Kaspersky Anti-virus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodnod
  • Start date Start date
Kaspersky is the best although it can be cumbersome. But if you want to
protect your system totally it's the best choice.
It uses very little resources and keeps good track of what is going on. Not
100% but very close.

Those freebie antivirus programs? I've tested a few of them and was not
impressed with them. Avast
gave me a lot of false warnings, and actually interfered with Internet
Explorer to the point where I couldn't
view certain web sites, such as MSN, and was a pain to remove and repair the
changes it made to my system .

CA Antivirus was also a freebie provided by Roadrunner, but it too
interfered with my mail program, and corrupted
it to the point where all of my saved email was lost. Thank goodness I had
backed it up so I only lost a few weeks worth of
email.

And finally Norton, I used to be a big fan of Symantec but not any more.
What's the point of having a malware program
that does the same if not more damage than the malware programs it is
supposedly designed to protect against.
 
Sorry but disregarding pay or free:

1) Kaspersky
2) AVG - free is better than pay for most people simply because the firewall
in pay stuffs them up.
3) Avast
4) Mcafee
5) Bullguard



Not even sure where Avira comes in after that. I don't bother after 5. AVG
free is much better than Avast free.
 
Tried Perfectdisk and it didn't really make that much difference compared to
what Defraggler (free from the same people who do Ccleaner) does. Not worth
paying for PD in that case.

As to a paid for anti spyware, I find Webroot Spysweeper the best PAID one.
The unfortunate thing with it, though, is that it seriously slows the
machine down if you leave it running all the time. I have it set to come on
only when a scan is done and I do that twice a week. When I note it is done,
I update it then shut it down and the machine is normal again. Other than
that, it is better than any other spyware fighter at removing actual
infections that all can find.
 
Mike Hall - MVP said:
Avast, Avira, and AVG can all be scheduled to run a scan, and all of them
update automatically. They all have other settings which can be altered
too..
Click to expand...

Avast updates on auto quite well. Avira actually isn't quite as reliable,
IMHO, as Avast free at updating and honestly, AVG free updating is pathetic.
If you don't manually update it at least once a day, there is a good chance
you wont update at all that day. AVG will look for an update once per day
automatically or if you turn the machine off then on again and then ONLY if
your broadband is already connected before AVG is loaded. It checks for an
update when it starts up. If your broadband isn't ready then it will give a
miss to looking for an update. If you keep manually updating it, though, it
actually is a better antivirus than either of the others.
 
While it is true that Nortons lost the plot back in 2005 and haven't gotten
back on track since, you are wrong about which is the best. Constant testing
with constantly infected machines, here, proves beyond doubt that Kaspersky
is currently number one but it shouldn't be any surprise. Most of the
world's viruses and such come from Russia where Kaspersky HQ is. So, if you
are going down a dark alley would you prefer to have a tough looking guy
next to you or a guy who is a solider in the trenches? I have consistently
found that AVG beats any of the ones you mentioned and Kaspersky beats it.
 
Apache -=CW=- said:
Kaspersky is the best although it can be cumbersome. But if you want to
protect your system totally it's the best choice.
It uses very little resources and keeps good track of what is going on.
Not 100% but very close.
Click to expand...

Kaspersky IS the best. It actually picks up more nasty stuff than does any
other AV program and to be honest, have their finger on the pulse more than
anyone else.
Those freebie antivirus programs? I've tested a few of them and was not
impressed with them. Avast
gave me a lot of false warnings, and actually interfered with Internet
Explorer to the point where I couldn't
view certain web sites, such as MSN, and was a pain to remove and repair
the changes it made to my system .
Click to expand...

Avast has never interfered once with any testing on machines.
CA Antivirus was also a freebie provided by Roadrunner, but it too
interfered with my mail program, and corrupted
it to the point where all of my saved email was lost. Thank goodness I had
backed it up so I only lost a few weeks worth of
email.
Click to expand...

I have found, on many occasions, CA to be a real pain in the backside to
completely remove. You run the uninstall and it still leaves registry items
affecting the firewall in it. You think CA is gone but you get no internet.
It takes something like JV16 to have on hand and use to find every last
remnant of CA and manually pick them out of registry in order to get a
working machine on internet again. I wouldnt recommend nor use CA for
anything - not even toilet paper!
And finally Norton, I used to be a big fan of Symantec but not any more.
What's the point of having a malware program
that does the same if not more damage than the malware programs it is
supposedly designed to protect against.
Click to expand...

I never used Nortons AV personally but on many tests have had it
consistently fail. Many years back, Nortons also bought a GREAT firewall
program call Atguard and made it their own firewall program and then stuffed
it up. The also bought a great backup program, Drive Image and made it
theirs and stuffed that up. I actually thought Ghost 9, being a recent
convert from Drive Image to Nortons, would be OK but it stuffed up badly
whereas the last official Drive Image release worked fine. I had bought
their disk editor program and used it. In every single case using Nortons
programs there was some form of stuffup so I gave up and removed all Nortons
products entirely and bought Acronis True Image and also theri Disk
Director. While Disk Director isnt fabulous (eg, if you have an image backup
from a drive that had disk errors on it and then install that image to
another drive, Disk Director keeps seeing disk errors where there are NONE
and wont, for example, expand the data to fill the disk if the disk being
written to is larger than where the data came from. You can get around that
by usign Vista's own disk tools but Disk Director should be capable of
working with it. Just doesnt.) it works better than their disk editing
software does.

It has been some time since I bothered using a Nortons product at all but I
am constantly fixing machines that have them on them and I can tell you,
they are not worth it - ANY Nortons product!
 
Ken Blake said:
I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
Avira, both of which are free.

But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
Click to expand...

What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
non-obtrusive it is.
 
What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
non-obtrusive it is.
Click to expand...



Thanks. I have had no personal experience with Norton 2009, but I've
heard good things about it from several people I respect. My comments
above should basically be considered applicable to pre-2009 versions,
but I'm not willing to start recommending Norton 2009 yet. It's still
too new to have confidence in, as far as I'm concerned, and since
Symantec's reputation is so terrible.

I may change my mind in the not-too-distant future, but that's the way
I feel now.
 
I liked the Powerquest stuff until Symantec bought and destroyed them. Ghost
was ok, but Drive Image was superior. So was Partition Magic, Lost and Found
etc...
Norton's was good back in the Dos days.
 
hi.i was wondering if you could help me about this virus scan to set
up.kasperky.as i have had many virus scan set ups and most cause me a lot of
trouble with bugs and the screen loseing color and going negative.am i able
to use this free as i am disabled and need a good one to help the virus's on
my computer now. thank you. donald thomas. (e-mail address removed)
 
Every anti-virus program has it's weakness and it's advantages. I hope you
have luck with nortons.
 
James Matthews said:
Every anti-virus program has it's weakness and it's advantages. I hope you
have luck with nortons.

--

http://www.jewelerslounge.com/

http://www.goldwatches.com/

Trax1963 said:
To be honest their only as good as the name written on them. Kaspersky
was good up until a few days ago when i got this new bug. The bug is
able to stop any scan in its tracks so Kaspersky no good.Then i dumped
Kaspersky and put Norton on my system. Norton found a worm called spybot
worm and neutralised it. But it still did not find the bug i have now.
Then i was directed to Trend micro who have an online scanner called
Housecall. Needless to say the bug stopped that from working. So i have
now downloaded Trendmicro antivirus we'll see how that goes next.. Will
report later:devil:
Click to expand...
Go to eBay and buy the boxed version of Bit defender Total Security. Dirt
cheap.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top