FF again
join:2003-06-13
Finland
| Why to pay for an av?
The recent av-test against almost 300k younger than a year old trojans showed that even the free av:s can beat most, or even in practice all payable av:s against those most likely nasties, trojans.
»www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,20···K0000614
So, which add protection will those payable alternatives offer?
Are these kind of results "wrong" to the av-industry?
Best regards,
FF again! |
|
Buddel
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Premium
join:2004-03-06
EU
| (1) I don't care about those AV tests; I couldn't care less. I'm much more interested in the opinions of those people who actually use a certain AV. I appreciate their opinions much more than the often questionable results of those "tests".
(2) I pay for an AV because the one I use has always run smoothly on my machine and - unlike free AV software - it has never let me down, so this is another good reason for me to pay for AV protection. |
|
FF again
join:2003-06-13
Finland
1 edit | said by Buddel  :(1)I'm much more interested in the opinions of those people who actually use a certain AV. I appreciate their opinions much more than the often questionable results of those "tests". OK. I'm more curious to know when an av-test is "questionable"? The more free solutions are on the top, the more these tests are "questionable".
Best regards,
FF again!
Btw, there are still people who think that Firefox is "questionable"! |
|
Buddel
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Premium
join:2004-03-06
EU
1 edit | said by FF again :The more free solutions are on the top, the more these tests are "questionable". Did I say this? I don't think so. Anyway, I read the posts by well-informed users at DSLR and other forums who know a great deal about AV software and find their opinions much more valuable and informative than those "tests". But this is just me. If you rely on "tests", this is perfectly fine with me.  |
|
Buddel
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Premium
join:2004-03-06
EU
| reply to FF again
said by FF again :Btw, there are still people who think that Firefox is "questionable"! Why not? Is it a must for each and everybody to blindly believe in Firefox or any other software? Some people like Firefox whereas other people think it's crap. So what? |
|
FF again
join:2003-06-13
Finland
| reply to Buddel
said by Buddel :said by FF again :The more free solutions are on the top, the more these tests are "questionable". Did I say this? I'm sorry, but I didn't meant you, but many people in common, when they see tests like these.
Best regards,
FF again! |
|
Jer03
join:2006-08-16
Las Cruces, NM
| reply to FF again
I do not think that some of the AV tests are junk, and AV Comparatives has an excellent reputation, except from those whose favorite AV is not at the top.
Maybe the most important factor is whether or not the AV runs well on your system. If so then most of the well known AVs will provide needed security, unless you are a high risk surfer.
The three free AVs; Avast, AVG, and Avira do a good job for most. I am using Avira Classic (free) on my laptop, and will probably keep it.
But, I do not think that either AVG or Avast offer the detection protection of the better paid AVs. I cannot say that about Avira, which has one of the best detection rates.
It then boils down to the features you want. If one of the freebies has the features you want then go for it.
I have KAV 6 on my desktop, and plan to keep it, but am satisfied with Avira Classic on my laptop which gets much less use.
I am not sure that for many users the paid AVs are worth the money. I know a fair number of folks who use AVG free, have for years without infection, and are perfectly satisfied.
They do not surf high risk sites and are careful with emails. They also keep the AV and Windows up to date.
It does seem that the vendors have to make money and I am not sure how they would if they were all free.
Regards,
Jerry |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
| said by Jer03 :I am not sure that for many users the paid AVs are worth the money. I know a fair number of folks who use AVG free, have for years without infection, and are perfectly satisfied. They do not surf high risk sites and are careful with emails. They also keep the AV and Windows up to date. Exactly correct for some people. Spending the cash on a good firewall and perhaps anti-trojan software seems like a better investment to me. I was a former pay AV user who felt the subscription was wasted money and decided to switch to a lightweight free AV to provide just some basic protection. Now three years later I still have never been infected... not even had a single virus alert actually. Reading emails in plain text and using a alternative browser (for me it's Firefox) eliminates most infection vectors anyway.
Using a free antivirus to clean infected machines is another matter though - I don't think any free AV's are nearly as good as the best paid ones for detection and removal. |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to FF again
As for me, I pay for my AV because all of the free ones aside from ClamWin refuse to run in 2000 Server, which I use on my primary desktop since it is my favorite version of Windows. 98SE is a close second, but regretfully my demands have exceeded its capability.
Of the commercial AVs, eTrust EZ AV and McAfee (at least the version provided by Comcast) are the only ones with "home" editions that I've confirmed to run on Server. EZ AV is very non-intrusive and has no noticeable effect on my system, so I'm happy with it, even if they did dumb down the interface in the newer versions.
Now paying for a firewall, that's a different matter...
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey |
|
Jer03
join:2006-08-16
Las Cruces, NM
| reply to TK421
Re: Why to pay for an av?
Hi Taniel,
When you say "I don't think any free AV's are nearly as good as the best paid ones for detection and removal." Are you thinking in terms of spyware also?
I ask this because the detection rate of Avira Classic is the same for virus, trojan, worm type malware as the paid version. Premium has an anti-spyware component.
Classic is superior to the paid AVs in that area. At least I conclude that from AV Comparatives.
Best,
Jerry |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to FF again
I use KAV 6.0 because... it's KAV! 
For the years that I used avast Home(Free) nothing got in.
When I replaced avast with KAV 4.5 Pro and did the initial system scan... it found nothing - this tells me that avast had done a fine job.
When I finally replaced KAV 4.5 Pro with KAV 6.0 and did the initial scan... again, nothing was found.
I do *NOT* limit myself to "Trusted Sites" and regularly go to "those" places... as I always have. 
Avast never skipped a beat(BTW, avast Home-Free, uses the same engine & sigs as the Pay version).
I had no real reason to switch from avast, aside from wanting to see the KAV icon in the tray.
KAV 6.0 is a great AV, so is avast.
KAV 6.0 costs money, avast Home does not.
You decide.
EDIT Typo.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
| reply to Jer03
A free AV suits me fine because I do not rely upon it... it's just a extra safety layer. For those who do rely on their AV I think they should go for the best available - and that's probably a paid product. Testing is always subjective or else all comparative tests would show the same results. I'm sure Avira is a fine av. |
|
marcromero
join:2006-05-04
Winston Salem, NC | reply to FF again
Personally, I view all av tests with skepticism, including av-comparatives when it comes to av selection and use, free or paid. I prefer a paid av solution because of the advanced features and product support. |
|
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to FF again
How did they rank for false positives? Some of the "top ranking" AVs have a much higher rate of FPs. It's not just the detection rate. I agree that how it runs on your system is also very important and these tests don't tell you that.
However, I also agree that the difference between pay and free AVs is narrowing. In the past I've used AVG, then moved to AVAST, and now I use Active Virus Shield (Kaspersky Lite) which is excellent for my modest needs. It's based on KAV6, uses KAV definitions and updates once an hour just like the real KAV. It just does AV, none of the other stuff and that's what I want from Kaspersky. |
|
Jer03
join:2006-08-16
Las Cruces, NM
| reply to FF again
[ •TELUS
reply to Jer03
A free AV suits me fine because I do not rely upon it... it's just a extra safety layer. For those who do rely on their AV I think they should go for the best available - and that's probably a paid product. Testing is always subjective or else all comparative tests would show the same results. I'm sure Avira is a fine av.]
[marcromero
Personally, I view all av tests with skepticism, including av-comparatives when it comes to av selection and use, free or paid. I prefer a paid av solution because of the advanced features and product support.]
This is not meant to be argumentative, but I do wonder how either of you decide what is the best. I doubt that you have the time or resources to run your own extensive tests, and since you, Macromero, do not put much stock in AV Comparatives or other tests how do you know which AV has the best protection/detection?
Some AVs seem to provide the same support for either version, at least as far as forum support is concerned.
It is true that the best detection is of no avail if the program does not run well on you machine.
I would be interested in your own choice and the advanced features that you believe make it better.
Telus,
What data would you use to make a choice as to the “best available?”
If one decides based upon his own usage, then that does not really prove that many others under the same circumstances would not have the same clean results.
As I may have stated, I use KAV 6 on one and Avira free on the other. As far detection rates, the freebie very slightly exceeds the paid, and KAV is relatively expensive.
This is an attempt to gain understanding, and it is true that experts, of which I am not one, do disagree.
I do wonder why one would not have confidence in AV Comparatives, especially since there is zero financial gain for the tester.
I don’t agree that all testing is subjective. How do you arrive at that?
Thanks, and best regards,
Jerry |
|
Psicop
More human than human
Premium
join:2005-12-21
4 edits | reply to FF again
Relying entirely in an AV (or any other layer anyway), IMO, is dumb policy.
It's entirely up to you whether you want to pay for one or not. I use Avast Home (AVG and Avira are great too, but have some issues I don't fancy) with no issues, but I don't trust it.
I could install the best two AV in terms of detection and other features right now (KAV and F-Secure) but that wouldn't change a thing. Still wouldn't trust them either. Hence I chose to take the least-cost approach: $0.00.
You decide.
Note: Dadkins, can you share with us which places are those? |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| said by Psicop :Note: Dadkins, can you share with us which places are those? Not here... 
Also, you are wise to not "trust" anything... contrary to popular belief.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
marcromero
join:2006-05-04
Winston Salem, NC
| reply to Jer03
said by Jer03 :[ •TELUS reply to Jer03 A free AV suits me fine because I do not rely upon it... it's just a extra safety layer. For those who do rely on their AV I think they should go for the best available - and that's probably a paid product. Testing is always subjective or else all comparative tests would show the same results. I'm sure Avira is a fine av.] [marcromero Personally, I view all av tests with skepticism, including av-comparatives when it comes to av selection and use, free or paid. I prefer a paid av solution because of the advanced features and product support.] This is not meant to be argumentative, but I do wonder how either of you decide what is the best. I doubt that you have the time or resources to run your own extensive tests, and since you, Macromero, do not put much stock in AV Comparatives or other tests how do you know which AV has the best protection/detection? Some AVs seem to provide the same support for either version, at least as far as forum support is concerned. It is true that the best detection is of no avail if the program does not run well on you machine. I would be interested in your own choice and the advanced features that you believe make it better. Telus, What data would you use to make a choice as to the “best available?” If one decides based upon his own usage, then that does not really prove that many others under the same circumstances would not have the same clean results. As I may have stated, I use KAV 6 on one and Avira free on the other. As far detection rates, the freebie very slightly exceeds the paid, and KAV is relatively expensive. This is an attempt to gain understanding, and it is true that experts, of which I am not one, do disagree. I do wonder why one would not have confidence in AV Comparatives, especially since there is zero financial gain for the tester. I don’t agree that all testing is subjective. How do you arrive at that? Thanks, and best regards, Jerry My current antivirus is Dr.Web. I like the program and Igor Daniloff's philosophy concerning his antivirus and the antivirus market in general. In my opinion, independent av tests cater to security newsgroups for the most part and feed fanboyism. The resource I like is Virus Bulletin. To me, performance, stability of the program and protection from in the wild threats are the hallmarks of a top tier antivirus. Dr.Web excels in all three of these areas for me. |
|
Jer03
join:2006-08-16
Las Cruces, NM | reply to FF again
marcromero,
I appreciate the reply.
Regards,
Jerry |
|
raccettura
join:2002-09-28
USA
| reply to FF again
That test is good reason to pay. IMHO anything less than 98% is not acceptable. That test reiterates it. AVG/Avast are good, but not as effective as others.
If you want the best... you have to pay for it.
The real question should be: Why not have AV? That's something worth asking, since there's no reason to not have at least 95% protection. |
|
