Replacement Antivirus

[Extremerc12]

Hello all,

In the market to replace my paid version of AVG Internet Security. From a pure price stand point, it just doesn't make sense to pay the higher price they now charge. I have all the free programs, MSE, Malewarebytes, Spybot, etc, but the desire is to have the additional features that AVG Internet Security has in addition to the antivirus, spam filtering and firewall.

I am looking really at two different programs, BitDefender Total Security 2012 and Kaspersky Pure 2.0 Total Security. I am currently using a business version of Bit Defender at work, so I know the company is decent. Since this is for a home remedy, I am weighing my options. What are the thoughts on both programs. Since both have heuristic scanning capabilities I really don't see a downfall to either. The footprint at first install seems lightweight, but after some time of use I am not sure how both will react.

Thanks for any insight.

[David M]

AVG has a free version. The malware protection is the same.

AVG Free | Antivirus Download | Free Antivirus Software

It's my opinion that you can get excellent malware protection without having to pay for any of it.

[glc]

I honestly don't see a need for anything more than MSE and Malwarebytes.

[Extremerc12]

I am fine with the free version. Other family members want to have identity threat features and so on.

[rjfvillarosa]

Originally Posted by Extremerc12 Other family members want to have identity threat features and so on.

I understand their need for a little more security, but for me common sense browsing and vigilance far outweigh the issues of networking problems and resourse hogging that a lot of these security packages bring along with them.

[Extremerc12]

Let me put it this way. You can't tell them not to do that or the computer will be thrown. So to cover my bases, I typically purchase a suite so I don't have to police.

[Extremerc12]

Maybe thrown is a bit over exaggerated, but a quite agitated person. My mom and dad are not very tech savy people, so telling them not to do this or do that is very hard. I am always working so getting over here to fix problems is a bit of a hassle.

[Force Flow]

Honestly, the indentity theft features don't actually do very much of anything.

All I usually do for myself and clients is install MSE or AVG with malwarebytes and spybot's immunize feature (for preventative measures).

[martson]

I prefer to use suites. For the past 3 years I've been using Norton Internet Security. Before installing it for the first time, I read many articles and opinions about it, both good and bad. Then I installed the trial to see what it was like for myself. I found it worked well. The result is that I just renewed it for the 4th time. The cost was £22-00 for three licences, two of which I've used. That's £11-00 a year for each computer. I can't see what the issue is with paying a low cost like that.

Just before renewing this year, I tried Comodo Internet Security, Bitdefender Internet Security and Kaspersky Internet Security. I tend to take quite a bit of notice of articles/opinions and AV comparison charts when deciding which programs might be best. Then install trial versions of the ones with the best figures to see how they run and what impact they have on the system.

Comodo doesn't have the highest detection rates but is said to major more on prevention than detection. Maybe that is the case. It certainly runs OK without slowing my computer down. However, it's hard to ignore the figures that Bitdefender, Kaspersky and Norton suites generally attain. I'd have gone for Bitdefender but for the fact that is slowed down some functions on my computer.

In the end, it became a choice between another year with NIS or switching to Kaspersky Internet Security. Kaspersky does very well in comparison tables and is generally well spoken of. I saw it on Amazon for £16-28 (3 licences) and was sorely tempted to buy it. However, Norton won the day again since it has proved to be OK during the years I've used it.

I know some people consider Norton bad but I've been using it for too long now without a problem to be persuaded that this is the case. It seems as if those who say it is poor and bloated are talking about a different NIS to the one I'm using.

NIS isn't the only layer of security installed but it is one that I reckon is worth keeping and paying for. Kaspersky is good too. If you want to use a suite, then I think KIS would be a good choice and probably sufficient. The extra functions of Kaspersky Pure might not be absolutely necessary.

[Force Flow]

Most of the computers I clean off that are chock full of infections are running one of the Norton suites. Norton seems to be a magnet for that stuff and thus part of the problem, rather than the solution.

You really don't have to pay for AV protection these days.

*If* you really want to pay for something, I'd recommend BitDefender. It has the highest detection and prevention rates according to two prominent independent AV testers, and it isn't too resource intensive.

AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Home
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

The reviews you find in computer magazines or blogs are kind of useless when it comes to reviewing AV software.

[martson]

Originally Posted by Force Flow Most of the computers I clean off that are chock full of infections are running one of the Norton suites. Norton seems to be a magnet for that stuff and thus part of the problem, rather than the solution.

I think it might stand to reason that those in the computer field professionally would come across more infected computers that have Norton on them. This could be because Norton comes with new computers. Therefore, there are a greater number of computers around with Norton on them. Percentage-wise, Norton may not give any more trouble than any other suite or AV program. I wonder if MSE or Avast was put on new computers, would there be the same percentage of cases where they had let infections through? I think that is possible.

It seems similar to if I'd said (in my self-employed working days) that Thorn televisions and video recorders are awful because that's what I have to repair more of. It wouldn't have been true though. Coming across this make breaking down in greater numbers was only because there were more of them around than other makes.

I agree that reading reviews/blogs might be pointless. Probably on the grounds that there are always those that are for and against a particular product. I think reading can help to gain an overall picture though. In my own case, reading about what might be best security programs and taking note of comparison tables has always been followed up by actually trying programs out, free and paid.

I'm not a professional computer repairer and I can't say what opinions I'd have if I was. I can only give an opinion based on about 17 years of being interested the running of computers and the programs available for them. User experience and opinions perhaps count for something too.

[jdeb]

I use MSE, small footprint and very effective. If the customer wants a paid suite for piece of mind, Kaspersky's is what I am installing.

No one is protected from the java based maleware. If they click on them, they are going to get infected.

I think rjfvillarosa said it best.

[Spools]

If I was going to pay for any protection software it would be the paid version of Malwarebytes. The auto updates and scheduled scans are probably the best way to protect the less tech savvy.

[glc]

Yes, but you shouldn't depend on only Malwarebytes. It should be used in conjunction with MSE.

[SARGE]

Of all the ones got for free and paid for, am still using NOD32