I find it a bit surprising that you would gladly rip off Adobe and Microsoft a few 1000 bucks and be ok if your act does not come 100% together, but not spend the lousy 50 bucks or some to actually have a decent, reliable, antivirus/antimalware/anti-* software. Think about it, it is easily the most important software you will ever use. So why be cheap on that particular software? 5 years ago I bought and Eset SmartSecurity Business Edition 5 License for about 160$ dollars and I keep renewing it for around 110$ a year. A single user license costs 59$. Please observe the difference between Smart Security and Antivirus. The former is comparable to Norton Internet Security when it comes to features, the latter is only AV. www betterantivirus com / catalog/eset-smart-security-home-edition-licenses-c-55_30_43.html for a price tag. (No I dont work for Eset, but it caught all viruses and malware since the first setup...)
Been using Eset for 1 year now, mainly because it doesn't slow down my computer. But it does have problems with cleaning virus in NTFS external HDD. It can't clean the virus, saying that the files is locked and i need to reboot to clean, which is still there after rebooting. I had to manually clean the virus though. (and that has happened many time with many virus) :|
I am limited due to being 64 bit, I know it's not an antivirus but I wish I could use Zone Alarm....that being said, I use Avast. It pops up when Kaspersky didn't, on trojans on websites and other things on the web. I've been happy with it, whenever I suspect I have been hit by something, HiJack this and other scanners tell me nope, you're clean. TY Avast.
i use NOD32 on one system and KIS on another. i like 'em both. they both give top protection over the other guys... NAV sux
I would recommend ESET Smart Security/ AV, too. Renewed the License a few days ago and never had any problems.
2010 version isn't bad at all. But, I don't recommend it. :S Indeed. Yep, the Antivirus doesn't fail.
1) An AV that catches over 99% of malware cannot 'suck', because the definition of 'sucks', which stands for real real bad, and the fact that something misses the perfect mark by less than 1%, are unmatchable. 2) The Golden Gate Bridge is a pretty sturdy building. While it can easily withstand the weight of many trucks it would probably break down if you tried to send an oil-tanker across it. Ergo: Do not try to send an oil-tanker across it. And everything will be alright. (We in the business call this 'using common sense'. Its what makes up for the 0.x% that Avira cannot provide.)
For how many videos this guy makes, he has no idea wtf he is doing. You don't test an AV by browsing to misc. websites and downloading potential, unconfirmed 0day's. Yeah, that is one small feature of an antivirus (stop new threats), but you have millions of samples of known viruses which most antivirus products still have trouble detecting. There are true experts who test these products on a regular basis and I have yet to see one study where Avira is not near the top of the pack.
matousec.com virusbtn.com malwareresearchgroup.com icsalabs.com checkvir.com westcoastlabs.org av-test.org av-comparatives.org anti-malware-test.com Not saying Antivir is perfect (no AV is), but they all can't be wrong.