Avg [Archive] - The PC Guide Discussion Forums

Anonymous

04-01-2003, 09:14 PM

I was commenting on this product in another thread, but my good friend cnm has made a rather good suggestion I should start one here, so here's some extracts from the other thread:

1.) It has never passed a Virus Bulletin test in Windows.

2.) The Heuristics analysis is poor. It causes false alarms and misses too many things at the same time.

3.) The virus database is small. AVG barely catches any dailers, hoaxes, or other junk. Some might say... who cares? But a good anti-virus software should detect them at least...

These are the sort of comments I have seen why people like AVG before:

"AVG does't hog up my resources."

Neither does NOD32, Dr.Web, Sophos, Kaspersky 3.5.x.x, Kaspersky 4 Lite and Command Antivirus. And all these products detect way better than AVG.

"AVG is the best value, it's free!

No... You can pay a little more and get alot more protection (ie. NOD32, KAV). Or if you refuse to pay for antivirus software the best free one is Avast! Home. This product actually got a VB100 award and is certified in many testing organizations. (Although I would not recommend it.)

"AVG is an install and forget solution."

Not really. You still have to watch out for trojans, of which AVG has a terrible time doing. Also, the AVG tech support is sloppy.

My point is that AVG is way too overated. Sure, its great that its free, but it won't do with today's viruses. Get another product.

AV-Test.Org:

AVG
Trojans=15,6%
Backdoors=62,2%
Script Viruses=53,4%
Polymorphic viruses=78,8%

Compared to Kaspresky 4:

Trojans=99,8%
Backdoors=99,9%
Script Viruses=99.7%
Polymorphic viruses=100%

Doesn't sound like AVG did as well as any other AV with trojans and scripts viruses. But then Kaspersky is famous for being good and catching trojans. What about another AV? Maybe one not so good at catching trojans and is more of a standard.

Compared to Norton Anti-Virus
Trojans=77,8%
Backdoors=76,8%
Script Viruses=91.7%
Polymorphic viruses=100%

University of Hamburg:

Win 98 Results
AntiVirus Rankings
13th place: AVG (out of 18)
AnitMalware
Didn't rank on list

Windows 2000 Results
AntiVirus Rankings
11th place: AVG (out of 18)
AnitMalware
Didn't rank on list

Virus Bulletin VB100% Rankings
19 failures
1 pass (February 2000: DOS) - has never passed on a windows based system.

Also Zoo On-Demand tests show's its poor heuristics:

Virus Detection Zoo On-Demand
91,0%

Now that 91% looks not so bad until you break it down:

File Viruses = 811 missed
Macro viruses = 140 missed
Script viruses = 55 viruses missed
Polymorphic viruses = 293 viruses missed
Other Malware (trojans, backdoors, etc) = 1627 missed

Total missed=2926

Now that is not what I call a passing grade.

Now, you could argue as the makers of NOD32 would argue that trojans are not viruses and should not be detected by an AV. On the other hand, it is obvious that trend is that almost all AV developers are trying to catch trojans.

Also false positives are way too high on AVG. Virus Bulletin as most AV experts agree feel that a false detection is bad as missing an actual virus. AVG is famous for false positives. In fact on the AVTest.Org tests it generally has about a 16% false positive rate.

The fact is these are three of the most respected AV Test Centres in the world. And on each of them AVG scores dead last or very poorly. Of them AVG fairs best on the AV-Test.Org test, and even there it at the back of the pack.

Interested to see the replies...

cnm

04-01-2003, 09:27 PM

my good friend cnm Nope, not my good friend. I don't know this anti-AVG person. :mad: :rolleyes:

Anonymous

04-01-2003, 09:29 PM

:D Naughty!

sleddog

04-01-2003, 09:41 PM

Who cares about all those silly tests. The important thing is that it has a pretty icon :p

cnm

04-01-2003, 09:46 PM

Indeed yes. :D

mjc

04-01-2003, 10:08 PM

Ok, Anonymous, I too am familiar with your work...

Now some basics, I too use AVG and recomend it.

Why?

Because I faound no major fault with it. I works well, does not "hog" resources and while it may not be the "best" I have noever been infected while using it.

I too agree with the NOD people, trojan detection is not really something that an AV product is designed for. Not only does it add layers of bloat, but a product specifically designed to detect trojans can work more efficiently than an "all in one" product.

I think you would agree that NAV and McAfee are often over-rated, resource hogging and many times buggy programs. That KAV, NOD and couple others are "hard core" and not quite something that most newbies would be comfortable with. As for Avast...if it is better because it rates higher then I'm not really sure the ratings mean all that much....I found it to be very picky, extremely prone to false positvies and in general rather annoying.

While I have nothing against KAV and think it a very fine product, it is not what I would call an entry level product. I believe AVG can be called an entry level product.

As for detecting dialers, hoaxes, etc....well, AVG is improving on dialers, maybe not entirely because of me, but I like to think so :cool: (yes I have been sending them some, and yes they are showing up in the updates).

Tech support being not very good, well, they tell you right up front that the free version does not have any. So any actual tech support is very good, considering that it isn't supposed to exist at all. Wouldn't it be great if all the AV programs were supported with forums like NOD32?

So, yes, you have valid points, but this is almost the Chevy, Ford, Dodge arguement.....with Toyota and Nissan thrown in for good measure.

cnm

04-01-2003, 10:23 PM

It does a nice, fast, unobtrusive, reliable email scan. And has a pretty icon, as noted by sleddog. :) New update today.

Anonymous

04-01-2003, 10:28 PM

Trojan detection in an AV doesn't really add layers of bloat at all. They all have it on some scale, just like they protect against virii, just some are better than others. Take Kaspersky 3.5, that has the best trojan detection in an AV out there and it has one of the smallest footprints. But yes it is better to have layered protection and use a dedicated anti-trojan (Trojan Defence Suite, TrojanHunter or BOClean generally seen as the best).

Yep Norton and Mcafee are way over-rated, excellent marketing for average anti-virus products. I used to be a Norton user myself many years ago until I decided to educate myself on AV software. I think that KAV and NOD32 and also Dr.Web are hardcore in the fact they are the best products, but I don't really see them as difficult to use. And yes that is what makes Avast better and that is what is most important in an AV product, detection and heuristics. So I don't really think you should use one particular product because it has a smaller footprint when the other has better detection. After all, what are we using these products for. Id say you are probably fair in saying it is an entry level product, but then - why use an entry level product? It's updates are also far too infrequent.

Last point for tonight. Yes you may have been using AVG for x period of time and it's caught things etc... But how do you know it hasn't missed things. And more importantly of all. AV software to me is about having the best possible protection against viruses, so you may have not been infected after 1 year or whatever, but you want the best protection possible for whatever may come along. Many AVG users (as well as other AV software users) were infected with Klez. If you didn't recieve it until late though new updates probably saved you. But the heuristics didn't, they would have on other software.

Last post tonight anyway, need sleep, will check for replies tomorrow. :)

jabarnutcase

04-01-2003, 10:37 PM

ALL Very Good points in this thread!!!

Well, some of them. :rolleyes: :)

I'm a Norton man myself.....Not because it's the best AV Software, but because I used to love to watch him in the "Honeymooners" :p

Budfred

04-01-2003, 10:40 PM

Anonymous,

I think you are missing the point. AVG may not be the best software in the world, but it is well regarded by many and it is not terribly likely that anyone is going to stop using it because you drop out of nowhere and proceed to start attacking it. If you want people around here to take you seriously, try taking a less contentious tone and actually contribute something other than a diatribe.

It appears that you probably know something about computers, start to show it in a collegial way and you will be welcome here....

mjc

04-01-2003, 10:48 PM

Because I play with too many other AV programs.....they all agree, I am either clean or got something none of them can detect. :D

Anonymous

04-02-2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Budfred
Anonymous,

I think you are missing the point. AVG may not be the best software in the world, but it is well regarded by many and it is not terribly likely that anyone is going to stop using it because you drop out of nowhere and proceed to start attacking it. If you want people around here to take you seriously, try taking a less contentious tone and actually contribute something other than a diatribe.

It appears that you probably know something about computers, start to show it in a collegial way and you will be welcome here....

I'm not trying to stop them, i'm just pointing out how badly AVG is regarded by the AV experts, and this is something I bet most users don't know. As I said in another thread if I had come here and said how good AVG was would I get such bad reception as I haveing by pointing out its negative points?

cnm

04-02-2003, 10:54 AM

if I had come here and said how good AVG was would I get such bad reception as I haveing by pointing out its negative points? Obviously not. People would have agreed with you that AVG is very good.

Generally people want to be warned if a program contains spyware or crashes your computer, or is a resource hog. Whether it is "the best" is pretty irrelevant, I think. Just as when buying a car you want to know that it's safe, but the rest is a matter of personal taste and desire.

Recommendations are always welcome, but yours are not new, and you don't say which AV you use (unless I overlooked something). That is the only one where your opinion would be a contribution based on personal experience.

Personally, when chosing software I read up, then download a handful of recommended ones with free trials. After a week or so I pick the one that agrees with my way of working and my taste in GUIs, and doesn't introduce conflicts.

Anonymous

04-02-2003, 11:12 AM

I see where you are coming from.

Generally people want to be warned if a program contains spyware or crashes your computer, or is a resource hog. Whether it is "the best" is pretty irrelevant, I think. Just as when buying a car you want to know that it's safe, but the rest is a matter of personal taste and desire.

I still find that odd though, I can't help it. You're saying people want to know whether x AV has spyware and is a resource hog. But they don't really care how high it ranks in it's detection of virii and heuristics. Ive used most AVs out there, I tried AVG as well for a few days, but to me it's like having a timebomb. At the moment i'm using NOD32 as my resident, but have licenses for Dr.Web and Kaspersky 3.5 which I also use as backup scanners and switch inbetween as to which I use as my resident no and again.

cnm

04-02-2003, 11:23 AM

As I think mjc and others have already said, positive comments about programs you have used are generally of more interest than finding fault with others' choices, unless you have found a problem during your own use of a program..

sleddog

04-02-2003, 01:03 PM

I tend to disagree cnm. I appreciate constructive criticism. If AVG compares poorly with other antivirus products then I see no reason why that fact shouldn't be raised and discussed.

But I think that if we're going to debate relative merits, then the playing field need to be level. So how about a comparision of AVG only with other 100% free products? The only two I'm familar with are Avast! and Antivir personal edition. Perhaps there are others?

cnm

04-02-2003, 01:18 PM

I see no reason why that fact shouldn't be raised and discussed. Depends how you define "fact" I guess.

I don't accept those certification sites as fact, at least not without a little squinting. A small leak of what was to be tested, and blooey. Also they don't necessarily test for what is corrently in the wild, since they don't test all proggies at the same time.

mjc's test, of check up on your AV by scanning with free online ones from time to time, seems more valid to me.

sleddog

04-02-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by cnm
Depends how you define "fact" I guess.

I'm not "defining" fact. If a comparative evaluation of AV software shows AVG to have a lower detection rate, then that is a fact. The test may have been invalid for whatever reason, but it is still a fact that, "the test showed AVG to have a lower detection rate".

I don't accept those certification sites as fact, at least not without a little squinting. A small leak of what was to be tested, and blooey.

So you're saying that AV companies may benefit from a leak and be prepared for particular testing? Why wouldn't the same apply to Grisoft? Are they scrupulously honest, or just out of the loop?

Also they don't necessarily test for what is corrently in the wild, since they don't test all proggies at the same time.

That, I think, introduces randomness, which should even out over time. So no particular application should be favoured or disfavoured because of it.

cnm

04-02-2003, 02:01 PM

Guess I'm saying I don't much care. Personal reaction. Enough from me.

Anonymous

04-02-2003, 02:13 PM

I tend to disagree cnm. I appreciate constructive criticism. If AVG compares poorly with other antivirus products then I see no reason why that fact shouldn't be raised and discussed.
Couldn't agree more, I don't see why the facts should be hidden away under the carpet.

But I think that if we're going to debate relative merits, then the playing field need to be level. So how about a comparision of AVG only with other 100% free products? The only two I'm familar with are Avast! and Antivir personal edition. Perhaps there are others?
There are a few other free ones such as F-Prot for DOS, but this is just a scanner and isn't real time protection, although as a free scanner it is very good and performs well in tests. There is also Gladiator Anti-Virus which is looking promising but is still in development stages so cannot put to the test properly yet. Avast free performs the best in tests out of the free ones. So it's a toss up between detection of viruses and system resource usage there.

I take your point in that it's free. But i'm not just pointing out AVG free edition, the Professional one has just the same engine and heuristic analysis as the free one and is in fact the version which is sometimes used in tests. So that's a $40 product so it's fair to compare to the rest.

Depends how you define "fact" I guess.

I don't accept those certification sites as fact, at least not without a little squinting. A small leak of what was to be tested, and blooey. Also they don't necessarily test for what is corrently in the wild, since they don't test all proggies at the same time.

mjc's test, of check up on your AV by scanning with free online ones from time to time, seems more valid to me.

Well these are the most respected anti-virus testing centres in the world. They are professionals and have been doing the job for many years. So if you can't accept their results that's up to you. In a comparative test they they do every few months are all tested against the exact same set of viruses. They aren't amateurs. :p

I don't see how mjc's "test" as you call it is more valid. That prooves that you haven't got a virus, not how good a current programme is at detecting viruses. Just because AVG or any other AV software caught a few common viruses in x amount of time is no indication of how good a product it is. Just to confirm again the tests are perfectly valid using the same viruses and the developers are not informed of what is being tested and after the tests if they fail they get the black mark and are not given a second chance until the next time they are tested. So forget about the conspiracy theory.

sleddog

04-02-2003, 02:52 PM

Antivir PE (the free personal edition) offers realtime scanning, a relatively small memory footprint (comparable to AVG), and seems to rate significantly higher than AVG in detection tests.

On the downside, Antivir PE's updating is mostly a manual process (usually entailing a complete download -- 3.5mb) and their server is pig-slow.

Paul Komski

04-02-2003, 04:10 PM

My two cents worth is based around the fact that there are very many different types of users with different on-line habits and with varying degrees of ability. Some also "never" use a floppy diskette or connect to a LAN.

For "entry level" users on a standalone PC, AVG is a cheap, effective and easy-to-use product. IMO it is more important to teach good habits and to have one's security up-to-date than anything else.

Most ordinary users these days get viruses from eMails and avoiding the security-riddled Microsoft products is one of the most effective ways or reducing one's chances of infection.

For those on LANs or whose surfing habits are suspect then additional security is obvious.

protect against virii
To be pedantic, virii is neither a Latin word and is certainly not the plural of virus. Viri is a Latin word but is not the plural of virus. Even virus (with a long-sounded u) is not the plural of virus, since it is, almost uniquely, a neuter noun of the fourth declension. Nor, even, is it virera (as in opus/opera). I commend using viruses, which is just plain good English. If it matters at all - of course. :D

mjc

04-02-2003, 05:12 PM

I use AVG, as primary, online as back up and am playing with GAV...but since it has just recently moved to the beta stage it isn't worth trying to compare to the standard, established ones. I also have tested/played with the rest (except NAV, I was turned off that one years ago and just haven't ever felt the urge to return). And do so about every 6 to 9 months....I liked NOD when I last tested it, but I just could not justify the expense, because it didn't seem to be any better at detecting my little test group than AVG (yes I do have a little collection of live viruses, trojans and dialers, some of them are not so common). No, it is not as comprehensive as the "List", nor do I consider my test methods scientific. No, I did not pick them from my AVG virus vault. I hunted down a random group of bad guys, some collected from infected machines (some of which where running other "better" AVs), some from users I helped disinfect machine by way of forums, and finally the old fashioned way....found them on the net.

F-prot is in a class of its own. And it is not what I would call entry level.

I have found that most computer users, when faced with short comings of a particular program would rather find out on their own by coming to the realisation that they have out grown the product than by someone attacking something that they find very useful. Most people that need an anti-virus program would rather not deal with complicated downloads/updates, most are on older systems that need a small footprint, and most importantly, for me at least, are rather unwilling to spend money on something they, mistakenly, believe their OS was doing or should have been included with their computer to begin with.

AVG, while not being "the best" does detect and kill enough to make it useful.

At times their updates have been sporadic, but usually they are on top major outbreaks, within the same window that most of the others are publishing their updates.

Hardtek1976

04-02-2003, 05:21 PM

Hi,
This thread reminds me of these two threads going on at different forums here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/archive/index.php?board=24;action=display;threadid=7443) and here (http://forums.techguy.org/t120667/s.html) . Both are excellent reads.
Now as sleddog has suggested lets stay with the free ones with resident scanners.
Avast4
AVG6
Antivir PE

I'm also glad Anonymous brought up Gladiator Anti-virus. At this moment GAV is betaware and should not be used as a main anti-virus. It is good to use it as a backup on access scanner. Yet Michael's (developer and programmer of GAV) opinion of the three can be found
here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6254840~root=security,1~mode=flat) and here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6319019~root=security,1~mode=flat) .
Now as to system resourses check ezeebob's post in
this thread (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6254840~root=security,1~mode=flat) , it seems to match that of AVG.
If anyone is interested in the 100% Virus Bullettin results in more detail check out sig's link in (edit here is the direct link http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/pdf/2002/200206.pdf )
Regards,
Ron

Budfred

04-02-2003, 07:09 PM

I believe all three of my sisters use Norton AV and if I suggested to them that they switch to any of the programs you all are suggesting as the most effective, I would get a number of befuddled, irritated and negative responses. If I can get them to update every once in a while, I figure I am doing well. I am waiting for them to ask for help, but fortunately 2 of the 3 don't use the web enough to get overly exposed to nasty stuff.

My point is that most users out there are like my sisters. Make it at all complicated and you lose them. They won't update and they won't know what to do if they do have trouble. The most effective antivirus program is simply this: the one that gets used.....

mjc

04-02-2003, 08:38 PM

The most effective antivirus program is simply this: the one that gets used.....

I think Budfred has summed it up perfectly.

Anonymous

04-02-2003, 09:15 PM

Yes that's the big problem with AntiVir PE, the update process, not quite sure why they don't implement one like virtually every other uses.

I do agree using an alternative E-mail client is a good idea which I also made reference to in another thread.

Well NOD32 hasn't even missed a single ITW virus in proper tests in the last 5 years. A big point being made now is AVG is "entry level". Why is this? Because it's easy to use, or poor results? Most AV software is easy to use, it's designed for a home user and they want to sell the product therefore they make it simple whilst giving configurability to more seasones users. I think AntiVir PE is the only one that has complicated updates. How do we know most people are on old systems? Lot's of software that has a small footprint - NOD32, Dr.Web, Sophos, Kaspersky 3.5.x.x, Kaspersky 4 Lite and Command Antivirus. And i'm not specifically targetting my debate at AVG Free, as AVG Professional is no better so I feel it's perfectly fair to compare to non-free software.

Back to the ease of use point. Dr.Web for example. To update - Right click system tray icon and click update. To scan - Tick drives click scan. When something is infected - Click cure/delete etc... It's the same principal as Norton and AVG etc... I don't see how it's more complicated and would lose people. And most are similar to that, i'm just using Dr.Web as an example.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. :)

sleddog

04-03-2003, 04:59 AM

Which do you use, Budfred?

jabarnutcase

04-03-2003, 06:16 AM

While you're waiting for budfred to come around, I'll tell you guys that I use Norton- And have for quite some time.
To be honest, I haven't really looked that much into testing or comparing various AV products over the years. (Other than a few "reviews" in PC magazines.)

I do know this- I can't even remember when I had a virus. (Boy, something tells me I shouldn't have said that! :rolleyes: )

I remember KLEZ just about brought down a Company I once worked for for the better part of a week. The Network Admin. and his helpers were running around with their heads cut off. (I believe they used Mcafee).
At any rate, while I got hammered at home (being in a lot of peoples address books) I never had a problem. I was having a ball clicking on them just to watch Norton warn me that they were naughty.

I just installed 2003. Which by the way, I ended up getting for free after rebates...(I usually do). Even if you have to pay the nominal update fee, it's really pennies a day. Even as I am typing this I see the little "live update" icon in my tray updating my virus definitions right now. I don't have to do a thing.

I am certainly no expert on AV software, but the fact that I can't even remember when I had to worry about it enough to try to become an "expert" to me says something.
Only my humble opinion, and will undoubtedly generate some negative responses. No problem! Don't worry, be happy! :)

cnm

04-03-2003, 10:48 AM

I'm curious about the "entry level" concept. My AV lets me choose which files to scan, when to scan, has Quick, Main, and Complete scan settings, scans my email, and autoupdates on the schedule I set. What more could a non-entry-level AV do?

Never been infected so my experience is limited. However my impression is that email worms and trojans are both more likely than viruses these days. Viruses were big when DOS was the OS. Now a good anti-trojan seems like the important thing to have, plus a decent firewall.

mjc

04-03-2003, 11:05 AM

My idea of an entry level product is the basic model of car, limited features, but gets the job done.

It is more than a fully function demo, but not quite as functional as the pay version.

cnm

04-03-2003, 11:13 AM

But what features are missing, I mean. All I can think of is enterprise level stuff like scanning a bunch of PCs from one location. My AVG is the paid for one, but the way I read previous posts, all versions of AVG, Norton, MacAfee etc are called "entry level".

mjc

04-03-2003, 12:08 PM

I was thinking more of the free version, with its limited UI, lack of tech support etc.

McAfee and NAV I consider as "paperback" or mass market editions, passable but not really for the enthusiast. Kind of like the USA Today newspaper.

Anonymous

04-03-2003, 01:30 PM

I see the only reason for it being entry level is poor performance really. I see that as half acceptable for the free version, but the $40 Professional version really is a joke.

Budfred

04-03-2003, 03:52 PM

I use Norton, partly because it makes it easier to support my sisters, partly because I get a couple of copies free each year after rebates and partly because it has been adequate. I used to use McAfee and after it (and associated utilities) crashed my system for the 4th or 5th time, I decided to switch. The only other decent one I knew about at the time was Kapersky and the friend that told me about that had just switched back to Norton.

My point, a few posts back, is that the typical user is intimidated by all the stuff out here on the web and wants a nice simple answer to complex questions. Norton provides that. It is easy to install, easy to maintain and you can pick it up almost anywhere. You don't have to understand a lot about computers to use it. If I ask my sisters to download Kapersky and install it, I can expect them to reject the idea immediately. If they do take me up on it, I can expect hours of long distance phone calls to get them set up and running. I know they will use Norton although I can't rely on them to update it or upgrade it.

ErnieK

04-03-2003, 04:32 PM

I would like to compliment everyone for the way this discussion has went. everyone putting thier point of view without heat.
(How about a clapping hands smiley)

A lot of it has been over my head. The stuff about statistics etc. Some becuase of my trouble absorbing the written word. But I would like to put in my 2p worht.

Due to my abillty to (or rather the lack of it) absorb the written word, software that is complicated to set up is of no use to me. When I say difficult to set up, I mean that to set up fully the user must read detailed instructions. This I cannot do. So what am I left with? Usually cut down versions of programs.

The first AV software I used was Norton. Due to repepated problems with it, and technical answers from the support I eventually did away with it.

My next was McAffee. Less said about that the better. All I will say is that if you offered me it for free, and then came in weekly to keep it upto date, I would refuse it.

Through these forums I found AVG. I use the free version.

This took me 2-3 days to understand and find my way round it. I have never had a virus since installing it. I feel comfortable and safe with it. My choice is to update manually, which I check for on a daily basis. (I know they only post every 10 days or so, but I still check)

As added security I use other stand alone software. By doing this when/if somehting goes wrong it is (reasonably) easy to track down which program is at fault. If I used a high end product (suite) it would be almost impossible

The only things I have loaded at start up are AVG and Jason Levines "Script Sentry", therefor nothing to slow down bootup, The rest of my security software is started just prior to connecting to net or putting strange disk into my computer.

I also have all cookies as ask permission. This way I can control possible tracking.

A few friends contact me when they have problems with thier computers. (Why I do not know) 4 times I have had to spend numerous hours getting rid of viruses/trojans etc. A couple of them had no, or outdated AV software. I have set thier computers up the same as my own. Since then they have had no problems with virus/trojans etc.

The point ot my rambling? This.

The majority of people have no understanding of things technical. So therefor statistics are meaningless to them (as they are for me for different reasons)

People have to be trained to protect themselves.

To do this, it is more sensible to use easy to follow software. In this case, for me, AVG along with other stand alone software. Also by doing it this way the cost of being (as near as dammit) fully covered is negligble. As previously stated I have not had a virus since setting up this way.

YES there are draw backs with having to remember to update more than one piece of software but I have gotten into the habit of checking once a week for all updates then running full manual scans where required. I also run Trend Micro DOS scan once a week, or every time I download and update the DOS scanner.

I accept that all that I do could be done with one piece of software, but I do not have the abillity to run it. This, I have found to be the reason for others not to have or use security software. By doing it my way there are now 4 other people who now feel secure and safe when using there computers. Using the suites they would not.

Sorry for rambling on.

jabarnutcase

04-03-2003, 04:52 PM

Hello again guys-
Since we're on the subject, and I've already explained in an earlier post that I am far from an expert on matters of anti-virus software, maybe someone can answer a question for me. :confused:

(A little side note first- I see from my e-mail notification that Ernie has replied in this thread...I think I'll just go ahead and continue without looking)

Anyway, I am very curious....Does the AV software one uses depend on how careless they are with their computers? Their "surfing" habits? What???
The reason I ask is this.. As I stated earlier, I haven't had anything even close to resembling a virus in YEARS. I am on a broadband connection and my computer is on more than it is off.
I am also behind a firewall and a router, I run a lot of (free) Anti scum-ware" software, I NEVER open e-mail attachments unless I know they're coming and I've checked them out first, and I keep Norton (or it keeps itself ) up to date daily. I don't share pirated software on dingy disks, etc.

In a way, it's ironic...Maybe the people that need the most sophisticated anti-virus software, are the ones that know the least about why they need it at all.

Maybe someone can explain to me why I need to be better protected, or what I can do to get a virus???
I'm a bit "disappointed" that Norton hasn't let me down yet when there are so many better programs out there.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but someone needs to tell me why I need to do more....Am I just the luckiest guy in the world? :confused:

I can assure you that I am not. :( :)

Anonymous

04-03-2003, 05:07 PM

What makes you come to that conclusion? I don't think the people that want the best AV software necessarily do it because they get a lot of viruses. It's about wanting the best protection available for that new virus that gets written which may well just end up coming your way. Yes we know common sense is important as it is in anything, so what do you want after it - the best tools for the job. And whem I spend money on anything I don't see the point in getting the first thing I see, I try to get the best I can with my money in anything I buy. It's the people who don't use AV software and the people who use bad ones that spread the viruses around. :(

Mark Miller

04-03-2003, 05:12 PM

I agree with Jabar, I even use what everyone thinks is worse, McAfee and have luckily no problem. A couple of e-mails it has told me not to open and also a couple of files, thats really all I need and probably most other people also. I have broadband and a good firewall [thanks mjc] and also run spybot, past all this I really don't need to know 'cause all I want to is surf and have fun on the net. I do turn the box off every nite.Mark:cool:

jabarnutcase

04-03-2003, 05:19 PM

Anonymous- I'm still a bit confused. I have read a little bit about AV software. As I'm sure you are aware, Symantec has been around forever and they have a huge team of people (I assume) that are on top of the virus threats daily- (Judging by how often my definitions are updated).

I honestly doubt, unless I am being totally naive, that I am responsible for spreading virus's around. And what about the people that don't even know what a virus is, let alone how to deal with software that prevents you from getting one?

If your sole mission is to travel forums the world round and get everyone to use the best AV software, I commend you for that.

(Edit) Without reading this thread over again- What is the "best"???