Foo - Best free antivirus software...

I'm leaving the world of Norton soon and wondered what you all think is the best free antivirus software:

AVG or AVAST? Pro's / Con's?

Thanks

I use AVG and am happy with it.

Norton was a piece of garbage.

I use norton, I have an enterprise license so for me, its the best free anti virus out there.

That said, for clients, I use avg and I personally would never use the home edition of norton.

I am running both AVG and Avast. From a detection point Avast is better. From a performance standpoint, AVG is better. So I run Avast on my main computer which mainly acts a server most of the time so detection is the most important thing. I run AVG on my other computers for its performance advantage. Of course the apparent performance advantage could be caused by something else messed up on the computer.

I use norton, I have an enterprise license so for me, its the best free anti virus out there.

That said, for clients, I use avg and I personally would never use the home edition of norton.

+1 on both accounts.

I use NAV CE, but I also use the registered version of PC Tools Threatfire as an anti-bot program. NAV is good at finding known viruses, Threatfire stops them from hooking in to start or phoning home. Another anti-bot/anti rootkit program is Comodo's BOClean (licensed at no charge).

http://www.kernel.org
http://www.netfilter.org
http://www.clamav.net/

I don't like running antivirus on any of my systems. They take up to much resources for my taste. If you really want to run one, try Trend Micro (http://us.trendmicro.com/us/home/). They offer a web version free and also a program that scans on system start up. It doesn't need to constantly be running to be effective.

That's the main reason I am dumping Norton, it's a resource hog on my ancient system here, so I want something less intrusive and less processor intensive. I've been running Zone Alarm and have been happy with that, so I just need a decent antivirus and either of the two should do the trick. We run trend micro at work. I like the fact of having something offering real time protection however.

Avast is great. It has a light enough footprint on resources, and updates regularly. Sometimes as many as three times a day. That combined with SpyBot S&D, LavaSoft's AdAware, Super Anti-Spyware & XsoftSpy, plus Zone Alarm combined with prudent email handling has kept me virus and intrusion free for over 5 years.

To be fair, I've never tried AVG.

I used to be an AVG advocate but now I tend to think AVAST! is much better. I pair it with Spyware terminator and I don't have many problems. Of course I boot into Linux more often than windows.

I use norton, I have an enterprise license so for me, its the best free anti virus out there.

That said, for clients, I use avg and I personally would never use the home edition of norton.

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you use the home edition of norton/symantec?

In before the "change your OS to avoid viruses" bull****.

In before the "change your OS to avoid viruses" bull****.

ubuntu

In before the "change your OS to avoid viruses" bull****.

I understand that and respect that line of thinking, I'm strongly considering a Mac in the Spring, but until then, I'll stick with my window's OS. Knock on wood I've never had any issues with windows over the past 10 years, all it takes is a bit of common sense and a bit of diligence in keeping your defenses up against spyware, viruses, etc etc. Also, keep a clean registry. But, the argument is always out there just run an OS so you don't have to do any of that, and I may with a new Mac in the future.

I understand that and respect that line of thinking, I'm strongly considering a Mac in the Spring, but until then, I'll stick with my window's OS. Knock on wood I've never had any issues with windows over the past 10 years, all it takes is a bit of common sense and a bit of diligence in keeping your defenses up against spyware, viruses, etc etc. Also, keep a clean registry. But, the argument is always out there just run an OS so you don't have to do any of that, and I may with a new Mac in the future.
But it's bad tech support, it's not an answer to this guy's question, and it's an inefficient answer to his problem. It's geek-squad level tech support thinking, possibly even lower.

kaspersky was recomended. i found it annoying. next shall be nod32.

nod32 is free?

Both.

Avast can catch some things that AVG can't, and vice versa.

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you use the home edition of norton/symantec?

Norton home has a lot of fluff that takes up resources and useless "gui"...norton ce is simple, effective and lacks the crap that isn't required for the average home user. Symantec, like all early adaptors, felt they needed something extra for the home users who couldn't comprehend a simple interface vs a pretty one. That ruined a perfectly good piece of software.

Back in its day, norton created simple effective, useful tools...(anyone remember norton file manager for dos)...

But it's bad tech support, it's not an answer to this guy's question, and it's an inefficient answer to his problem. It's geek-squad level tech support thinking, possibly even lower.

You could have Linux up and running in about the same time it takes to research security in windows.

Both.

Avast can catch some things that AVG can't, and vice versa.

Would running both suck up as much resources as Norton? That is the main reason I am dumping Norton.

Would running both suck up as much resources as Norton? That is the main reason I am dumping Norton.

You only run one in resident memory. The other one you use to run manual scans.

You could have Linux up and running in about the same time it takes to research security in windows.
Inefficient isn't only a time restriction.

You have to step back and realize, you're replacing an entire OS, and creating a whole other string of problems over a virus scanner. Not that Linux is bad and stay away from it, but it's the whole "It's outside of the scope of the problem" idea.

It's a lazy solution commonly picked because it's easy. What is really silly is that in order to get something we need from Windows, we'll easily take a path that takes 10 times longer than it would have taken to find that virus scanner just to stay in Linux (which may end up not working anyway, and we quickly run to dual boot/virtualization), basically it becomes about elitism, not choice, not efficiency, not familiarity.


Especially people on BF know about Linux, if they want to use it, they'll ask about it. I keep asking that the Linux community not walk the same path as the Mac community, it is a rather depressing, makes me not want to mention I run Linux.

Inefficient isn't only a time restriction.

You have to step back and realize, you're replacing an entire OS, and creating a whole other string of problems over a virus scanner. Not that Linux is bad and stay away from it, but it's the whole "It's outside of the scope of the problem" idea.

You could say that switching to an OS is inefficient because it "creates a whole other string of problems" but you could easily say that it possibly "solves a whole string of problems" as well.

Similarly, you can object that dual booting another OS is not within the scope of the original problem but the response would be that redefining the nature and scope of the problem can be part of the solution too.

You could say that switching to an OS is inefficient because it "creates a whole other string of problems" but you could easily say that it possibly "solves a whole string of problems" as well.

Similarly, you can object that dual booting another OS is not within the scope of the original problem but the response would be that redefining the nature and scope of the problem can be part of the solution too.
But you're solving problems you're not sure if the user is experiencing, and again, it's still out of the scope of the problem those other issues.

Affecting the OS at all is outside of the scope of the problem, dual booting or not, to widen the scope of the problem is just tip toeing around fixing the actual problem at hand. You don't wanna look for a new Anti-virus, you wanna get someone else on the same OS as you. You can't just widen the scope of someone else's problem because you feel like it, it leads to too many people not having their problems solved. This happens in all forms, where someone asks a question about a piece of software, and only gets posts about other pieces of software they should be using or whatever... end of the day, he has no answer, and thinks everyone is an idiot (which may be so...).

Replacing the OS should be the FINAL step when all else fails, not the first step (of course unless the scope is about changing OSes), it shows that you have more pride towards your OS than helping someone fix a problem, that really bugs me being as it's pretty rampant. For some reason this new flavor of elitism is self-labeled as tech support... it isn't.

For some reason this new flavor of elitism is self-labeled as tech support... it isn't.

This isn't Microsoft tech support, and I don't take orders from you.

I suggested that I prefer Avast! and that I dual boot. Works for me. If I can learn how to use Linux, anyone can. In my opinion no one should be 100% dependent on Windows.

Still think my answer is elitist? Put me on ignore.

I'm familiar with Linux, but being that this is a family computer, I haven't the time nor desire to teach my wife a new OS right now. Also, I'm not totally dependent on anything, I'm one that is techno proficient and savvy, but I'm one who is also not involved with it, and don't spend all my time trying to master the world of the computer. I don't use the system that much, just wanted an opinion on which of the free AV programs out there were preferred.

Thanks for the input everyone.

I'm familiar with Linux, but being that this is a family computer, I haven't the time nor desire to teach my wife a new OS right now. Also, I'm not totally dependent on anything, I'm one that is techno proficient and savvy, but I'm one who is also not involved with it, and don't spend all my time trying to master the world of the computer. I don't use the system that much, just wanted an opinion on which of the free AV programs out there were preferred.

Thanks for the input everyone.

Oh, I see. Well I believe the free version of Avast! will self update every day, but there is no scheduler so it has to be run manually. You'll also have to teach her what to do when it finds a virus as the scan will hang, waiting for her input.

Not a problem, since I am the house IT Dept, she will just come and get me! lol

Oh, I see. Well I believe the free version of Avast! will self update every day, but there is no scheduler so it has to be run manually. You'll also have to teach her what to do when it finds a virus as the scan will hang, waiting for her input.

I've had Avast update as many as three times in one day.