flip side, once you install a better skin for aVast it becomes a great deal easier to navigate. That is probably my biggest peeve with avast apart from the in-ability to schedule scans at regular intervals. Though I actually haven't found a virus that wasn't caught by the active scans.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Avast vs AVG by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And, seeing as there's ways to pass parameters to the Avast executable, and Windows has a scheduled tasks facility... ;)

      I use Avast, myself. :)

    4. Re:Avast vs AVG by Topherbyte · · Score: 0


      slight correction to the parentage --

      I installed AVG Gratis on a dear, sweet friend's Win 98 box yesterday and it does scan in DOS before the OS starts.

    5. Re:Avast vs AVG by Observador · · Score: 2, Informative

      I also recommend the free version of AVG. Due to user-friendlyness, sheduling, set-it and forget updating, etc.

      AVG also runs on Linux

      --
      I wish I could filter out the annoying Pickens articles...
    6. Re:Avast vs AVG by jandrese · · Score: 0

      IMHO, the "no viruses yet" for me isn't very telling. Most Slashdot readers have enough common sense that they would probably never get a virus even if they skipped the virus checkers entirely. I have never had a known virus on any machine I've used since the days of booting DOS off of floppies. Heck, even my parents who manage to load up their machine with spyware don't get viruses anymore (at least nothing the virus checkers actually catch). IMHO, most antivirus software has been useless for years now. It's software like Adaware and Spybot S&D that seem most important.

      The worst part is that when something really nasty comes out, the virus scanners don't seem to catch it anyway.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:Avast vs AVG by paeanblack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO, the "no viruses yet" for me isn't very telling. Most Slashdot readers have enough common sense that they would probably never get a virus even if they skipped the virus checkers entirely. I have never had a known virus on any machine I've used since the days of booting DOS off of floppies. Heck, even my parents who manage to load up their machine with spyware don't get viruses anymore (at least nothing the virus checkers actually catch). IMHO, most antivirus software has been useless for years now. It's software like Adaware and Spybot S&D that seem most important.

      I've given up on virus scanners for my folks...they definitely cause more problems than they solve nowadays. Firefox/Adaware/Spybot all work damn well for keeping their machines in a working state. A good hosts file also keeps out 95% of the crap...if they can't see the ads, they can't click them.

    8. Re:Avast vs AVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you pronounce that?

      Virii - vir-E-eye?

      or did you mean viri, which although it's probably just as invalid doesn't sound so silly, or there's always viruses

    9. Re:Avast vs AVG by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Avast could do with a "bug me not" option though. It's got some very annoying dialogues, which are particularly annoying if you're not connected online.

      For Avast users, you'll be familiar with that blue box that pops up over the clock for about 30 seconds saying "I've installed a new virus database" every time you boot windows. If it fails to connect, the box goes red and doesn't disappear, and doesn't have a 'dismiss' option - you have to then look at the other annoying popup that says why it couldn't connect.

      Similarly, if it updates the program online, it's a bit overly happy to tell you every last thing about the process in a window that seems to sit on top of everything else. All that in addition to the annoying balloons XP SP2 keeps giving you.

      That said, it's a pretty decent virus scanner, which is of course what it's there for. Personally, I can't be bothered to switch, so it'll stay on my Windows dual boot, but my mum and friends are all getting AVG, for no better reason that it's a lot less 'in your face' (and they don't use IM, etc).

    10. Re:Avast vs AVG by Alien54 · · Score: 1

      that's a boot section and root area scan, among other things. It is no way close to a full system scan, taking 20 to 30 seconds on a slow system.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    11. Re:Avast vs AVG by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the free version does not seem to have a scheduled scan feature, not that I've noticed.

      I was thinking about using a scheduled task to run a full system scan via the command line interface every couple of days.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Avast vs AVG by nottoogeeky · · Score: 1

      I love avast. it's what i use. I found lots of problems with AVG not picking up a virus. And yeh, when i have infected myself, the boot-time scan goes down a treat.

    13. Re:Avast vs AVG by dhoonlee · · Score: 1

      "Though I actually haven't found a virus that wasn't caught by the active scans." Let us ponder this statement. :)

    14. Re:Avast vs AVG by Danga · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a bad lightweight av solution, but it seems really dated in terms of how it actually finds infection (ala scan only).

      That is because they want you to buy a license to get the "Resident Shield" protection which is described directly from their website as "The powerful AVG Resident Shield provides maximum protection by scanning every file opened, executed, or saved. It will also prevent the opening or executing of infected files.".

      Honestly, I am happy to pay the license fee (right now you can get 2 years for less than 40 USD which is NOT expensive) since AVG doesn't slow my system to a crawl at times like Norton does on my work computer. I used the free edition most of my college years and was so impressed with it that I decided to buy a license for the Professional edition once I graduated and could actually afford to pay for more than rent, food, and tuition (well not all of it, had to get some loans of course). While I used the free edition I didn't really find it too much of a hassle to have to manually scan files that I downloaded before I opened them and yes I know that the average user probably wouldn't do that but this is an Ask Slashdot question so I would assume the person asking the question could manage to do that.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    15. Re:Avast vs AVG by Terranaut · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, (2 mins ago), Avast! Home doesn't have a commandline interface, that function is provided by a separate program in the Professional edition.

      Perhaps you were using the 60 day trial last time you set the schedule?

    16. Re:Avast vs AVG by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      sched.exe allows you to use the command prompt to schedule a scan.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    17. Re:Avast vs AVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virii is pronounced Vie-rye, like Virus is pronounced Vie-rus. (or more commonly, Vie-Ris)

    18. Re:Avast vs AVG by yabasaha · · Score: 1

      AVG does have the option to work together with different IM networks. Ive been using it for a while on several computers at home and Ive never had a virus breakout or a major problem. It is also very user friendly and updating doent take long, at least not with a good internet conenction.

    19. Re:Avast vs AVG by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked, (2 mins ago), Avast! Home doesn't have a commandline interface, that function is provided by a separate program in the Professional edition.

      Sorry, I forgot to mention that the ashQuick.exe allows you to launch a scan from commandline, it is included in the free Home version of Avast.

      Check again.

      I have a batch file that executes...

      • "C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\ashQuick.exe" c:\Windows


      Now I can be sure that my Windows directory is virus free on a regular basis without taking any additional action.

      LK
      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  25. Firewall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about firewalls? Now that Kerio has sold out to Scientology (Sunbelt Software), a good firewall has become suspect. Any newer suggestions?

    1. Re:Firewall? by twilightzero · · Score: 1

      I use Sygate Personal Firewall, it's very easy, relatively non-intrusive, and decently powerful for for people who don't need a PIIX but want something a bit more flexible than Windows Firewall. Unfortunately, it's also gone forever.

      Symantec engulf & devoured Sygate and if you go looking for their old free firewall, you get a page asking you to buy Symantec Internet Security. God I hate corporate America...

      --

      "Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
  26. Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better operating system. (In extreme cases, you might have to change users also.)

  27. Go with Antivir by Deathlizard · · Score: 5, Informative

    A while back, I did some testing of my own using the three above scanners. The test was done using a virtual PC VM that could be rolled back and reset, that way all three were tested with an exact PC image and system. Then they were subjected to an IE attack from a known malicious site (which I wont mention since I don't want you infecting your PC)

    AVG was dead last, and could not stop even simple web attacks from propagating, even with the highest settings, although it was the least intrusive and fastest of the three, and didn't nag you to upgrade or anything.

    Second was Avast. it stopped a lot of the malicious code, but some still got through and started to drop spyware into the system. It supposedly has guards similar to Windows defender, but didn't seem to do anything to stop the unknown propagations from occurring even on maximum settings.

    Antivir was the best out of the three, catching most of the viruses at it's default setting, and all of the malware at it's maximum (it has definitions for questionable programs like VNC, Jokes and the like, but it's turned off by default) It's biggest problem is that it is the naggiest AV of the three, which constantly asking you to upgrade to the paid version. It also has a tendency to be very sensitive to programs that do virus like behavior at maximum settings, so expect some false positives from time to time.

    1. Re:Go with Antivir by xtracto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice summary, I just installed AVG Free and it deleted the keylogger I was using (it is my own laptop and I have always had a key logger), unfortunately I could not find an option to ignore the specific file/process, each time it was accessed AVG told me that I was infected with "trojan keylogger" and gave me the option to "ignore, heal, quarintine, etc.." but I had to click on ignore EACH time I used it or I restarted my computer (or I accessed the file in any way).

      So, my question would be, does any of these 2 other AV has a way to "incoulate" or ignore certain file and process forever?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Go with Antivir by macaroo · · Score: 1

      I believe you are confusing spyware and viruses. Anti-virus programs are generally not designed to prevent adware and spyware infections, unless they are the latest versions of Norton or McAfee. Then they are so bloated that unless you have a modern CPU wit a ton of memory, they are going to knock it to it's knees.

    3. Re:Go with Antivir by gowen · · Score: 1
      AVG was dead last, and could not stop even simple web attacks from propagating
      Why would an anti-virus program perform the role of a firewall?
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Go with Antivir by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm just really curious as to WHY you have a keylogger on your own laptop? You just let people log into their bank accounts from your machine or something? Wonder how many times you type the letter 'q' in a given day?

    5. Re:Go with Antivir by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I should have used Web browser exploits there instead of Net attack.

      None of these scanners perform any kind of firewall or net shielding, they just handle realtime and procedural malware scanning. Out of the three, Antivir performed the best against a site that was actively using IE exploits to try to infect the VM with spyware, keyloggers and the like.

    6. Re:Go with Antivir by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      In this particular test, the site I used, (it's one of those Warez Crackz, ETC-Z sites you find out there) although it had some spyware associated with it, it also had serious IE exploits. (at the time of the test, it was using that 0-Day Vulnerability that MS took forever to patch) It had droppers that would install trojan downloaders, a keylogger and a rootkit. It also had coolwwwsearch and 1800solutions on the site was well as some other xxx related spyware. It also had some other exploits that couldn't work correctly since IE was patched. It would even try to infect Firefox if java was installed.

      Most AV apps do suck at handling spyware, but in this particular test the activeX downloads were declined. The other scripts that were trying to backdoor apps through IE security exploits without user consent were the ones I was more concerned with, since they would be doing the most damage if they executed, and Antivir handled these the best among the three.

      If you want absolute protection, I found Windows Onecare with Windows Defender to be the best protection period. I went as far as setting the internet zone to the lowest protection level as well as adding this malicious site to the trusted sites list in IE and it handled everything that this site threw at it without any changes to the system. Usually, the AV app would pick it up, but if it did get around the antivirus, Windows Defender handled all of the registry changes it tried to make, and the firewall wouldn't let it communicate back to the server. although Onecare's interface needs a lot more "power user" settings, and it eats ram like crazy, it was a fast and solid scanner thats really hard to beat, and would recommend it as a commercial use scanner.

    7. Re:Go with Antivir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since he explicitly mentioned that the machine was a laptop; perhaps he is using it as a way to see whether information has been compromised in cases where he suspects someone else might have used the computer? From such a point of view, however, I think installing a keylogger is a spectacularly bad idea; in such a log file, which would likely be copied and investigated along with all the other files on the disk if someone were to seriously look through one's computer for the purposes of obtaining sensitive information, there is likely to be a lot of easily-read passwords, sensitive plaintexts whose corresponding files were later encrypted or deleted, financial information, etc.

      Then again, maybe he's less security-conscious and more malicious; he may just want to trick his friends into revealing their passwords.

    8. Re:Go with Antivir by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Anti-Vir can exempt process names and filesystem objects from scanning

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Go with Antivir by seann · · Score: 1

      AVG free does not scan active processes unless you are running a virus scan.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    10. Re:Go with Antivir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, AntiVir is pretty good.

      I also found it to use a lot less resources than other antivirus programs. I run it on a system with only 128MB of RAM and there's a huge difference in loading time and resource use.

      Others tend to use too much memory which means there's less memory for other programs and you need to use swap a lot more.

  28. He did imply either by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Many of the responders argue the parents can't use Linix - fine, let's say that's true (though I think it's much less true than they imagine with the right distro). Why not a Mac then?

    Then they would be safe NOW. Of course there could be exploits later but that does not really address the core point that they would be safe NOW, and if they run updates when they come up they'd probably be safe for a good long time.

    I cannot stress enough how much time it saves YOU getting your parents a Mac. That the original submitter is asking about AV solutions for the computer is a hink of hoe much time is sunk into helping maintain the box. With my parents Mac I help install new versions of the OS, and that's pretty much it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:He did imply either by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Because it means buying a whole new computer.

    2. Re:He did imply either by Beelub · · Score: 1
      "Why not a Mac then?"

      $$$

  29. AVG by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

    I would have to say that I recommend AVG Anti-Virus. I admit, at times, the free version has difficulty removing certain virus components, but at least it always detects. I've always had a problem with Avast anti-virus and it's annoying user interface. And Antivir did not look that great to me either. We use AVG Anti-Virus here in the computer repair center I work for and everyone seems to love it just fine. But if your computer has a good bit of memory and you have the money and/or you're a Comcast/AOL user, I would probably recommend installing McAfee Anti-Virus over it just because of the better detection/removal of viruses and such. Just note that both Comcast and AOL users get access to McAfee for free.

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  30. Free? by grouchal · · Score: 0

    There are a few things that I wouldnt take for free, and a few that I would. I am much happier paying for independent fincial advice with someone who has no interests but my own to think about. As for virus software if I want to really know that my computer was safe and the data on it couldn't be compromised I'd pay. If all I was really bothered about was doing an adequate job and making sure most stuff is caught I look at the free scanners available. Always ask this though - if I'm not paying them - why is it in their interest to help protect my computer? I know there are lots of people who want to help protect your computer - but is there anything to actually make them continue providing a level of service etc?

  31. Avast Rocks by Unreal+One · · Score: 1

    I've been using Avast! for the past year and love it. Free software, free virus definition updates, and best of all there's a native x64 build for those of you using Windows xp x64 Edition.

    The interface is simple and integrates with the xp shell making individual file scans fast. Its modular, and scans Outlook, e-mail attachments, P2P apps, web, etc. by default, and each module can be enabled or disabled on the fly.

    I've not tried the other apps you listed, but I'd imagine they don't have 64-bit builds which was the selling point for me.

  32. check with yourt ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get McAffee free with Comcast, so if your motivation is eliminating your subscription fee, you might find that you're already paying it via your ISP.

  33. XP or 2003? (or "other")? by pla · · Score: 1

    I use AntiVir on 2000 Workstation and XP boxes. I chose it specifically because it catches viruses the big names (Symantec and McAfee) deliberately ignore, such as the FBI's "Magic Lantern" (or whatever they've renamed it this month). As a perk, it really does run well and consumes a minimum of system resources.

    Unfortunately, AntiVir refuses to run on any "servers" (meaning NT4 server, 2000 server, and any form of 2003). On those, I run AVG, which works almost as well, IMO, but has a slightly less friendly updater.

    1. Re:XP or 2003? (or "other")? by Navok · · Score: 1

      Thats strange, AntiVir was the only one out of the 3 I could install on Windows Server 2003.

    2. Re:XP or 2003? (or "other")? by pla · · Score: 1

      Thats strange, AntiVir was the only one out of the 3 I could install on Windows Server 2003.

      Did they perhaps start allowing it with v7? At least on v6, I even went so far as to trick the installer into going ahead with the setup, and then the actual AntiVir service would also check and kill itself.


      I would very much like it if v7 works on Server, I'll have to try it again this weekend.


      Thank you!

  34. AVG by AMABITxS · · Score: 0

    I've never had any trouble with AVG in the last 4 years. But I don't open unfamilier attachments either... so take that for what you will.

    --
    Telling the truth to people who misunderstand you is generally promoting a falsehood, isn't it? -- A. Hope
  35. AVG experience with heavily infected machines by binarstu · · Score: 1

    In my work for a college IT department, we've seen MANY student machines that are heavily loaded with all sorts of malware. We recommend AVG Free as part of a solution for these students, and we've had very good luck with its ability to clean things up.

  36. Avast by meijad · · Score: 1

    Avast, I've found is the better of the three. Catches the virii and identifies alot of trojans (spyware etc). It also has a boot scanner, which makes cleaning up a nasty infection easy.

  37. AVG All the way by wackysootroom · · Score: 1

    I've tried AntiVir and AVG. They are both excellent in terms of protection from viruses, but I find that AVG is quicker to update and the interface looks more modern. Antivir's interface looks like something out of the Windows 3.1 era.

    Antivir also requires you to re-run their setup program each time you have to update the engine, which in my experience could be at least once a month. This is cumbersome and can be confusing to computer illiterate users. Since I've switched to AVG I haven't run into these problems and in fact I convinced my mother to ditch Norton AV for AVG. So far she's really happy with it.

    1. Re:AVG All the way by jargoone · · Score: 1

      AVG is quicker to update and the interface looks more modern

      I'll say. That monster that pops up when you get a virus is so scary, you'll never want to surf shady websites again. Now that's what I call modern.

  38. Why use an AntiVirus? by Sh!fty · · Score: 1

    The best choice would be to explain to them what programs to use and what they should stay away from. There is no need for antivirus if you use your computer properly, even for non-experienced users. However I would recommend a good spyware program like spybot and such.

    --
    Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves. -- Carl Sagan Sh!fty
  39. Ubuntu? by davebgimp · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If all they're doing is basic email, web browsing and other simple applications, you might want to try switching them over Ubuntu Linux. Try popping in a live cd, available for download on the project's site http://www.ubuntu.com/ and that will give you a good idea as to hardware compatibility. If all is well, try it out or do a dual-boot and have them give it a test drive. If they like it, run that as their sole or primary OS. No more viruses. Other than that, I'd go Mac if I were you.

    1. Re:Ubuntu? by K9-Cop · · Score: 1

      Better and even easier to use than Ubuntu, run PCLinuxOS (http://www.pclinuxos.com). It comes as a LiveCD so you can check it out without even installing it to the harddrive. Then if you like it, you can just hit an "Install PCLinuxOS" button on the LiveCD desktop and it will install directly from the LiveCD! It has an excellent hardware detection program so that stuff inside your computer works fromt he get-go, and it comes with pretty much all the software a typical home user would need pre-installed and ready to go.

    2. Re:Ubuntu? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      hey mods, this is OFFTOPIC, this shameless plugs of Linux are stupid, please abstein from moderating AND commenting, yeah, we know L1nux ru73z but the OP did not care, go look for another Ask slashdot post that asks what operating system to use in order to have less viruses or security problems or whatever.

      I mean, there are at least 1,000 reasons why someone would not change its current Operating System.

      Yeah, I am a Troll in a forest of NErdlves, so what?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Ubuntu? by jonasj · · Score: 1
      It comes as a LiveCD so you can check it out without even installing it to the harddrive. Then if you like it, you can just hit an "Install PCLinuxOS" button on the LiveCD desktop and it will install directly from the LiveCD!

      Applies to Ubuntu 6.06 as well.
      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
    4. Re:Ubuntu? by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 1
      Seriously, I mean, these guys are a more modern manifestation of B1ff

      "OMG!!!!1!! Linux is teh rulz!!"

  40. BitDefender by papercut2a · · Score: 1

    I've been using BitDefender (by SoftWin) for a little while, and while AVG and avast! are good, I like BitDefender better. It's more user-configurable, and I think the interface is less obnoxious. I haven't yet had it fail to detect a virus that makes it through my ISP's e-mail filters.

  41. Other options. by NeoSlash · · Score: 1

    If your parrents have broadband there is a good chance that they also have free commercial antivirus software available through that provider. And what ever you do don't listen to these trolls that want you to downgrade your parents computer to Linux or replace it with a Mac. Linux is a fun toy, I enjoy my LBox very much. But it is not for your parents.

    1. Re:Other options. by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      after setting my folks up with Ubuntu, yes linux is for parents now. Most parents do a handful of simple tasks, web browsing, email, print some photos off the digital camera. That is it. They are trivial to do in ubuntu and in many cases easier than windows.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  42. FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X... by argent · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The best antivirus protection is not to be exposed to viruses.

    Like the guy in the first part of Egan's "Distress" who was converting himself to use a different set of amino acids in his DNA/RNA to render himself immune to all viruses (except for rogue versions of the ones used to implement the conversion, which seemed to be a rather obvious hole in his clever scheme to me), the best protection is to be a different species, genus, phylum, or kingdom than the infected population.

    Failing that, I've fallen back on "Don't use Internet Explorer or any other application that uses the Microsoft HTML control, damnit". That at least turns the antivirus clock back to 1995 or so, when the biggest exposure was still shareware and local network exploits. I can live with that.

    1. Re:FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X... by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      So, the parent post now has 60% insightful mods and 40% offtopic mods.

      My post saying the same thing gets offtopic and troll moderations:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186347&cid =15380629

      Yes, I believe the parent comment "The best antivirus protection is not to be exposed to viruses." is true, and that is why I suggested Linux and FreeBSD first because they are free anti-virus choices. I offered OS X, but that was not free, and I mentioned that as well.

      I see no reason to use "anti-virus" software per se. Its a temporary fix, just like putting fingers in the dike.

    2. Re:FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X... by argent · · Score: 1

      So, the parent post now has 60% insightful mods and 40% offtopic mods.

      Don't worry, I've gotten the "troll" rating for posting obvious truths before as well. Ratings on /. are pretty much a random walk through a karma minefield.

      Tossing a few SFnal references and some latin in can help, because quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur after all.

    3. Re:FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X... by argent · · Score: 1

      Happy now? I got the coveted +0 Troll rating! :)

  43. avast! by immorak · · Score: 1

    avast! Home Edition works great for me.

  44. PCMag Did This Review by lseltzer · · Score: 5, Informative
    PCMag looked at these three last September.
    Most new computers come bundled with a free antivirus solution, but sooner or later you have to start paying to get the latest virus-definition updates. When the subscription lapses, your protection evaporates. Don't let that happen! If you don't have the funds or inclination to maintain a subscription, try a free antivirus utility. We looked at three that provide full system scanning and also scan all files on access. (Two others, BitDefender 8 Free Edition and ClamWin Free Antivirus 0.86.2, were omitted, because they lack real-time scanning.)
  45. You didn't actually say it had to be free by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just that you have looked at free ones.

    Nod32 from eSet has been running hassle-free on my Windows machine for quite a while and has scored 100% detection rates in third-party testing.

    1. Re:You didn't actually say it had to be free by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nod32's internet scanner (called IMON) hooks into the tcp/ip stack in such a way as to break python-based BitTorrent clients upon their attempt to open a 65th socket.. this results in a ~60 peer limit, which results in poor transfer rates.

      This was the main reason I ditched it, it was otherwise a great piece of software. Of course, YMMV.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  46. AVG for me by randomErr · · Score: 2, Informative

    AVG Free Edition - Use it, Love it. Our curch used the commercial version.
    avast! Home Edition - Had install problems. Many of my firends live by it.
    AntiVir Personal Edition - Ran good, but I have had problems with random freezes when used on a system with an accounting package writen in VB 6 that used SQLBase. Not sure which cause which.
    clamAV for windows - Haven't used it.
    clamwin - Haven't used it.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  47. AVG and Avast with Zone Alarm by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    I have successfully used AVG and Avast for several years. Zone Alarm (free) has a warning with Avast, but I've never seen problems.

    Also recommend Spybot Search and Destroy (especially with TEATIMER as a resident watch on registry) and Ad Aware.

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  48. AVGOLD ! by xmorg · · Score: 1

    the best virus scanner ever is AVGOLD! It will always tell you you are infected, even when you are not. No need to go looking for it. Chances are, you already have it.

    http://wiki.spsu.edu/index.php/Microsoft_WMF_Explo it

  49. Sometimes the cost is worth it ... by dmt99 · · Score: 1

    I have no experience with the free variety, but when securing my parents machines, I went with Norton. I was able to configure the mahcines for auto update. Its easy...They dont have to touch a thing to be up to date. To be honest, Im more worried about their system's getting a virus than most people (they are the perfect malware/phishing/virus targets).

  50. AVG by Robo210 · · Score: 1

    AVG would be my choice, and is what I run on my parent's computer. I have had problems with it in the past though that make me not use it on this machine, specificly the computer will sometimes refuse to load Windows unless I uninstall the program. I don't know why this happens, but it has made me wary of using it again (this has happened three times now on two different computers). My parents have never had such a problem, so your results may vary.

  51. avast! Pro by malachid69 · · Score: 1

    After getting tired of Norton AntiVirus "couple hundred per year" and "won't work if you choose a newer OS without buying an even newer version", etc.... I installed avast! Pro. I have to say, I am liking it. Works on different platforms, $40/year, etc...

    My wife got a notice at work that some webpage she tried to go to contained a virus... I purposely went to it to see if avast! would catch it - and it did.

    And, you can try it for free :)

    --
    http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
  52. Best Virus Checker For Windows by JamieKitson · · Score: 0
    I once asked a friend of mine what the best virus checker for windows was, his answer:

    format c:

  53. AntiVir is going downhill by abbamouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've used AntiVir since the late 1990s or thereabouts. The most recent version has taken to spamming me with an ad for the pay version every time it updates (once a day). The ad pops up and interrupts whatever I'm doing. It doesn't go away until you click it. So this nice freeware seems to have become nagware. I'll be reading others' responses to find out what I should be running instead of AntiVir.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
    1. Re:AntiVir is going downhill by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Funny, my antivir doesn't do that. It rarely brings up a nag screen. Perhaps you need to update the program. If you still have last year's executable installed it might do that.

  54. NOD32 kicks ass by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

    At least as much as an anti-virus package can. Just use google to find it ;)

  55. Re:Viruses? People Still Get Those? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, the best solution is to simply upgrade from Windows to a real OS like Linux. :)

    i am an open sourcer and while i would like to agree with you there, i have to say that the linux i run is crud compared to win xp.

    fedora core 4

    1. probs with mounting usb disks

    2. no easy to use graphical search function like win xp

    3. i tried to copy from one usb disk to hdd and it corrupted the usb disk!!!!

    f3773t

  56. I swear by these by Rohan427 · · Score: 1

    AVG for anti-virus and e-mail scanning. Also recommended for Linux systems that use Samba in a Windows network. AVG is consistently rated at or near the top of the list in reviews.

    Might as well mention anti- spyware and adware applications I use as well. I've not only used these, but not one person I have recommended these to (or system I've installed them on) has ever had an infestation in 4 years. In fact some have had commercial software fail to protect their systems while these applications prevailed.

    Zone Alarm
    Spybot Search and Destroy
    Spyware Blaster
    Ad-Aware

    PGA

  57. The best anti-virus.. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Try using the anti-virus software I use at home. It's a mental document I have that I spew at everybody who uses my network. I call it: "Don't be an idiot."

    It contains several points.

    1. Don't click before you read
    2. Don't open e-mail attachments unless it's from sombody you know in real life.
    3. Don't ever run anything in a browser, or click anything that a web site says you should, no matter HOW WONDERFUL it claims to be.
    4. Don't use file sharing or P2P of any kind.
    5. Don't give out your e-mail address to any site that you use for communication. Use a seprate spam e-mail address with a free provider when a website requests an e-mail address.

    There are other things, but the general idea is this. Most anti-virus software will slow down your computer. Sometimes, as much so that it behaves as if it's actually infected with a virus. Following general rules you can lead a completely normal life with a computer, sans anti virus software. I have been doing it for over 12 years, and none of my computers have ever been infected with a real virus. Sure, I've had to do MS updates for sasser and the like to prevent other drone computers on the internet from attacking me using a flaw, but that doesn't count as being infected with a virus, and most likely wouldn't have been something an anti-virus program would have stopped to begin with.

    Oh, and Linux zealots: Please try to stop yourselves from suggesting that Linux in some form is the "end all, catch all" cure for PC woes and viruses. I would much rather go to my mothers house once a month ro remove a virus than once every 15 minutes to try to explain how to do something simple with her system. Before you fuckers get happy with the moderate menu please understand I'm not bashing Linux, I'm just saying we have to stop making the answer to every question "Install Linux."

    --
    Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    1. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hah! You think your list of items keep you from being infected with malware? You're asking for a big fat infection. Here's my foolproof list:

      (1) Don't turn your machine on. If it's not turned on, you can't get infected.
      (2) If you do, by accident, turn your machine on, don't log in.
      (3) If, somehow, you accidentally type in your username and password, don't open a web browser.
      (4) If you happen to open a web browser window, make sure thw wire that connects your PC to the network is not attached.

      These simple steps will prevent infection by malware. I've never had an infection of any sort using these guidelines -- my PET2001 still remains virus-free due to these simple precautions -- and it's been in use since 1981!.

      Sorry to take the piss, but your smug feeling of superiority is ill-placed. You severely limit the functionality of your PC -- and while it may work for you, it won't work for people who want a different experience from their PC -- like making use of streaming media, or playing simple games. It's totally unreasonable to expect Joe User to not accidentally accept an installation of something they nasty.

      And, I have to add, it's only a matter of time before you ARE infected -- and since you don't scan, you'll have no way of knowing if you're propagating.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:The best anti-virus.. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wasn't trying to be smug, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I was trying to illustrate is that you can, in fact have a completely normal computing experience without AV software. Playing games isn't out at all. What I was trying to say is Clicking the blinking link that says TRY out FABULOUS FREE GAMES NOW!!!! and somehow being drawn to the link like a bug to a zapper light is what causes the problems. I was trying to say that a very small amount of user education and self-control can, as it has for me, do as much, if not more good than any AV software.

      Anybody who has installed winamp in the last few months knows exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. So far, I'm the only one who uses my network that has managed to not get a "fabulous free music from e-music" icon on my desktop, because I'm one of the few people I know that read the text in the menus. Clicking "advanced" and making sure that an app isn't sneaking another app in at the same time helps.

      So, really, I wasn't saying I was any better than you. All I meant to say is a little literacy and time-taking goes a long way. If anybody took offence to that, there is nothing I can do.

      --
      Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    3. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The AV software and common sense work well together.

      The problem is that common sense is NOT common, and touting it as a good method of virus protection is useless and potentially damaging.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Coleco · · Score: 1

      I followed the same philosolphy for a long time and it worked out for me but that past couple years security has been getting very bad on windows. There *are* un-patched exploits that *can* install software on your computer without user intervention just by visiting a website. I know this because it happened to me a couple times. At that point I installed nod32.

      I know where you're coming from.. but they days you don't even have to click.

    5. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Morty · · Score: 1

      If you are not running anti-virus software, how do you know that you are not infected right now? Some viruses, trojans, and other malware go to a lot of effort to hide themselves and not consume too much resources, so they can harvest passwords and credit card numbers.

      This is an example of a logical fallacy. User says "X is not a problem because I've never detected it." Admin says "What detection program are you using?" User says "I'm not using a detection program." Admin says "Why aren't you using a detection program?" User says "Because X is not problem." See the fallacy?

      Even if you are running detection software, past history is not a guarantee of future success, as any SEC filing will tell you. The state of the art for defensive software improves, but so does the state of the art for attacks. And this is another classic fallacy. Philosopher 1: "I am immortal." Philosopher 2: "How do you know?" Philosopher 1: "Because in my entire life, in my entire experience, I have never died."

      Given that anti-virus software can be obtained for free on Windows, if you're going to use Windows, you really should use anti-virus.

    6. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean installing linux isn't the answer to every question?!?!

      On a more serious note, my parents and grandparents are no unix hackers,
      but they can still mouse their way around GNOME. It has everything they need
      or could want. Firefox for browsing and OO.o for wordprocessing (and printing
      to pdf).

      PS: I installed linux after a weekend of removing a virus that prevented the
      Norton updates required to detect it.

    7. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Raideen · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are bashing Linux by saying that you would need to go to your mom's house "once every 15 minutes to try to explain how to do something simple with her system".

    8. Re:The best anti-virus.. by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

      You're probably already infected by your suggestions...

      > Don't open e-mail attachments unless it's from sombody you know in real life.

      If you're in a company, you know everyone in real life who sends you email, but there's so many people that don't understand about computers, they keep sending you viruses...

      So, whoever it is, stop opening it before you scan it...

      I don't even have a anti virus software in my PC for over 5 years, not a single virus or trojan or anything but that's because I haven't got not-well-educated colleages sending me virus along side their Word documents.

    9. Re:The best anti-virus.. by reduct101 · · Score: 1
      Philosopher 1: "I am immortal." Philosopher 2: "How do you know?" Philosopher 1: "Because in my entire life, in my entire experience, I have never died."
      Philosopher 3: "Stop being pretentious or I'll send Philosophers 4 & 5 around with baseball bats."
    10. Re:The best anti-virus.. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Don't open e-mail attachments unless it's from sombody you know in real life.

      That wouldn't have prevented the old "I Love You" virus.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  58. Mod Parent FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, it's funny because he says he doesn't use antivirus, and then a virus not only messes up his Slashdot post, but then also causes a segfault!

    Stupid moderators, this is comedy gold.

  59. Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by geobeck · · Score: 3, Informative

    What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus.

    I use Trend Micro Pc-cillin Internet Security 2006. It's $50 to buy, and $25 a year after the first year, and it's the best I've tried so far. It includes antivirus, firewall (very configurable), anti-spam (which I don't use), and malware protection.

    Unlike Norton, which only updates their definitions once a week, Trend Micro updates theirs every three hours. It's the same update frequency as their enterprise solutions, which are very powerful and easy to administer.

    I know I sound like a commercial, but come on; with all the money you've spent on your computer, don't skimp on protecting it. Then again, as others have suggested, you could just go with Mac or Linux and not worry about viruses at all. (Just get something to protect against worms and root attacks.)

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    1. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by chrispl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand why someone would breathe free air when you can buy pure medical grade oxygen for only a few dollars a tank! People spend tens of thousands of dollars on healthcare but won't spend a few measily dollars on purified clean air?

      Anyway I think you can see where I'm going with this. Why pay when you can have it for nothing?

      By the way, AntiVir Personal for me.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    2. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by catalupus · · Score: 1

      "What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus."

      "That's a nice computer you got there. Would be a shame if someting would happen to it!"

      That's the problem I have with anti-virus software. That's one reason why I got a Mac, don't click randomly, and keep my software up to date.

    3. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I really don't see why anyone with a clue needs to have an antivirus program running all the time. I haven't used one for 5+ years at least, if you're behind a firewall & aren't opening crazy attachments in email or browsing warez sites in IE you should be fine. Once a year or so I'll go "hmmm, wonder if I should do a virus check", run one of the online checkers, and then I'm happy for another year. My main home machine runs W2K & is on all the time, never has any spyware or viruses.

    4. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about Trend, but I DO know something about Norton. The problem with it isn't that you have to pay, it's that it's not worth paying for. And I've heard McAfee is just as crappy. Trend might be good, but I'd have to pay to find out for myself, and if it's as crappy as the other two, I'm out that money.

      With a free AV product, I can just DL it and run it without wondering if I'm getting gypped. And so far, I've been happy with Avast!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus.

      Old Company Laptop (P-III 600MHz/256Meg RAM) - 100€
      Cheap-ass Wireless PCMCIA card - 25€
      256Meg extra RAM out of my defunct iBook - 0€
      FreeBSD 6.1 - 0€

      Realising that I only paid 125€ for a very nice computing experience - Priceless!

      Apart from that: even with Windows it is perfectly possible to "live" with only Free Software (both senses). Get a WinXP OEM machine, uninstall all their crap, the install OpenOffice.org 2.0.2, AVG Antivirus, Spybot Search & Destroy, Lavasoft Ad-Aware, Apple iTunes, MPlayer Classic (K-Lite codec pack), The GIMP, Ghostscript (with RedMod), Firefox, Thunderbird, Acrobat Reader (if you really want...), CDBurnedXP Pro, GAIM, Filezilla, PuTTY, and probably some others I am just forgetting. I get a fully functional Windows PC where the total cost of the software is 0€ (excluding cost of the WinXP Home copy, since I paid that when buying the PC)

      Oh, and doing the above does something extra for you: it prepares you for the "big step" ditching Windows completly. I know, I just did that step...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, in theory you are right. In practice, your solution works if you're alone in the world. I'm married now and have multiple networks to administer. I won't take the small network of three computers that we have (my, my wife, the server). I'll take my "first network", the one at my parents that I still administer. It grew from one PC to a network with an OpenBSD server, three desktop machines (two AMD64, one Athlon XP) and a laptop (Two if I'm around...).
      I managed to educate my users quite well: they run Limited User on XP (and do not know the admin password), they know not to click on every dumb attachment, they also use Firefox all the time (If I catch anyone running Internet Explorer, I just blackhole them at firewall level - OpenBSD remember?)

      The thing is: I'm not always around. According to your theory everything should work fine. I'm pretty sure it would. I still don't want to take the risk: perhaps my dad (he's getting old and is often absent-minded) accidentally runs a suspicious attachment, perhaps my brother comes home drunk and thinks a pr0n surfing session with Internet Explorer is a good idea.... Resident antivirus programs are the safeguards against such "accidents". Oh, and because I like my software standardized on all my machines, I run exactly the same stuff they do... Including an antivirus package, even though I have a clue.
      I'm just prudent, that is all...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    7. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by treeves · · Score: 1

      OK, if you're careless and/or clueless and you do get a virus, are you somehow going to lose your investment in hardware and software? No. (unless you fall for the virus-that-literally-burns-up-your-CPU-and-hard-dr ive scare). Will you lose some (possibly important) files? Probably, if you didn't back them up. Why pay for something that just makes you _feel_ safer?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    8. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by asuffield · · Score: 1

      I don't know about other people, but I can tell you why neither I nor the company I work for pays money for AV software.

      It's because all the commercial AV software is invasive, box-crashing junk. Some of them (Norton) are actually worse than viruses - since nobody around here uses IE or Outlook, the virus infestations are sufficiently rare that it is cheaper (less maintainance and recovery cost) to let the boxes get infected and clean up, than it is to install the AV package and then deal with all the problems it causes.

      We scan mail with clamav on the mail server, and run it over the files stored on the servers. Beyond that we just keep an eye on the desktops for suspicious behaviour. I'd love to have something more effective, but it would have to be non-invasive and above all, not cause new support issues. Once you shoot down the main transmission vectors (IE, Outlook, please-run-me mail worms) the virus hits just don't come often enough to justify the pain.

      What the world needs is a really solid free software AV system. clamwin is an okay start, but it could be a lot better. We'd be quite happy to pay for signature database updates, if the actual scanner was solid (and preferably free software, although for windows boxes, who cares?).

    9. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1
      Why spend $50 with Trend Micro when they're not checking their defs as well as they should.

      I prefer Avira's AntiVir for its low system usage, and the humor of the slightly off German->English translations in the ad that comes up when it updates. Plus, when you buy a copy (with integrated POP3 scanner, etc) they make a donation to charity.

    10. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus."

      If I were in the unfortunate position of using a Windows machine, I'd choose not to support companies who have a financial interest in the existence of more malware.

    11. Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      I spent $250 on my last computer. $40 per Virus Scanner * 3 system = $120. Of course I need firewall, anti-phishing, etc etc. Looking at those security suites it is $70 a pop. So 3 * $70 = $210.

      So for the price of securing my systems I could buy a new PC every 10 months.

      The bottom line is that as appliance PC become more popular those little costs will add up fast.

    12. Re: Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You are obviously a dilettante (hint: scroll down for the WordNet definition).

      Real users actually produce something, and value their time.

      The kind of people who spend hundreds on Photoshop is because it lets them do useful and possibly profitable work.

      The cost of a computer and programs is not the value, it is something that enables them to produce value.

      Losing that value to a [virus|worm|whatever] (and you are 12 years old if you think backups are a guarantee against that) and losing the time that they could be doing useful work is actually a big deal to them. You know, them, real computer users.

      Of course I'm following this entire discussion closely as I have friends with MS-Windows PCs and a strong need for something better than Norton.

      Hmmm, although I don't produce value from computers, I use computers to help others produce value and retain that which they've produced. Interesting, a geek with a niche.

  60. avast! is the best! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used all 3, and I must say avast! is definitely the best and the most professional. The other 2 have chincy interfaces and don't have the nice look and feel avast! does. avast! gives you updates at least once a day, is easy to use, and is friendly on the resource consumption. Plus, avast! has individual components for different methods of attack (p2p, Web, IM, network, etc.).

  61. A Good Cleaner by gurutc · · Score: 1

    The best way I've found to clean an already infected PC is to go to www.ubcd4win.com and download and build an Ultimate Boot CD for Windows.

    This way, you boot from the CD, with the OS offline. Then you can update and use the ubcd4win built in antivirus and antispyware utils to clean your system. This has worked every time for us.

    --
    Moderation in All Things... Especially Moderation - gurutc
  62. Antivirus? by goldaryn · · Score: 1

    When I used to use Windows, I never used to use antivirus. Or even anti-spyware software.

    I believe with a good firewall, a good HOSTS file and some common sense, you should be fine. And the vast majority of Slashdot readers have plenty of common sense. I use ubuntu these days.

  63. This is a really bad post by bneals · · Score: 1, Troll

    I hate when people think that using a different OS means that you are totally safe. I don't care if it is Linux or OSX, viruses are out there and anti-virus software should be used. There is no question that (1) Windows is more susceptible and (2) that there are more viruses for Windows than other OS's, but no OS is completely safe. You are sending a very bad message by implying that using Linux or some other OS will void the need to protect your computer from viruses. Your hatred for MS is blinding you.

    1. Re:This is a really bad post by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      You are sending a very bad message by implying that using Linux or some other OS will void the need to protect your computer from viruses. Your hatred for MS is blinding you.

      The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:This is a really bad post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been using linux at work for 2 and a half years... we have had 2 major virus outbreaks that bring the enterprise to it's knees. Not me.. Virus free, and happy!! P.S. I do not have any AV software on my Linux laptop....

    3. Re:This is a really bad post by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      I think you mean to say that there are no worms self-propogating themselves on OS X and Linux. There are indeed viruses for both platforms. Here is an example Here is a humorous example, also I can direct you to Talking about virus prevalence

      There aren't many in the wild but they definitely exist and they all perform some function you wouldn't want them to perform on your computer.

      No matter what platform you have you need system state protection. Various platforms have implemented it in various different ways. Look at Tripwire for instance. It is always a good idea to make sure nothing is being changed without your knowledge.
    4. Re:This is a really bad post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it is [mostly] true that there are no Linux and OS X viruses spreading in the wild, how long until this happens? If people start using Linux (as we all would like them to) as their primary systems, then we should expect to see viruses targeted towards those systems. Apple is grabbing a larger market share now, so I suspect we'll see more OS X viruses soon. Sure, the argument could be made that UNIX-based systems such as Linux and OS X aren't as susceptible because of user restrictions, but knowing how well people secure their Windows-boxes (like using Administrator with NO PASSWORD as their day-to-day user), people will try to run UNIX-based systems as root for day-to-day usage, and BAM! Infected. I think that a lot can be said for being safe versus being sorry because "there are no viruses for Linux and/or OS X".

      Personally, I have an old Windows-box setup that has NO virus protection on it because, and this is big, I don't do anything EMAIL on it.

    5. Re:This is a really bad post by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      I think you mean to say that there are no worms self-propogating themselves on OS X and Linux. There are indeed viruses for both platforms. Here is an example [linuxdevcenter.com] Here is a humorous example [newsforge.com], also I can direct you to Talking about virus prevalence [desktoplinux.com]

      No, I meant to say "The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild."

      None of the examples you link to refute that.

      Perhaps at some point in the future it may become neccessary for linux & macs (particularly macs) to get a virus scanner, but windows is so much easier a target, that it is not yet neccessary.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    6. Re:This is a really bad post by Intron · · Score: 1

      Why do you say this? I had the ramen worm way back when. Do you think the virus authors just stopped after writing one? I get ssh login attempts all the time on my box, do you think they just want to get on and run hack?

      And don't give me nonsense about not running as root. If you aren't running an IDS like tripwire, then its game over. Once a user account gets hacked, then can modify PATH, install a keylogger, wait for you to login and type su.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    7. Re:This is a really bad post by Lord+Laraby · · Score: 0, Troll
      I guess it's acceptable for people with real OS's like Linux to offload the job of properly configuring their systems deamons and services to a virus protection tool. (<- Sarcasm) But, really now... If your non-root non-administrative applications have no privileges and your users are not running under a high rights accounts, you are protected. No hard can be doen to your system. All viruses ever reported on Linux boxes have been the result of running the virus under a privileged account - easily avoided.

      *nix is not equal to M$ windows -- So, why try to make it fit the mold of windows? That is: windows is essentially a graphical virus on top of old/legacy DOS interface to a totally insecure thinly designed massive monolithic 16-bit->32-bit kernel thunk.
      Of course you need to protect this virus from other viruses. It's too poorly designed and coded to survive against the intruders! Duhh...

      Nope! I'm not gonna need to get a Virus Scanner for my Linux box. In fact I actually copied several of the windows variations into my home directory to reverse-engineer. :-)

      LL
      Shampoo on your real hair... Real poo on your sham hair!

      --
      Don't quote me on this...
    8. Re:This is a really bad post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if yer stupid.
      make PATH and the rc/profile scripts read only or not modifiable by the user.
      better yet, force them to use the system scripts and have a cron checking for the presence of them
      in the user directories and wipe them.

      there are a million ways to prevent such things so very easily.
      there is no reason a users PATH or profile should ever change once set.
      never never.

      i myself do this, the profiles and PATH settings, rc files on login are all locked down so
      they can't be modified. plus theres a cron checking them against safe backups in read-only areas.

      my users aren't allowed executable code in their directories or shell scripts. and ftp in or out is disabled for them.
      sure there's scp but that leaves an obvious trail. scripts run checking for binaries in home directories.

      some users dont even get shell, they are dumped into an enclosed environment with no way out.

      where there's a will, theres a way, even for admins. just user yer brain sonny

    9. Re:This is a really bad post by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      How do you think those machines get infected? They just magically get them? They are spreading in the wild otherwise they wouldn't have been noted on any of the sites. The discussion also wasn't about which was an easier target. I was refuting the fact that other platforms don't need protection when they clearly do.

    10. Re:This is a really bad post by Vancorps · · Score: 1
      Most humorous post. Thank you for illustrating what life was like in the 90s. Who was comparing Windows to *nix?

      Also, you seem incredibly naive thinking that an unprivileged user on a linux box can do no harm to a system. Obviously you've never seen someone use a privilege escalation exploit which are commonplace among rootkits. Linux isn't perfect and thus needs additional layers of protection. It's a simple concept. A lot of people call the use of a firewall a cop-out for insecure software when the reality is the additional layer of security is more than worth it. Every network OS out there has had vulnerabilities associated with it so you add an additional layer of security to make everything that much harder to exploit. This means keeping up with software updates as well as maintaining the firewall since as I said, the firewall is no replacement for properly secured and updated equipment. I've even got switches with new firmware that needs to be updated from time to time.

      Windows obviously isn't perfect either as there is already a large number of antivirus and other protection mechanisms available for it.

      Please figure out what you're talking about here. Windows of today has nothing of the old dos in it. It's a whole new kernel, yes, the commandline is still there but as anyone using applications that ran on dos has probably found out, not everything works in it because its emulated, not platform native.

      I'll keep system state protections like tripwire running on my linux servers. My desktops get more protection since they deal with files on a day to day basis. They'll get a virus scanner, it won't be resident since I haven't found it necessary to catch anything but they will be on each machine.
    11. Re:This is a really bad post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also prevent use of the chmod command? Or do you just think that hackers are too stupid to think of using it?

    12. Re:This is a really bad post by Lord+Laraby · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK. In a near-futile effort not to display too much of my ignorance or stupidity, I'll only give about as much information (commentary) as I actually know in reply to this. Otherwise, my head might deflate or implode. :-)

      I actually use a firewall (a seperate firewall/router) to protect my system against silly things like DOS attacks. Yes, they are actully useful. But, not a real virus / trojan deterrant.

      And all the emails coming to my boxes are scanned for spam, cruft, filth, etc. So, this is not about email protection, as I have nothing but praise for email scanners.

      It's about an exploit gaining root access to a system. That's what is required to damage the integrity of the system. You talk about root-kits... OK, how is the root-kit put on the system? Unsuspecting users you say? Well as long as no privilege-escalating programs are enabled for non-root user access, no issue there. As long as no binaries are allowed in user directories and the current dir is not allowed in a root level users path (in fact root path can be hard coded to a known good directory set and checked regularly.) and email, web and other services do not run under privileged account... no problem with getting a root-kit. Unless the admin is at fault going and building such a rootkit on his own machine. I guess then, that he/she gets what they deserve.

      Don't get me wrong, folks. The odds just say you're wasting your time worrying about this. Even the worm mentioned earlier (Ramen) only had success with 2 distros Redhat 6.2 and 7.0 and only when the were running unpatched version of specific daemons. That left an awful lot of Linux users pretty safe.

      Last point, the heterogeneity of Linux systems makes a virus writers job difficult to impossible. Imagine having to pack alist of every distros possible vunerabilities in ever copy of the virus. Ergo, Windows needs AV software critically. Linux, minimally and only then if your admins are fully competent to secure their system from attacks and silly exploits.

      End of comments. Now the Mods can downgrade me as Troll.

      L L
      Waiting for my mandatory down-mod to troll

      --
      Don't quote me on this...
    13. Re:This is a really bad post by Lord+Laraby · · Score: 1
      su, chmod and many other possibly dangerous commands can be protected with the sudo utility. It's a good thing to have.

      L L
      Still searching for my lost sig line

      --
      Don't quote me on this...
    14. Re:This is a really bad post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chmod wont help them if they dont own the file.
      or if the file doesnt exist. what then?
      you cant chmod a file that doesnt exist.

      there are a billion ways to lock down a user.
      prevent them from having access to the commands you dont want. you dont even need sudo for this.

      if they must have shell, lock them into a restricted busybox or something.
      and yes I know you can shell out of vi, etc but my users dont even get access to that either!

      so whatcha gonna do?
      oh yeah, and make their disk quota rediculously limited. like 1k max. and that has to include their
      history - ahahahaha
      seriously though, it can be done.
      drop into a psuedo shell which has limited abilities.
      no profiles in their home directory, they can't change the files they arent there so chmod doesnt apply.
      lock out all editors. sure they can run echo and create a new file, but the cron will wipe it.
      oh yes, have the login script wipe such before running the psuedo shell, and have the logout script wipe it
      when they leave.

      one user I have isnt allowed any files in their home directory. controlled like above in login/logout.
      they cant run chmod or many other things (restricted busy-box)

      it can be done. and quite simply. of course you can add tripwire to this for even more protection, but at this point its a bit of overkill (doesnt hurt though)

  64. A vote for avast! by Decaffeinated+Jedi · · Score: 1
    I've been using avast! Home Edition for well over a year now on three Windows boxes, and I couldn't be happier. The e-mail scanner is top-notch and integrates automatically with Thunderbird. I'd estimate that avast! has caught nearly 500 virus attachments in the past year alone.

    The real-time system scan also performs well, with relatively little memory usage compared to Norton or McAfee. I haven't made much use of the P2P or IM scanners, but if they're up to par with the system and e-mail components, I'd say it's a tough package to beat.

    --
    DecafJedi
    my weblog: apropos of something
  65. AVG Pro here by jhines · · Score: 1

    Its a good program, the developers need to eat, so I purchased it after the trial.

  66. I recommend AVG Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work on a lot of other people's computers. I used to recommend Norton or McAffee. But there are several problems with these:
    1. Any pay version is likely to be dropped before long. No matter how you stress it to people, eventually they are gonna get tired of paying the fee and let the subscription lapse. I can't tell you how many times I had to clean a machine because they let the subscription lapse and were working with out-of-date virus definitions.
    2. Norton has bloated to the point where it is just useless. I always had problems with compatibility (hell, it broke more systems and/or programs than any viruses) and now it has grown to the point where it cripples even the fastest machine.
    3. McAffee just can't be trusted! The last three machines that I found infected were all running McAffee, had the latest virus descriptions and still got infected. What the hell were my customers paying for?

    Now, of the free AV products, AVG is the least intrusive (both in terms of performance hit and nag screens) and, in the case of #3 above, it found each instance that McAffee missed. I have been installing AVG Free on all the machines that I setup for people for about 1 year now (total of 10 machines) and I can honestly say that none of them have been infected (yet!).

    AVG Free - highly recommended!

  67. Obvious Solution... by p0 · · Score: 1

    your parents should use a mac :)

    --
    This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Obvious Solution... by DuBois · · Score: 1
      Yep. I told my parents that the only way I'd handle support calls from them is if they got a Mac. They did. He has an 800Mhz G4, she has an iMac. They call about once a year (for support--about every two weeks to keep up to date on everything else) and I usually can handle the call in about five minutes, then we go on to the important stuff like when are they coming to visit, etc.

      I make sure they buy the latest version of MacOSX when it's about to version 10.x.2 or so, and that's pretty much it.

      This is definitely the best way to take care of the virus/Spyware/malware/registry attacks/muckathon that you will always experience with untrained Windows users.

      P.S. And that's even without a firewall/router on their DSL connection!

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
  68. NOD32, trendmicro, jv16, msconfig by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 1

    My favorites: For online scans, housecall.trendmicro.com is your way to go. Does Linux too. NOD32 is the most impressive Windows scanner I've found. For cleaning out and managing the registry, you want JV16 Power Tools, but running msconfig's the quickest way to clean the crap out of the registry as you don't need anything to download. Be careful though...

    1. Re:NOD32, trendmicro, jv16, msconfig by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

      Have you read the title? "Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices?"
      NOD32 is an excellent AV, agreed, but definitely not free (neither as speech, nor as beer).

      As for jv16 PowerTools, I can say that it is the dumbest registry cleaner with lots of false positives - it mistakenly deletes many entries of MS Office, .NET framework, plus has a bad habit of identifying each entry twice: one in HKCR, and a second one in HKLM\Software\Classes, or one in HKCU and another in HKU\.
      Oh, and it's not free, too.

      I find Windows Live Safety Center cleanup much better, though it's Microsoft and ActiveX based.

      --
      Rediculous is ridiculous!
  69. Used them all by nolife · · Score: 1

    I've used all three of the referenced products.

    I personally like AVG the best. It is easy to use, the updates are seemless, it works.

    The negatives that turned me off of the others.

    AntiVir
    Ignores anything on a shared drive. You can open eicar.txt from a shared drive without a problem which is a problem if you have shared storage. Not a show stopper for everyone though.

    Avast
    Looks cool and provides a lot of functionality but I found it to be not nearly as simple to setup and use as the others. I like the standard options style configuration tabs all in one place, Avast looks more like a media player then an antivirus aplication with various popout buttons for configuration and to start scans. Once it is setup, it does work fine though. I can work through UI issues but an even bigger negative is you can not schedule scans with the free version, resident protection is always active but periodic full scans must be run manually.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  70. Avast by god4twenty · · Score: 1

    I have used both AVG and Avast and find that Avast is the better choice IMHO. Avast has a nicer UI (again IMO), updates are automatic for both av defs and engine, and seems to use little resources.

    I liked it enough to acquire the Pro version for my wife's computer, and I'm considering using it for my company AV (currently using CA and it sux).

    Just my 1/2 cent.
  71. anti-virus isn't enough by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    first start with the behavior that causes virus infections. teach your parents safe internet habits.

    then use firefox and thunderbird. http://www.mozilla.com/products/ it's safer and faster. chances are, once your parents become familliar with the features, they won't care about the stupid blue E.

    then install a good internet security suite. Not Norton or McAfee, I said good.

    it's worth money to protect your computer and all your information. (parents always reply with, "I don't have anything on there!")

    if it has to be free, AVG is the best.

    if you are willing to spend some money to ensure safety, Kaspersky Internet Security Suite is my top choice. http://usa.kaspersky-labs.com/products/internet-se curity.php

    I've used all major AV and PF applications out there. This is by far, the best I've ever used.

    it lets you password protect the running process. so a virus can't shut it down.

    bottom line, viruses spread with 20% technology, 5% evil, and 75% user ignorance.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  72. AntiVir all the way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AntiVir Free outperforms almost all pay AVs, and it simply kicks all other free AVs seriously where it hurts...

    Don't rely on the virus.gr test results, they so flawed that all AV experts I know of start crying when they even hear that URL. Refer to good AV comparisons, like www.av-comparatives.org which have been rated professional by security experts and AV vendors.

    The old GUI has changed significantly in the V7 release, so it's not looking like win 3.1 anymore either :)

  73. Re:Viruses? People Still Get Those? by IgLou · · Score: 1

    Funny thing I disabled my XP "Non-technical Wife access Services" and I did just fine until she enabled something that came out of the box with my HP which led to 180search which far too many of us have learned leads to misery... kind of like how fear leads to the darkside.

    I'm planning on ditching Norton (don't shoot me, it came out of the box and my brother bought me a six month subscription so it was kind of free and I thought it would be ok on a faster computer) for AVG (because Norton eventually made me crazy). I have this vague recollection of hating Norton's uninstall from the last time it made me crazy.

    Enough commentary and to a question: How configurable did you find the real time scanning to be?

    --

    Oops, how did this get here?
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  74. Avast! by DivineOmega · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd recommend Avast! I install this on the majority of computers I use and recommend it to everyone I can.. There are two very important reasons for this:

    • It just works - and with a nose in the settings you can make it entirely automated, which is very useful for those who would panic at the sight of a 'You have a virus' warning.
    • It announces to you in a Hal9000 fashion after it succesfully updates, which as any geek will know, is very cool.
  75. AVG Free Edition by mnath77 · · Score: 1

    I've been using AVG for about an year now and not had any problems. I've got it on XP professional. The updates are always current.

  76. Avast! by Fex303 · · Score: 1
    Another happy Avast user in this corner.

    I've been using it for about three years now, and I've never had an infection on my computer or any of the machines belonging to friends and family that I 'administer'. At one stage I was carrying around burnt CDs with the Blaster removal tool and Avast on them and giving them to people when they complained about the damn thing.

    My only gripe is that the small alert notice that lets you know Avast has been updated does not play well with fullscreen 3D apps. Everything stops for about five seconds, then the framerate drops to about 3 FPS while the box moves on and off the screen. Very frustrating when you're in the middle of a fight in World of Warcraft and you get your whole group wiped, but getting own3d in WoW beats getting your box own3d in reality.

  77. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I maintain a handful (15-20, actually) of family PCs, all running Firefox + AntiVir + ZoneAlarm + AdAware. Haven't had a single virus infection in four years. I keep the above combination with me (on a USB key) at all times.

    For the less tech-savvy, low maintenance is the key. Memory-resident scanning and automatic updates (that do not require a reboot) are a must. Full system scans should still be run about once a month, preferably manually (tell them to run a scan when they know they won't be using the computer for an hour or two).

    All of the options you mentioned should work just fine. If you're already familiar with one, why not try that. If not, try one and see if it fits.

  78. Virus database has been updated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind the technical details, but anyone lucky enough to be in my office when Avast! says: 'Virus database has been updated' or 'Warning! Virus detected' is instantly converted.

  79. I second Antivir by Norfair · · Score: 2, Informative

    Twice now, it's caught virii that AVG missed, and the scanning engine is, in my experience, a lot faster than AVGs.

    1. Re:I second Antivir by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      So it detects improper pluralization? Cool, but how does it do on viruses?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  80. Interesting by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    Every single person to totally ignore the parameters of the question, and recommend switching to Linux, has recommended Ubuntu. This suggests to me that Ubuntu users are exactly the bunch of deluded self-righteous World-domination freaks I have always assumed them to be.

    1. If this guy wanted to hear about how Linux was less susceptible to virii than XP, he needn't of posted his own askslashdot question, he could have just read any frontpage story about Windows, Linux, or malware in general.

    2. What you freaks fail to understand is that the goals of the free software movement won't be met by everyone using Linux as their desktop OS. They will be met by every computer user having a genuine choice as to the software he runs.

    3. It seems to me most Linux users' desire to 'liberate' the Windows machines of all the Joe Users out there, is actually motivated by nothing else than the selfish desire to have workable drivers for all the shiny new gadgets you buy each month. Why don't you do something about the driver issues yourselves and stop trolling the world?

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:Interesting by user24 · · Score: 1

      indeed. I've been put off ubuntu since I subscribed to bugtraq. The amount of ubuntu holes is frightening. Of course, I don't know if the fact they're on bugtraq is a Good Thing meaning they've got an active developer community concentrating on "finding the holes before the hackers do", or a Bad Thing because it means I'll have to keep updating...

    2. Re:Interesting by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Why don't you do something about the driver issues yourselves and stop trolling the world?

      because reverse engineering or locating product specifications and writing a clean, non IP infringing open source driver requires both an education(formal or otherwise) and time and resource. OEMs are still a better bet, as they usually write their own drivers anyways, and using linux would 'force' end users to use the OEM upgrade process since buying most 'off the shelf' hardware like add in cards would be a hassle end users couldn't handle.

      many OEMs already adjust the riser height to be 'higher' or 'lower' profile than standard risers, to make add in cards incompatable anyways.. so if OEMs could be convinced that they'd be more profitable, and have a marketable product in selling linux desktops, they would. in the budget space, there is some viability of using linux, but many people consider gaming (specifically commercial gaming) to be too strong a selling point to move away from windows in the mid range and higher classes.

      too bad indrema never got off the ground, most likely it was the lack of linux actually being geared towards the needs of high end gamers... as well as people who were trying to dream a big dream instead fo running a sucessful buisness ;)

    3. Re:Interesting by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      hmm. my suggestion is very simple:
      don't buy any hardware which isn't linux compatible. ever. check the status of linux drivers on every piece of hardware you buy, and don't buy unless drivers are stable and manufacturers are friedly. oh but you reelly, reelly need that pda? no. people need food and water, noone needs a smartphone or a digital camera.
      only buying from linux friendly companies would allow the people who do develop linux drivers to focus their efforts on those products they actually have a hope in hell's chance of making working drivers for. (yes, i know that for some people the thrill is in reverse engineering chipsets that manufacturers won;t release details of. but my feeling is these people are exactly the ones who don't offer very user-friendly support)
      donate to the projects developing drivers you use. if every linux user factored a $5 donation into the cost of each $100-200 gadget, a lot of developers would have considerably more time and freedom to build and support drivers.
      contact manufacturers and explain exactly why you won;t buy their hardware. 'early adopters' and technical people are disproportionately important to hardware manufacturers for lots of reasons. to lots of companies the goodwill of the geek community means word-of-mouth publicity money can't buy. they need to know that not releasing specs/GPL drivers is the deal-breaker for some of these people.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
  81. ClamWin by bahwi · · Score: 1

    I use ClamWin. I haven't checked out any of the others, but we use clam on all the unix boxes for mail av so I just followed that to the windows world. =) Worth checking out, although very primative it works. Absolutely no bells and whistles, it's a *nix product in a win shell.

  82. On Demand Coming Soon by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are plenty of other ways for an infected file to get onto a system besides Outlook, and a scheduled scan can't catch those files until it runs. On demand provides the ultimate protection for uneducated users, which is why ClamWin is adding it in.

    From the FAQ:

    Q.) Can ClamWin check files automatically as they are accessed

    A.) The answer is not yet.

    So far ClamWin does not have on-access scanner so you need to be careful and scan a suspicious file before opening it. If you do that you will be as safe as with a commercial antivirus. User awareness is sometimes better than automatic protection, as it may be easier to break the automatic protection than to fool an educated user.

    However an average user with little knowledge about online and computer security the on-access component is a must and the ClamWin should be used only as a complimentary scanner. We are developing it and will release it in the next major version update.

    If the "Integration with Windows Explorer" option is checked during installation, any file can be scanned from within Windows Explorer simply by right-clicking on it and selecting "Scan With ClamWin Free Antivirus"

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:On Demand Coming Soon by steeviant · · Score: 1

      "There are plenty of other ways for an infected file to get onto a system besides Outlook, and a scheduled scan can't catch those files until it runs. On demand provides the ultimate protection for uneducated users, which is why ClamWin is adding it in.

      From the FAQ:

      Q.) Can ClamWin check files automatically as they are accessed

      A.) The answer is not yet."


      Apparently there's a program called WinPooch which can do realtime scanning with ClamAV. Haven't tried it, it was mentioned in an earlier post, but it sounds like the ClamAV folks should probably update their FAQ.

    2. Re:On Demand Coming Soon by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read some of the other comments and looked at the home page. Looks like a general purpose program that can trigger other programs when any number of different things happen on your system. Pretty neat, and I for one will be downloading it and giving it a try. I already use ClamWin.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  83. BitDefender by TeachingMachines · · Score: 1

    Use BitDefender. Ranked highest in PC Magazine (although the commercial version is pricey), the free version is up for Windows and Linux.

    --

    The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
  84. If those are your choices by ddx+Christ · · Score: 1
    You're off to a good start. I've had a sufficiently positive experience with all three of the listed anti-virus programs with very few problems.

    If I had to choose one, however, it would most likely be AVG Free because I found its interface the most useful. Avast was less intuitive and looks like it attempts to be striking. AntiVir was all right. As far as detecting viruses, I found that they were just about the same. Depending on the most recent updates, some would detect a virus that another missed. However, considering that no software is entirely perfect and the software may not have been updating, neither program is at fault.

    In all honesty, I don't think one is signficantly better to warrant a completely acceptable conclusion. I can vouch for all of them as far as detection is concerned, and personally recommend AVG on the basis that it is user-friendly.

  85. good Linux antivirus to scan Windows partitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi all,

    while on the subject, is there a good, free, anti-virus that can be launched from a Un*x system (say Linux) to scan attached Windows partitions (both FAT and NTFS)?

    And is it possible to use Tripwire (or similar) from Linux to periodically scan Windows partitions? (say hooking the Windows disk drive to a Linux box every two weeks or so and lauching tripwire)? (anyone did that? I searched the net but didn't find much infos)

  86. Free = free and not good enough by NXprime · · Score: 1

    I tried the free AV route before on my parents computer and it didn't turn out well. Tried AVG and a few months later they we're getting popups for this 'red dot' or whatever. I go over there and notice AVG is totally disabled and non functional. I pretty much bit my lip and told them to go buy a real AV software package. Of couse Norton & Mccaffe were two off my list the quickest. CA's eTrust was what I used personally before but that software disables itself if you don't close down the computer properly. It kept forcing me to reinstall it over and over every time that happend. That and the fact they supported Sony's rootkit thing which I sent one hell of an email back at them saying I'll never trust thier service ever again. So now it was a battle between NOD32 & PC-cillin. It basically boiled down to how much of a resource hog they were and NOD32 won that one easily. So I tossed it on my folks computer and that damn thing cleaned up the mess on there really good. Seems like my mom liked playing games from MyWay.com and it placed viruses in these java applets that spread everywhere else. NOD32 did an excellent job not only cleaning up the mess but clueing in as to where the problem was comming from. She wasn't too happy about not being allowed to go to that site anymore, of course. heh :) The bottom line? This free crap ain't good enough. Period. Don't use it.

  87. no mention.. by __aahtpi2051 · · Score: 1

    when i still used winblows i liked fprot..simple..not a major commitment..easy to remove..and actually works to remove viruses. *not just for windows btw

    1. Re:no mention.. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      I use the DOS version of F-Prot under OS/2. It detects a wide variety of Windows viruses and macro viruses, and I simply embed it in a batch file called UNZ.BAT which I use to unzip all f the ZIP files I download. Presto -- auto-scanning. :-)

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  88. AVG now, former McAfee by Kevin108 · · Score: 1
    I really liked the way the McAfee stuff integrated together but got disgusted when it got to the point where they expected you to buy the new versions every few months. If I pay money for a piece of software, I want it to work every time I install it in whatever capacity it was inteded. I do not want it to work just until the next version comes out.

    I made the switch to AVG even though I never had a problem with viruses anyway.

    I also used McAfee Firewall for a few years. I went with ZoneAlarm free the last time I reinstalled. McAfee and Norton can go to hell.

    --

    It's a perfect time for being wasted.
    A perfect time to watch the stars.
    - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
  89. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Viruses (virii?) existed back in the days that we did not have internet and they were little binaries that lived in the bootsector of floppy disks or infected executabled. Back in those days, the virous writer could only write a virus that did something but could not contact back to the person. So back then, virii were jokes and pranks by practical jokers. They would do something annoying, funny and maybe dangerous.

    After the net, somebody would be STUPID to write such a virus. Any person with the skills and intelligence to write a virus, would create one that sits silently on the PC and opens a backdoor, trojan, etc.

    So the only one who would write a virus would be mac a fee. Today people don't distribute binaries to each other. Almost everybody downloads their binaries from the vendor's site. So no virii here. And there are other ways to make malware. Trust me. You don't want to know.

  90. The BEST antivirus is integrated in Windows... by MTO_B. · · Score: 1

    The best antivirus is already integrated in every operating system available...
    It's called "turn off computer".

  91. Avast covers my arse :) by fatcop · · Score: 1

    About half my friends use AVG and the rest use Avast. I used to use AVG (v6) when it was a bit clunky and email scanning was a hack. So I switched to Avast (Free version). Avast is never in your face, except a voice message telling you that its "Virus database is updated".

    Avast seems to protect well at first contact. It will alert and block at browse time if things are suspect and even things like sending exe's in emails will get a warning. Its also low on resources.

    I was actually having a look just today at this very topic and came across this. http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.co m/ But of course (to me) there's alot more than just reviews stats to clinch it.

    I have a friend who works for Trend Micro (PC-cillin) and its definitely a nice product aswell. From the above link and other reading it also seems that NOD32 claims to have the best ITW catch rate of any. I've heard good things about that too.

    Not to cast dispersions, but in all honesty, one friend in particular who has only ever used AVG has a very tainted machine. He constantly runs AVG scans hoping to catch whatever is affecting it, but it never seems to get better. Admittedly, that could just be Windows XP for ya :) But personally, like most people, I use what works for me, and tho I have voyaged to many a dangerous corner of the web (using Firefox mind you) Avast certainly gets an A+ from me (and all those I've convinced to use it).

    I think I have run an Avast scan once or twice ever. I just rely on On-Access protection and everything is great.

    The only brief freak out I had a few months ago was a sudden false positive on a Microsoft Visual Studio file after the virus DB auto updated. I was pretty certain it was ok, so I googled then emailed Avast Support and got a prompt reply saying it had already been fixed and to simply get Avast to fetch the DB file again. Presto problem solved.

    No software application is perfect, and being a software developer myself I actually feel comforted by Avast's occasional automatic software self-upgrades (no reboots usually). So you know you are getting any bug fixes and performances improvements the minute they become available. Its a freshing change from alot of slow stale buggy software out there.

    You certainly can't go wrong with any of your listed choices but I'm sure you won't be disappointed at least trying Avast.

    Good luck :)

  92. Don't be so cheap by AC-x · · Score: 1

    AntiVir costs 20 euros per year (less if you buy several years) and I'd say it's worth supporting.

    The free version is well worth using (installed it on everyone I know's PC) but paid for version has malware checking, pop scanning, better update servers, well worth the price of a few beers.

    Also shame about ClamWin, can it be that hard to hook a real time scanner up to it? (oh and, before you ask, no I cannot write it myself! :)

  93. AntiVir by ACalcutt · · Score: 0

    Antivir works really good. I used in BartPE when I remove spyware and it usually finds things the pay scannners dont

  94. What about Firewall for a laptop? by roger6106 · · Score: 1

    My free trial for Norton is about to run out on my laptop. Norton has a firewall that has different settings depending on if I'm connected on my home network or another network. Is there a free firewall that can do this? I want to disable Windows file sharing when I'm not on my home network.

  95. Careful what you choose... by techdavis · · Score: 1

    I have seen numerous badly infected machines "protected" by the free AVG. Used McAfee, Norton (you can get if free in the Google Pack http://pack.google.com/) and AntiVir on Windows. AntiVir has an annoying auto update - it has a popup that runs whenever there is an update, and it shuts down protection just to install definition updates. Very intrusive. I ended up choosing Avast! http://www.avast.com/ after trying it on Windows XP 64 bit. Good interface, great protection, no annoying popups - a small, semi-transparent popup in the lower right corner to let you know when an update has been installed, very unobtrusive. The only annoying thing with it is the alarm and warning when a virus is detected - easy to change the settings, but startling the first time.

  96. AntiVir here (so far) by ralfoide · · Score: 1

    I've been using AntiVir (now called the "PersonalEdition Classic") for almost couple of years and pretty much satisfied with the results. Performances where pretty good even on my old computer (P3@800) and definitely OK on modern hardware. They recently upgraded their UI which makes it slightly better, however updates seem a bit heavy and would definitely take a while on a modem. On the older version (i.e. past a few month) they would regularly update the program by having you download an full installer. Even though it was all automatic that was still several megs to get and the need to go thru an installer periodically. I haven't seen that on the new version so far, so maybe they upgraded their engine -- on the other hand the new version pops up a window with a news flash (aka self-advertisement, ymmv) every time an update runs and that's a big minus point. Over the period I used it I've seen it in action a couple of times.

    Now the real problem here is that no end-user is actually going to seriously test these scanners (which would imply getting the lastest crop of viruses and feed them to your box to see what the scanner says, and that's very a bad idea unless your run it in a VM.) Once you have a full setup with firewall and after having ditched IE for Firefox of course, how do you know you are getting infected and protected? If you regularly get hit by viruses and the scanner kicks in, you should question your web practices. If you don't you just have to hope the source is trusty.

  97. Congratulations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post was 100% worthless. But because this is slashdot, you got modded up to +5.

  98. avast! by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

    just a nod to the makers of avast!, have used this for years now. no hassle, frequent (several times a day sometimes) updates and all the features I need. this together with ad-aware have kept my win2k running fine for about 4 years now, 24/7 connection and no firewall.

  99. whose xp machine... by mmThe1 · · Score: 1

    "I've been looking to replace the McAfee anti-virus on my parent's XP machine."

    A "parent's XP machine" has taken the same spot these days that "friend's sexual problem" used to hone back in the days of print magazine Agony Aunt columns.

    Slashdot doesn't make a good agony aunt, boy.

  100. Hands Down Best Free AV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install Linux, Unix or buy a Mac...it comes with it..

    ---Free is my favorite four letter word...along with beer..but when they are used together..mmmmm

  101. virus.gr is FLAWED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The virus.gr tests are generally looked down upon by security experts, they are so flawed that it's quite unbelievable a single person can make so many mistakes in testing an AV!
    Have a look at the www.wilderssecurity.com forums, it is explained in detail there.

    Please refer to good tests such as www.av-comparatives.org, which is run by reknowned AV tester Andreas Clementi, who is together with Andreas Marx of av-test fame the ONLY tester to be taken seriously!

  102. AVG wins hands down by sunandsea · · Score: 1

    I've compared all 3 myself in the past, and AVG is far and away the winner. AntiVir & avast are both much slower in their scanning, and avast launches an excessive number of relatively memory-hogging processes. AVG has the better track record as far as detection according to VB100.

  103. Avast+Spybot by Xolotl · · Score: 1
    After having carefully researched the various options a while back, I've now been using this combination for over 3 years now at home, and for 2-3 years on the machines I look after at work, with excellent results. I have also recommended it to a fair number of people, with no negative responses either.

    Avast is really very good: it updates regularly, can scan mail, P2P, IM, downloads on the fly and, unlike many other background scanners, it is very light on resources. Spybot, particularly with the immunise function and IE protection, takes care of any browser spy/malware which might try to slip through Avast, and is also very lightweight. Spybot is free everywhere, Avast is free for home use, which is a major point. Of the free scanners it is certainly one of (if not the) most capable. The Pro version licenses are also very competitively priced, and it has a 30 or 60 day (I forget exactly) tryout period.

    I have also seen AVG and AntiVir, but prefer Avast.

  104. Re:Viruses? People Still Get Those? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    >i am an open sourcer and while i would like to agree with you there, i have to say that the linux i run is crud compared to win xp.

    Not in my opinion. In fact, WinXP was the final straw. I was very eager for "NT 5.0" and was excited when I first put the Beta into a spare system. Man what a disappointment! In fact, whenever I get XP on a system (I have it here at work) I am continually reminded how pathetic a "downgrade" it is compared to Win2K.

    But that's another story.

    >fedora core 4

    I have very little experience with any Fedora product. The last RedHat product I used was RH 4.2 back in the '90s. I have Fedora 5 here but never used it. (I get free DVDs with one of my magazine subscriptions.)

    > 1. probs with mounting usb disks

    Okay, fair enough. Not sure what the problem is, but I bet the millions of other Fedora users would have been glad to help out. You might try www.linuxquestions.org or www.fedoraforum.org - both of those sites are very active.

    > 2. no easy to use graphical search function like win xp

    Heh. This one made me laugh. I am so amazed that people "like" the disabled (compared to Win2K) search function in XP. Just try searching for a text string inside a .java or a .php file. Can't do it. (There is a workaround and you can download WinGREP if you want.) On my system (SUSE 10.0 / 10.1 and KDE) I click on the geeko icon and type my search phrase at the top of the menu. Works like a charm. Let's not forget Beagle, which is supposed to be the best search/index utility out there on any OS. (I haven't tried it so cannot comment.)

    > 3. i tried to copy from one usb disk to hdd and it corrupted the usb disk!!!!

    Man that sux! I've never had this issue. (I have a growing collection of USB disks - currently in proud possesion of a 2GB deal I got last week.) Again, you would have gotten much help on the above-mentioned forums.

    In addition if you're thinking of upgrading from Windows to a Linux Distribution, you should check out the following links:

    Desktop Linux dot com - http://www.desktoplinux.com/ - this site has some
    good informaiton for beginners.

    Tux Magazine - http://www.tuxmagazine.com/ - this was supposed to be a
    print magazine, but turned into a PDF download. Great stuff for people
    like me who haven't a clue what they're doing.

    Linux Planet has some cool articles...
    http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/

    Then there's the big red N - Novell's Cool Solutions:
    http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/slp/

    Then there are the forums, http://www.linuxquestions.org and
    http://www.linuxforums.org

    This is a great comparison of the two, though it is getting old: http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.ht ml

    As for a comparison between Windows and Linux versions, you're in luck.

    http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

    Enjoy!

    Flame bait...bah!

  105. Antivirus is just a part of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antivirus alone cannot secure your PC. Don't forget to use Firefox/Opera (and raise IE level to paranoic) in addition with script blocking and all that stuff. Eventually, Ad-Aware would be nice to have. With this, keeping in mind not to open any suspicious .exe files in your e-mail, IM or P2P, you're safe. At least, I hadn't got any viruses for more than a year following this technique. I was using Avast by the way.
    Finally, I decided to switch to Linux for ideological reasons.

  106. What is your time worth by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Because it means buying a whole new computer.

    Mac mini, use existing monitor. WHat is your time worth? Are you really saving money not buying them a new computer?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What is your time worth by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      But would it be worth the misery? He may not hear the last of it!

      "...and then you bought a whole new computer! I tell you, what a waste! We had a perfectly good computer, and I know you were trying to be nice, but $600 is a lot of money to spend on something we already..."

  107. Yaaah ok by GusChiggins · · Score: 1, Funny

    "The best antivirus protection is not to be exposed to viruses."

    Yeah, that's like saying the best form of birth control is abstinence...How obsurd!

    --
    Shut the smurf up mothersmurfer!
  108. That's why you'd get a mac by SuperKendall · · Score: 1


    "Why not a Mac then?"

    $$$


    Macbook is cheaper than a Dell and a Mac mini is a much more usable box with a lot of software for very little money, just use the existing monitor and possibly the mouse/keyboard.

    The software included alone is a great reason to get parents a Mac.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That's why you'd get a mac by Beelub · · Score: 1

      Macbook is cheaper than a Dell

      BWAHAHAHA!

    2. Re:That's why you'd get a mac by fritzk3 · · Score: 1
      Macbook is cheaper than a Dell and a Mac mini is a much more usable box with a lot of software for very little money, just use the existing monitor and possibly the mouse/keyboard.

      The software included alone is a great reason to get parents a Mac.

      • Mac mini: ~$600
      • Macbook: ~$1100

      • AVG Antivirus or Avast Personal Edition: $ 0

      One of these solutions seems like a much more cost-effective solution than the others, at least as far as the question that was originally posed.

      --
      All your sig are belong to us.
  109. Agreed. The hard part, in my case, is... by the_rajah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    convincing my 83 year old mother that it's OK to leave an "appliance" on when it's not being used. It uses electricity, you know, and that costs money. She's also the one who doesn't have caller ID on her phone because that costs a dollar a month or so.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Agreed. The hard part, in my case, is... by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      You should install Ubuntu linux on her PC then. If she is just using the web and e-mail, your going to make her safe(er) from viruses and mal-ware. She can turn it on and off again all she likes too. Its not hard to transition either. My non-tech-savvy wife didnt even notice that i'd done anything, I jsut showed her the 'new place to click' for the web and e-mail.

      (I also share your grandmothers concern of leaving windows on all the time without rebooting. -it aint good as some windows updates wont be applied and will bog down etc.)

    2. Re:Agreed. The hard part, in my case, is... by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      Here in SK, Canada the name display is $4/month, and number display is another $3.80CDN.

  110. AntiVir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using AntiVir the past few months after a favorable PCWorld review:
    http://pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124475,00 .asp

    Among the three free programs reviewed (also including Avast and AVG), its virus detecting was rated best. It's free; but, you must bear with the splash screens every couple of days.

  111. Free as in communism (works as well as that did) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you pay is what you get. You should shell out those 70 bucks for a decent commercial anti-virus software. Security is pricey no matter 7ft negro bodyguards or computer shielding. Most linux buffs choose Kaspersky from the non-free sortiment.

  112. Avast by martonlorand · · Score: 1

    I used avast and AVG with different results. Lately though I found that AVG is missing some infections so my main Avtivir is AVAST now. I found that often when when I check PC-s that were running McAffee or Norton AV after uninstalling those and doing an AVAST scan I can pick up one-two viruses almost all the time.

    Also Avast has a basic malvare/spyware protection too and shields for p2p networks and IM protocols. I would suggest AVAST since it even does automatic updates, the user doent even have to move a finger. The lack of scheduled scans its not so important since the program constantly scans the drive while the PC is idle.

  113. Single Best AV Solution... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Linux.

    Available to download in multiple distros.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  114. Hardware FW/ AntiVir PE / Spybot combo by screeble · · Score: 1

    I'm a firm believer in a hardware FW/ AntiVir PE / Spybot combo for people that insist on using Windows...

    AntiVir Personal Edition has been installed on my Mother-in-law's computer for a couple of years now. Her router has been set up to limit ports to the few applications she actually needs. Spybot is also set up to automatically update, search for and remove spyware on every boot.

    She used to have constant virus infection problems until I introduced her to the product(s). She's not dumb, but she is ESL (english as a second language) so she doesn't always understand what the computer is asking her and occasionally clicks "YES" when she should have clicked "NO."

    I used to have to remotely repair her PC using VNC on a constant basis. Now, it is almost a self-cleaning oven.

  115. Whats the lightest of all anti-virus products? by xot · · Score: 1

    This might sound weird, but what AV product uses the least memory(and is reasonably effective!)? I use Symantec and it eats up quite a bit of memory.
    So I was wondering if anyone has the same problem with AV products? I am sure some of the other products have a much lesser memory footprint.

    --
    Lord of the Binges.
  116. ClamWin+WinPooch by nawspac · · Score: 2, Informative

    Clamwin + WinPooch = Awesome Open Source AV solution for Windows Desktops.

  117. My Vote's for AVG by Secret+Agent+Man · · Score: 1

    AVG has been running on this machine for about two years now. It has a very easy interface (easy to understand, etc.) and can be set to automatically update and scan daily. I can't give my opinion on the other two, as I have not tried them before.

  118. AVG gets my vote! by macaroo · · Score: 1

    I have seen AVG clean viruses that Norton detected but could or would not clean.

  119. Another nod for nod32.. and some other advice. by Coleco · · Score: 1

    You should check out nod32 for sure.

    Most virus scanners protect against other malware as well.. worms trojans and backdoors.. I wouldn't bother with any other malware software.

    I use nod32 because it was a very small memory and processor footprint. Every other scanner seems to turn any system, no matter how fast and how much memory, into a pig.

    The problem I have with security software is that some people, ie, my father for instance, are paranoid and install some gigantic resorce-sucking pig like Mcaffee w/ virus, firewall and whatnot and some strange, *and* vaguely named prog named Webwasher. The theory I guess is that stacking security software makes your machine somehow even *more* safe. Well no, it just slows the system down to an unbearable crawl and causes security warning windows to pop up every 10 minutes.

    Remember you have to use your system, not just protect it. So I use just nod32 and the built in windows xp firewall. Also most people behind a router don't really need a firewall anyway, the router is providing roughly the same function.

    Some people will yell that you *need* a third party firewall for this reason and that. I researched them for a while and found that most were poorly configured and popped up false hits all the time, just training people to hit the 'allow' button automatically without even reading the warning. Secondly that *they don't work*. Even if you configure them correctly your computer can communicate with the outside world just fine. Any firewall can protect from incoming packets at the application level, but all an attacker has to do is hijack another thread and you're screwed. The only firewall that 'works' that I found was tiny firewall.. all the other ones are worse than garbage.

  120. Used them all extensively doing on-site service... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    In the last few years, I've been called on for well over 100 cases of spyware and virus clean-up on customer PCs. (I own my own consulting business now, and do it part-time, while working as a system administrator full-time during the week, and worked for a small on-site service business before that.)

    You'll get many, many opinions on "which anti-virus solution is best", and that's partially because people tend to rave about whichever product actually found and successfully cleaned their particular instance of getting a virus. (EG. If someone has Norton AV and it removes the Blaster worm for them successfully, then they're likely to praise Norton - even if it sucks at removing thousands of other virus infections, or has other major issues with use of system resources or conflicts with other software.)

    I was always especially interested in the free solutions though. Customers who just paid you upwards of $80-100 to clean a virus don't like to be gouged further on your service call because you had to sell them some $50 anti-virus package too.

    I'd sum it up this way:

    1. All in all, AVG is my favorite solution. The software grabs AV updates very regularly, and seems to find many lesser-known trojan horse type virii that the others miss. The single biggest headache with AVG is that it can't clean a virus located inside a compressed archive file. If you get an infected Java file inside a .jar file, for example, AVG will complain and complain that the .jar is infected, but will never do anything about it. It's up to you to go in and manually delete the thing.

    2. Avast, in my experience, does NOT find nearly as many infections as AVG does - but it sometimes finds a couple that AVG misses. I wouldn't feel comfortable using Avast as my every-day scanner, but it's worth running through a full scan on a PC you know is infected and you're trying to clean. They also offer a rather expensive, but useful product called "BART" that lets you boot from a stripped down XP install on CDR and run a scan, clean up the system registry, etc.

    3. AntiVir, I have the least experience with - but I believe it's a product that has been re-incarnated from shareware products sold in the past that would scan/detect viruses, but wouldn't actually clean the results for you automatically unless you paid for it. If it's the same product I think it is, it did well at finding some very obscure trojans. Probably a contender, but I feel more comfortable with AVG because it's more "tried and true" for me in daily use.

  121. Between a firewall by Lord+Crc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and a good brain, I don't seem to miss having any AV. Last time I had a virus was around DOS 5.0 days. And I use Windows (although not for the firewall ;).

    I generally find AV software to be in the way, generating conflicts with other software and generally slowing the machine down a LOT.

  122. Still using AVG, but had some leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Been using AVG forever now, but it has let a few things through. Back a while ago when I was still on IE, a few of their security holes let some malicious exe get through and run without AVG stoping it. Luckily ZoneAlarm stopped it before it reached the net.

    I'll be checking out this Avast thing as well, now that I know there are more than 1 free alternative.

  123. Avast works great for me by The+Mechani · · Score: 1

    Avast works great for me I'm runing xp@home believe me, I have gone to all the virus infested sires and my machine is FINE. http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/

  124. Sophos Anti-Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd recommend Sophos Anti-Virus.. it's quite nice.

    Google it!

  125. I've been very pleased with AVG by spamking · · Score: 0

    I was tired of Norton's hogging so many resources and decided to give AVG a try and haven't looked back. The free version does a very good job of protecting my machine and doesn't seem to use near the resources that some of the other anti-virus programs do.

  126. Prevx by pfg23 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised to see no mention of Prevx (http://free.prevx.com/) in the responses to this query. They release their beta for free and it got rid of a pretty nasty virus on my machine, one that the Computer Associates anti-virus software that comes free from my inet provider largely missed. I'd be curious to know what other people have to say about this particular antivirus package.

  127. semantics by spywhere · · Score: 1

    ...I'm only looking in anti-virus, I'll go elsewhere for firewall or malware protection.
    Why? Because viruses aren't malware? (They are). Because when you say "malware," you're referring to spyware and/or adware that behaves completely different than viruses? (More and more often, they use the same tricks & techniques). This is like seeing one doctor for contagious diseases, and another for diseases that don't spread.

    Buy a program that treats all malware the same. Then you're actually protecting a system.

  128. I can't imagine skimping on Antivirus... by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    Spend the money, get yourself a good scanner. My preference is NOD32 (http://www.eset.com) because it uses VERY little system resources and goes an exceptional job of catching viruses. Kaspersky is also very good.

    I cannot imagine skimping on a utility that is essentially the difference between a working, and a nonworking computer. $30 is a small price to pay to cover your investment that may be worth thousands, depending on what you actually have on it.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  129. Missing Option - Clamwin by jambarama · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have really had good luck with Clamwin. It doesn't do realtime scanning - so you actually have to scan stuff manually, or setup some auto scans. On the other hand, it won't bog down your system scanning every bloody little thing you download. Plus it is open scource - that is a bonus.

    If you couple clamwin with winpooch (open source anti-spyware) it gives you incredible control over your system. With winpooch, clamwin can do real-time scanning.

    1. Re:Missing Option - Clamwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More importantly. It's almost the perfect model for a community based project. All you have to do is add signatures..


      It runs on Linux, BSD, Mac OSX and Windows.


      If you're not running AV on OSX or Linux or BSD, you're a fool. Regardless of how you get your software, it is a great practice to get into regularly scanning. In this era, if you're a remotely educated user, there is no excuse for getting malware or viruses and absolutely no excuse for propagating them.

  130. AVG by mikbry24 · · Score: 0

    I've been using AVG for about 5 years. It has been great and I've been virus free.

  131. Avast! was no use for me by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    It never found a single virus, yet when I returned my laptop to the manufacturer for repair, they found 8 viruses, blamed the problem on them, and returned the machine to me without having fixed the faulty hard drive. Needless to say I was not impressed, either with Avast! or with them.

  132. MOD PARENT UP! by carlos92 · · Score: 1

    Both insightful and informative! And interesting too!

  133. AVG by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    I've used all three. I've picked AVG because antivir has an interface out of the Windows 3.1 days and has to be manually rebooted each time it updates.

    Avast has the annoying tendency to throw up popups even when I'm in the middle of a full screen app. Getting knocked out of a powerpoint presentation because it needs to helpfully inform you (along with a full page add) that it has successfully completed the twice-daily updating, is aggravating.

    AVG isn't great. It noticeably slows down my computer, unlike every other virus scanner I've used, and I have a pretty fast machine. I disable it for +20 fps. It also doesn't disable very well.

  134. How can AV be free? by sphealey · · Score: 1

    I just don't see how in the long run anti-virus software can be free. An AV supplier needs a team of researchers, preferably with at least some number of analysts available 24/7/365.25, and if it is going to have a realtime Windows scanner it needs programmers with a good knowledge of Windows realtime filesystem internals, and they normally don't come cheap.

    Personally, I find F-Prot quite good. Home users get 5 PCs per subscription, and for corporate users their volume licensing discount is very reasonable. YMMV.

    sPh

  135. LINUX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is the best free alternative to Windows viruses!

  136. Virus Signatures by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Where do the free antivirus programs get their virus definitions? Is there some open virus definition database or something? I think that Symantec has a team who writes^H^H^H^H^H^H researches new viruses and update the signatures. But who does that for the free projects?

  137. Sana Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  138. Since We're Asking, What's Good Anti-spyware by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    Any suggestions for free anti-spyware? Pros and cons?

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
    1. Re:Since We're Asking, What's Good Anti-spyware by Goffee71 · · Score: 1

      I like AVG with the odd scan from McAfee's web based free scanner just to make sure!

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  139. ran all three simulaniously nearly a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Despite a few conflicts also managed to get norton running on same machine too. (would be ranked number 2)

    3. AVG - sucks. Didn't catch anything
    2. Avast - better but no automatic scanning
    1. Antivir - Ad poppup a little annoying and connects to remote server too much-- but seems to caught things others missed (other than NSA spyware :)and very fast

    1. Re:ran all three simulaniously nearly a year by legallyillegal · · Score: 1

      My Antivir never connects to the remote server unless i tell it to update. Check your scheduler. Also, I only get a built-in popup when I update. I click OK, it goes away.

      --
      ?giS
    2. Re:ran all three simulaniously nearly a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My Antivir never connects to the remote server unless i tell it to update."

      It's not the problem. I already edited the schedule to update every two days but zone alarm keeps catching it trying to connect to the network every so often. (Haven't spent time trying to figure out why)

      "I only get a built-in popup when I update. I click OK, it goes away"

      Exactly. Maybe I should have said that more explicitly but was trying to keep my post short and to the point.

      Thanks for response though. Very thoughful and kind of you. For the record, if a year of running all 3 programs counts for anything--you made a good choice going with Antivir.

      Cheers.

  140. Depends on who it's for..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AntiVir is prolly the best from my experience, but I wouldn't give it to granny on account of the update popup ads that would likely confuse and annoy her very greatly.

    FreeAv is nice overall, but I found it to be a tad sluggish.

    Never used Avast, so I can't say.

  141. Does anyone know of a free scanner for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux?

    Oh wait,
    it's perfect.

    =)

  142. Avast! by TheDunadan · · Score: 1

    Having used AVG and Avast! I would highly recommend Avast! over AVG. I ran AVG for about 4 months before I discovered I had at least one virus it wasn't catching. I downloaded Avast! and it found that virus and a few others. Also, it does great things even my parents Norton doesn't do such as warn you before you download an infected file. I can't speak to any others because I haven't tried them.

  143. Have you tried Visioneer? by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    I have an old Visioneer scanner that just might meet your requirements. It scans each time I access it and it scans on demand also. Well, sometimes it won't scan at all, but after all, it's not that new anymore. I am not sure it will scan for viruses since I have not had one in a while, and anyways they are really teeny-tiny. I tried cookie crumbs and it seemed to scan them ok.

    One other thing. I think you want a free one. Just come by after 5:00, and I will give you this one.

    .

    .

    .

    Oh! What? You said anti-virus??

    .

    Never Mind!

  144. My choice by Tarone · · Score: 1

    avast!
    ZoneAlarm
    Spybot - Search & Destroy
    Ad-Aware SE Personal

  145. How the hell do you find Viruses anyway? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    I see viruses every day in my spam folder, but other than email delivery of viruses that are targeted at a specific mailer on a specific OS, where do you find viruses?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  146. clam by dizzy+tunez · · Score: 1

    clam do not have a on-demand thingygibbiribish.
    Try that.

    --
    "If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
    Spider Jerusalem
  147. I'm a fan of Avast... by wishlish · · Score: 1

    1. Doesn't hog system resources
    2. Does seem to pick up viruses when needed
    3. Updates by itself quite frequently and leaves me alone

    So it does its job quite well, doesn't hog my machine, and keeps itself in shape. Couldn't really ask for more, could I?

  148. Not Avast by greenegg77 · · Score: 1

    I've been using Avast for the past couple of years and will soon be switching to another (probably paid) solution. Last week Avast found a virus that wasn't a virus. I used Panda's free online scan and 14 virii that Avast had missed. Not what I call a good record.

    --
    --- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
    1. Re:Not Avast by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      I have never used Avast or any free AV except AVG. My work moved away from Norton Corporate to Norman. As soon as Norman was scanning PCs, literally hundreds (if not thousands) of infected files were found and removed, including some Netsky and other popular virus strains. Norman also has a definition set that can optionally include "Aggressive Commercials" which are not technically viruses, they are are annoying and its nice to get them removed too. Norman is not perfect, I highly doubt there is a single AV product that does on-demand and on-access scanning both extremely well but Norton was really sucky. On my family computers Free AVG works great.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  149. Not talking about AV software by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    AVG Antivirus or Avast Personal Edition: $ 0

    I'm not talking AV software (for which I'd use ClamAV on Macs or Windows). I'm talking the iLife stuff, like iPhoto or iDVD or iWeb. And TextEdit is even a fully functional word processor in ways that Wordpad is not. Mail.app is a pretty good mail program. And so on and so forth.

    I'm talking about buying a computer and needing NO other software after purchase for the intended receiptient. Linux offers that to a greater degree though it's a little harder for people to use currently, the Mac strikes a good balance between software including and making it easy to use the whole system.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not talking about AV software by fritzk3 · · Score: 1
      I understand your point, and it's valid. Apple/Mac provides a fairly complete computing experience out-of-the-box.

      However... my point was that your "solution" wasn't really the type of answer that the poster was originally asking for originally. (Who knows, maybe his parents' computer had some weird Trojan or worm on there and it needed to be fixed quickly, and for free.)

      --
      All your sig are belong to us.
  150. virus.gr by legallyillegal · · Score: 1
    Read into the AV tests over at Virus.gr. While the results may be a little old, it's still a pretty good picture of effectiveness.

    8. AntiVir Personal version 6.32.00.51 - 86.55%
    15. AVG version 7.1.371 - 77.97%
    17. Avast version 4.6.744 - 76.93%

    It doesn't appear that there is any free AV higher than Antivir, with the possible exception of the toned-down Bitdefender8 Free Edition (which I have never used).

    --
    ?giS
  151. well known AV tool + special protection tool by glock17 · · Score: 1

    I tried different kinds of AV tool. I would say any AV tool you choose in the market will do something for you, however they all miss some virus, especially the new emerging type. For a better protection, I would recommend to install a well known AV tool plus some special protection tool. For example, I installed both Panda AV and http://www.wenpoint.com/HiddenFinder in my Win XP. Panda can kill most known virus, and HiddenFinder can kill the hidden virus and spyware.

  152. I couldn't agree more, but.. by the_rajah · · Score: 1

    the kicker there is that there's no AOL client I'm aware of for Ubuntu, or any other Linux/BSD distro. I have a small company that provides dialup access and I offered to give her a free dialup, but that didn't work since she just won't get off AOL. "I've been using it from the beginning and I don't want to change.", she said, even after I showed her how easy it was to use, my dialup and Firefox. Oh, then there's the other problem. Mom's a gamer! Boggle, Bejewled... {{sigh}}

    In fairness, she's never had a virus or problems with getting choked with ad/spy/mal-ware. Since she shuts down Windows every session, she doesn't have much problem with lock-ups and so forth. Anyway, she's my mom and I try to be a good son so I'll bite my tongue do what I can to make her happy. :-)

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  153. CA ETrust by 511pf · · Score: 1

    You might also look at CA's eTrust antivirus. It's free for a year by going here: http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/ It's an active scanner, is light on the system resources and is backed by a fairly large company. It's essentially a commercial product that they're giving away. I use and recommend it.

  154. how is McAfee, btw? by lon3st4r · · Score: 1
    It's been quite some time since I used an AV @ home. I've switched to linux completely and have a NAT/firewall to protect my windoze laptop (firefox browser only). i hope that should take care of most issues.

    the only time i do get into trouble with an AV software is Symantec's which is installed on my corporate LAN. it is a big nuisance; especially when it flags netcat (which i use as a tool for testing my network apps).

    the question i'd like to ask the poster is that how has been his experience with mcaffe. why are you switching out of mcaffee?

  155. AVG, Avast, Norton, and the University of Ottawa by Captain+Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

    Well...when I was being an computer assistance guy in my dorm a couple years ago, the university had a bit of a virus problem, and I learned a LOT about AV software. The university was running Norton. Whole campus went down for nearly a week. They eventually formated most of their systems. I was running AVG. Lost my box too. I tried Avast! afterwards, and managed to keep my box clean. I then set it up on someone else's machine who I knew WAS infected, and was able to clean it without formatting. YES, Avast is a resource hog, I won't deny the fact that it's the slowest of the offerings, but it is THE undisputed most powerful for eliminating stuff, from my experience. I haven't tried AntiVir yet, but considering I haven't had a single virus problem since then, and that I lived on a university campus for another year and a half afterwards with ZERO antivirus security on our side of the firewall, I'm pretty damn impressed with Avast!

  156. Use Avast! by curtHendzell · · Score: 1

    Any Anti-virus program that has a pirate themed skin is good in my book.

    --
    -=Curtis=-
  157. AVG by datamichael · · Score: 1

    Coincidental timing.....I just posted a short article on freeware AV apps on my website. I've used AVG for years with no problem and have recommended it in person to thousands of people. I also wrote about it in my book. http://www.smartguypress.com/2006/05/smartguy-pres s-software-pack-avg-anti.html Michael Shannon Author "Computer Secrets I Taught My Mom" ISBN 0-9773105-0-7 http://www.smartguypress.com/

    --
    Author "Computer Secrets I Taught My Mom"
  158. On Demand scanning by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any experience in setting up these free anti virus tools as on demand-scanners ONLY?

    I already have a scanner, but would like to cross-check my files with other tools occassionally.

    However, setting them up so that they do not run in the background proved to be virtually impossible.

    Alamost always there are some resident components remaining, and if I manage disable them all manually either the thing refuses to scan, or refuses to update manually.

    I am considering setting up a VMWare virtual machine just for virus scanners

  159. As has been noted by goldcd · · Score: 1

    There's all manner of virus scanners out there - many of them very good.
    For my parents - I'd give them AVG every time. Like most people they had Norton and like most people they couldn't stand the consumer version (corporate one is much better and just quietly sits there protecting - but I digress). I installed them AVG and everything was great.
    Shortly afterwards their PC started behaving weirdly - and for once they didn't pester me (I think I might be slightly patronising) - and my Dad eventually coughed up for the full version of AVG (not sure why - I think he thought it was better than the free version and might help more). Anyway, it was cheap to buy the full version so he did. Mailed their support to ask for help - and they actually phoned him back, talked him through his problem and fixed it - even though it wasn't a virus.
    In a world of automated responses, bloated products and clueless support staff - this struck me as quite remarkable.
    Anyway, I whole-heartedly wish to plug AVG and hope Grisoft get the recognition I feel they're due.

  160. install the best virus protection by stackoverflow128 · · Score: 1

    I use my native virus protector, it uses no! cpu time and has no! memory footprint its called a root password. :)

  161. AVG by dirvish · · Score: 1

    I've had good luck with AVG and Bitdefender. I really didn't like the Avast's interface; it was so annoying I uninstalled it. I haven't tried AntiVir yet.

    AVG is particularly good when setting up a computer for someone who isn't too tech-savy...I haven't had issues with false positives and it doesn't harass the user as much as most others.

  162. Nobody Does Good Comparisons of AV by Slugster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw this problem back when the OEM version of McAfee ran out (30 days) on a laptop I had just bought. And I was surprised to see that I could not simply purchase a 1-year subscription to McAfee, I had to pay for a full-install for a year--that cost more. So I said "fuck McAfee" right then and there. ...I ended up going with Norton, I am old-skool enough not to believe in free lunches and Norton shows a couple bugs but has worked fine so far.

    Lots of people warned that Norton would bomb the system and be "uninstallable" (hadn't heard of regedit apparently) but I have been around long enough to know that ANY antivirus program can bomb an OS, and they all have. Some of that is due to the OS already being infected, and other times it's just bugs in the program, but one belief I do firmly hold is that any time you install new AV, you are risking the OS install (-Avast! bombed one of my own XP Home PC's into unbootability, for instance-).

    But when I went looking, I found that it was very difficult to objectively compare AV programs. There's a few big ones and a hundred or two little ones, and lots of websites to reviews, but they grab one or two of the big ones and a few of the ones many people have never heard of and they test them. And every website tests a different group of AV software, every time they do a test. So the results are never really comparative across different websites, or even across two separate review tests done on the same website.

    Ideally there'd be a website that repeatedly tested a large number of AV programs, the SAME programs with very little variation in the programs tested, once a month or so (and listing observed bugs would be good too). And then if one AV consistently came in near the top, or always did poorly, or worked but always showed lots of bugs you could form some real opinion of it. Elsewise, all everyone does is spout opinions and their own observations, "well I tried this one and it sucked, I tried that one and it was great". Everyone I asked online and IRL had tried one that sucked, and had tried some-other that was great, and they were all different and often conflicting.
    ~

  163. AVG/F-prot by inicom · · Score: 1

    Now that Frisk's F-Prot no longer has a free version (probably at the insistence of F-Secure), I recommend/install AVG on friend & family PC's. It seems to work fine, and everyone seems delighted with it after suffering through Symantec/Norton/McAfee hell.

    I still really like F-Prot though, and on my personal laptop I use it, but both my wife and son have AVG.

    --
    -a.e.mossberg
  164. Yawn [still a lame suggestion] by Slugster · · Score: 1

    Linux is not useful to most "average" users, because they end up wanting to run Windows software, and don't want to have to learn anything! Linux evangelists seem to have this mental blind spot that what "average" users tend to want is an OS that requires as little learning as possible and that runs commonly available retail (Windows) software.

    Look at it this way: the price difference between Windows and Linux is about $100, for "retail" XP Home.
    If I offered to pay you $100 a year to use an OS on all your PC's that wouldn't run any Windows OR Linux programs (or Mac, or any other you know of, or want to use, or are familiar with) would you think that was a good deal?
    ~

  165. Re:Used them all extensively doing on-site service by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I agree(it's blatantly obvious innit) that experiences from individual end users don't carry much weight. I've been using AVG for at least 3 years, and the only times it detects a virus is when I present a file to it for analysis. How should I know if it works? I can only judge it for the usability and intrusiveness. The rest comes from reports on virus battery tests.

  166. Not AVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as you don't get AVG; It makes false positives, fails to detect real viruses, has an unfriendly interface and updates are both common and large in size.

  167. ClamAV option for windows by lokiz · · Score: 1

    Years ago I hated such AV programs as Norton, etc because of the heavy toll they had on my system. I use clamav at home now. I also use firefox which has led me to a great extension
    "ClamWin Antivirus Glue for Firefox" https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/771/
    Seems to work well. Basically all it does is scan downloads with clamwin. But at least it doesn't eat a ton of memory resources all day long. Another option for people anyway.

  168. Ditto: AVG here.. by dodongo · · Score: 1

    I no longer admin Windows boxes that aren't in a major university environment where I unofficially do support work because I enjoy it, not because it's in my job description. So I run whatever the hell AV they tell me to on the Windows boxes on campus.

    However, when I did do official or unofficial admin work / computer consulting, not only did I use AVG, but my family did (and still does and digs it) and the same with many of my clients. Some even liked AVG so much they actually paid for the upgrade to the professional version -- despite using it in a SOHO setting where I think the license is vague as to whether or not you are requried to run a paid version.

    As an OT type thing -- does anyone know if there's any previous standard for the use of "free for private, in-home use" when those computers are SOHO machines? In the letter of the license, I'd say it's legal, but I'm not sure it's in the spirit of the license.

  169. AVG's been fine for years by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1
    I'm editing a computer magazine CD, and must say I'm very content with AVG Free Edition. Some years ago they had problems keeping their update servers running, and there was a case of a botched upgrade, but for the last two years the product has been working flawlessly. It's unintrusive and reasonably lean, does what most people need (including POP3 scanning and automatic updates), and it's free (as in beer, of course). We occassionally receive offers from the competing companies, but when we compare, AVG Free does what we need in better style. Free is only for strictly private use - no charities or similar pass that test.

    --
    I'm in a Unix state of mind.
  170. Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices? by it_flix · · Score: 1

    Linux... you'll thank me for it

    --
    www.notesmax.com
  171. Anti-vir poor auto-updater by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    I've being using Anti-vir for a long time and it's fine, but the auto-update feature has never worked very well. The ealier versions basically just were downloading the whole installation program and reinstalling it again, but it always asks the same questions as if it was a fresh install.
    They reciently had a new version, where the auto-updater seems to crash the running version of Antivir and it never gets started again.
    And finally the latest version comes up with some uncomprehensible message about updating a license.
    I am going to dump it and try out AVG to see if it's any less annoying

  172. Penicillin and RU586 ain't "safe sex" either. by argent · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's like saying the best form of birth control is abstinence.

    Well, you know, there's all kinds of "safe sex" between total abstinence and dragging random users from a "shooting alley" and making out in the back of your chevy every night... which is where I'd rate Internet Explorer on the prophylaxis scale.

    You don't have to go cold turkey on the Internet. There's a variety of browsers and mail readers and music players that don't use the HTML control that you can use instead of IE and Outlook and Windows Media Player.

    Firefox.
    Opera.
    Kmelion.
    Thunderbird.
    Eudora.
    iTunes.
    Winamp.

    Not Lotus Notes, though. Damn thing sucks the HTML control in if you look at it screwy.

  173. the best antivirus by littlehesse · · Score: 1

    the best antivirus is to just buy a mac :)

  174. total bollocks by bluepuma · · Score: 1

    This is total bollocks (as a british friend would call it). So you don't drive a car with airbags and anti-breaking system because it increases your car's weight, therefore slows it down and you are a save driver???

    Get real, even if you are without a fault, someone else may make a mistake and it will hit you. Someone else's computer gets infected and sends you an e-mail (with known sender) or a website gets hacked and has some malicious code on it.

    My AntiVir consumes about 0% of processing power and I am willing to give up some main memory to be on the save side and have a little bit of protection

  175. Avast by Z3nN3rd · · Score: 1

    I've used them all and they all do the same thing. Avast is the one I use simply because.

  176. What about ClamWin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned http://www.clamwin.com/. It's open source.

  177. Go with Avast! by Inertiatia · · Score: 1

    Avast is the best. No question.

  178. AVG is free again? by Gli7ch · · Score: 1

    So where the hells is this "free" version of AVG? I haven't been able to find a download link on grisoft.com for years.

    1. Re:AVG is free again? by MrMagooAZ · · Score: 1

      They've always had the free version. You just have to look for it. http://free.grisoft.com/

    2. Re:AVG is free again? by chem+girl · · Score: 1

      I think for awhile they tried to make a buck and it was pay only. When I first used it the time it started prompting for $ to get new updates. So, I switched to Norton that gunked up my system, but what could you do? I found the free AVG about 3 or 4 months ago and it works great!

  179. VirusTotal by MicroPat · · Score: 1

    VirusTotal... it's free, web-based, and uses many different AV scanners: http://www.virustotal.com/

  180. AVG hmmm by sirTifiable · · Score: 1

    I had new IT guy go around putting this on servers and desktops without me knowing.... despite the fact that I licenses for Nod32. As soon as I put Nod32 on.. all sorts of crap was coming up. Word of advice to any sys admin, Windows or Linux... Nod32 is the best AV for both that I have used, works with Exchange, Sendmail, Postfix etc, light and damned effective.

  181. You have to add Winpooch by charnov · · Score: 1

    If you add Winpooch to ClamWin, it becomes realtime. You also get antispyware, etc. from WinPooch. It's a good combo, but it can intimidate some users. I usually recommend ESET's for-pay NOD32 over everything.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  182. Use Avast, annoyed at AVG by rvqbl · · Score: 1

    I use Avast, and have had no problems. A couple of years ago it would mess up my system tray icons, but they seem to have solved that. If I am on my laptop and cannot connect to the internet, I get an annoying warning that the database could not be updated. A couple of my co-workers have AVG and all of their emails have a tag that "this email is certified by AVG to be free of viruses" or something to that affect. It is really annoying. I don't know if there is a way to turn it off, I am never approached them about it.

    1. Re:Use Avast, annoyed at AVG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible to turn off the "certified email" in AVG. It's fairly easy to do it, but I think the default should be off.

      You're right, it's stupid and annoying.

  183. Oh the Irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use NOD 32 as my antivirus of choice. It has a tiny footprint (usually 9-12 megs) for active scanning - and that covers browser, email, and file system.

    It's $40 for the first year, and $27.30 to renew.

    Why should you use NOD 32?

    It's the antivirus software used in Microsoft's own software labs. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

    They should know, considering they're the ones who know just how bad the virus problem is for windows. Ironic considering that they'r ealso the ones responsible for it :).

  184. I use DragonAV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it's made by the chinese it must be safe right?

  185. how is that a plus? disk activity is disk activity by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

    how does having plugins for various IM/P2P clients a plus? When something gets written to disk, it gets written to disk. It shouldn't matter what's writing it to disk, any new files written should be scanned. Does it not scan all new files that are written? Is that why it has (needs?) plugins for various IM/P2P clients in the first place? Makes no sense at all to me, disk activity is disk activity, and it should be taken care of regardless of what's doing the writing. If it isn't, well, sounds like a PoS to me.

  186. actually, Norton Antivirus ranked best there by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

    actually, Norton Antivirus ranked best there, everything else, including AVK, got lower scores.

  187. Avast just works. by sergeirichard · · Score: 1

    I've been using Avast! for about two years now, and will recommend it freely. It's damn slow for manual scanning, but its background scanning has never let me down.

  188. I take that back by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

    I looked at the bottom row, and it had the highest score there. My thinking was that this was the 'total' row, but in fact it was not. It was just for 'On-demand detection of polymorphic viruses,' for which it scored 100. The two rows above that were actually the total scores, in which AVK did indeed get the highest.

  189. Absolutely NOT the only comparison that matters by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a lot of crud to say and of course, this is the only comparison that really matters.... There is so very much more to be concerned with:

    Size of memory footprint
    Scan speed
    Scheduled scanning ability
    Plugs into email applications
    How it behaves with other applications
    How easy it is to use.

    So NO that is not the only comparison that matters.

  190. Broadband/DSL Reports' security forum... by antdude · · Score: 1

    Go here. There are discussions about free versions. Definitely search andd read the FAQ since this is a common question.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  191. ClamAV, but... by grikdog · · Score: 1

    ...but there's no handholding.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  192. removing norton by phrostie · · Score: 1

    so how do you remove norton.
    it has no uninstall.

  193. NAV 6 by eamonman · · Score: 1

    Been using for years, never had any problems. Of course, I have to supplement that with adaware, zonealarm, but it works. in fact, the only problem is that the XP is breaking down (I used to have a context menu that was almost the length of the screen, but there would be a noticible pause when right clicking on ANYthing)

    --
    0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  194. What *I* can't understand by Yvan256 · · Score: 0

    >What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus.

    And what I can't understand is people complaining about a 10% price difference between a Mac and a PC but then pay 20% more because they need an anti-virus, anti-spyware and pop-up blocker software.

    I know Macs aren't immune to trojans and dumb users, but still.

  195. What am I doing wrong? by fullback · · Score: 1

    I must be doing something wrong... I have never purchased or used any anti-virus software, yet I've never had a virus or worm since Windows 3.1. I get some tracking cookies, but nothing else. I don't use ActiveX, I don't use scripting, I don't use html mail, I don't open attachments and I don't get spam or phishing mail because my provider does a great job of doing what they should do - strip them out. What are you people doing to get a virus?

  196. My Mum Loves Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She absolutely loved the Sudukos and other games that came with it, and uses it to check her e-mail and browse the web.

    I think your problem is that YOU don't know anything about Linux, not your mum. Using Linux is easy once it's set up; it's setting it up that is the challenge.

  197. Clarification: AVG Free HAS real-time protection by MojoStan · · Score: 1
    I'm going to disagree on the userfriendly part with AVG.

    ...it seems really dated in terms of how it actually finds infection (ala scan only).

    For those that haven't tried AVG Free Edition...

    The parent's (Score:3, Informative) post seems to imply that AVG Free Edition does not have real-time/on-access protection/scanning as a free feature, but it does. It's called AVG Resident Shield. From Grisoft's Get AVG Free page (WARNING: promotional hype follows):

    Some of the highlights of AVG Free for Windows include:
    • Rapid virus database updates for the lifetime of the product
    • Easy of use
    • No system slow down
    • Automatic update functionality
    • The AVG Resident Shield, which provides real-time protection as files are opened and programs are run
    • The AVG E-mail Scanner, which protects your e-mail
    • The AVG On-Demand Scanner, which allows you to perform scheduled and manual tests
    • The AVG Virus Vault for safe isolation and handling of infected files
    • And most of all ... great customer satisfaction!
    Users of AVG Free know this (real-time protection) already, but I don't see other Score:3+ posts that make this clear to those who haven't tried it. It works for me, but I haven't tried the others, so I can't say it's the best.
    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  198. Re:AV Comparison Mcafee:NOT for me! by kb0hae · · Score: 1

    I have to agree here. I used Mcafee's subscruption service for two years. I found their AV software to be extremely invasive and annoying. I had to disable about 5 programs from running in the background after every update...they caused many system crashes and problems with other software. Mcafee's virus scanner also disabled Norton Systemworks Integrater, even though I had specifically NOT installed Norton Anti-virus. I no longer use either Mcafee nor Norton software of any kind. Although I have used Window less and less since installin g Kanotix GNU/Linux about 10 months ago, I have used AVG free edition for over a year and a half on my Windows install. I have also installed AVG free edition on several customer's computers. None of the computers I have installed AVG free edition on has had any virus infections as long as the customers follow my instructions about updating often (I usually recomend at least updating once a week for home users).

    As for the other free AV products, I have only tried Clamwin. I just didn't like it as well as AVG. I have not tried the others, but ease of use is important for home users (and a lot of business users who don't have an IT person to look after things for them). Basically if it isn't easy to use and easy to update, many people will just not do it. I am curently looking at free AV products and adware/spyware blocker/removers for Linux. Such things are not as much of a problem for Linux users (yet) as for Windows users , but as Linux becomes more popular (therefore used on more PCs) these things will become more of a problem for Linux users.

    Windows Vista...the best reason I can think of for switching to Linux and FOSS!

  199. Avoid Norton!!! by lordperditor · · Score: 1

    I own a small business providing support to small business and home users and we have found that if a support call is placed regarding virus software not doing the right thing 9 times out of 10 it is Norton Antivirus.

    Now when I say wrong thing I mean, screwed up while upgrading, refused to reinstall after it corrupted, (symantec have a tool to clean your machine up for a new install, even they recognise it does not uninstall/reinstall properly) live update refusing to work (very common one this), dramatic slow down of the PC after Norton install. The list just goes on.

    Also do not touch AntiVir it has loads of annoying false reports and it can cripple your machine with popups when it finds a virus and can't fix it. (which seems to happen a lot)

    I suggest AVG or Avast. )I personally like AVG because it is soo unintrusive.

  200. Scheduling a scan with Avast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick way to schedule a scan with Avast is to create a batch file containing the line

    C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\ashquick.exe c:

    schedule that file with the task scheduler, creating new lines in the file for each drive you want scanned.
    No different than what you have to do with windows defrag to schedule it.
    Just remember to turn down the volume, I've had a number of people call me freaking out when the alarm goes off when it finds a virus.

  201. Why not also mal-ware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please explain to me why we need to run AVG, SpyBot and AdAware, all three scan for malicious code, why can no developer create one fsking database with all the crap in one place and have it do the work.

    Am I missing something?

    The difference between a key-logger, a trojan and a worm and the next bit of crap is what again?

  202. Re:AV Comparison SITE biased against Konqueror!!! by Entropy · · Score: 1

    Bloody hell! I know this is off topic, but where else am I to bring this up? I've been using Konq for a while now and only now did I have a need to change the browser identification.

    And yes, AFTER I CHANGED IT, the site actually worked much better.

    What ident allowed me to use the site better? IE under XP.

    MOST FOUL! Damn bastards ..

    --
    The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
  203. Why buy software and not air ? by doudou42 · · Score: 1

    Maybe because air exists in natural state and computer programs don't ?

  204. AVG is great by crazzeto · · Score: 1

    AVG has been awesome for me. I've used the free version for years, and recently upgraded to the pay version which gave me 3 years of service. On my parents 1.3GHz AMD Duron w/512MB memory there is no appriciable performance impact on the PC.

  205. Free AV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you only listed three choices but I recently downloaded a free, resident version of Computer Associates http://ca.com/ virus software and it is working well for me. When I downloaded it I was given a free, one year subscription to the AV software. I just did a quick check of the site and couldn't find the link. If I didn't have to go to work I'd do a better job of looking, but y'all should be able to find it if it's still there.

  206. Avast here by LnxSlck · · Score: 1

    Me and my friends have been used avast for a while it's damn good, 2 updates for virus definitions a week, free, bunch of features, many languages, simple, light.. I've tryed macfee and norton.. This is way better..

    --
    Software is like sex. It's best when it's free.
  207. Re:how is that a plus? disk activity is disk activ by jfftck · · Score: 1

    Avast will pop-up a box that asks if you want to block the current incoming packets (it calls it a connection), so the virus does not even get written to the disk. So it acts more like a firewall in that regard.

    --
    I need a break!
  208. Use more than one, free or commercial by wallitron · · Score: 1

    I've been using and recommending Avast for years and have been very happy with it. The home users I support are reasonably savvy though, so the threat was probably fairly low.

    While fixing another computer that was known to be infected (multiple times), I plugged the hard drive into a Avast protected PC. A pretty brave move, but I was in a hurry to get a backup before I blatted and reinstalled. Big mistake though, as most would have guessed. The second computer was now infected and Avast alone couldn't remove it. It detected the troublesome virus as a trojan but couldn't clean it. It must have been missing a related file that was reinfecting the box. I thought I'd try Ewido (www.ewido.net now owned by AVG), a free trojan remover.

    Ewido worked like a charm, but it took several hours to remove, and gain confidence that I'd cleaned everything (various SysInternals tools etc).

    I'm still using Avast though, why? Because I agree with this article:
    http://www.techsupportalert.com/free-vs-paid-av.ht m
    No one program is perfect, and two different free versions are statistically better than one commercial one.

    I checked the virus files on Virus Total (virustotal.com) and confirmed that I'd be in a similar boat with Norton, Symantec and McAfee. I assume these guys offer some type of free telephone support with their product, but this would never be valuable to me.

    Avast is still running (active scanning), and Ewido is still installed if something strange happens and I need a second opinion.

  209. Re:Thunderbird: avast does and avg doesn't by timrichardson · · Score: 1

    When I started using Thunderbird, I discovered that AVG does not support scanning and quarantining of the inbox. Avast does, so I swapped.