Ed Foster's Gripelog || GripeLog Poll: Which Anti-Virus Vendor Do You Trust?

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

GripeLog Poll: Which Anti-Virus Vendor Do You Trust?

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Sat Jul 10, 2004 at 04:33:31 PM PDT

Whenever I write about Symantec or McAfee - which is pretty often, it seems -- readers invariably engage in a lively discussion about which alternatives they would recommend. With security threats mounting on a daily basis, I thought it might be a good idea to both put those recommendations in one place and get a little more feedback from readers. So I'm starting my latest GripeLog poll to ask which of nine anti-virus vendors readers trust the most.

Another inspiration for this came from a reader who responded to my recent weblog item about Symantec support with his story of why his company stopped using McAfee. "We were a McAfee customer for perhaps ten years with maybe 2,000 licenses," the reader wrote. "It was a good relationship until about two years ago when they got nasty with us. We said fine and switched to Sophos. Sophos has provided us excellent support, sufficiently aggressive pricing that we now license 4-to-5 times that many systems, and an AV product that functions well enough that several nationally reported nasty virus events in the past year have been relative non events for us.

"What's this got to do with Symantec?" the reader anticipated the next question. "Just this: I believe the only way to reach these vendors is through their revenue streams. Yes, changing products at this level can be difficult, but when there are alternatives that will meet or exceed your needs, it is worth it. It was amazing with respect to our McAfee experience. When we called and told them we were canceling and switching vendors, I had a VP at the time falling all over himself to 'try and make it right by us.' I thanked him but the decision had been made at that point. Until we impact these abusive vendors -- be it bad support, bad licensing practices, etc. in a way that effects their proverbial bottom line, we'll continue to get lip service from them and no real change."

If there is to be change, people have to know what their choices are and how other customers have fared using them. So I've combed through reader posts and e-mails to find seven anti-virus venodrs who readers recommend most frequently as alternatives. And, since McAfee and Symantec each still has its defenders, we of course must include them too. The list of nine consists of Computer Associates, F-Prot, Grisoft, Kaspersky, McAfee, Panda, Sophos, Symantec, and Trend Micro. No doubt there's some other good choices; let me know who they are and we'll get them on the list next time. And send along your nominations for best firewalls, anti-spam tools, etc., because we should do those, too.

You'll find the poll in the column to the right. You can check the results as often as you like, but please cast just one vote. And let's be careful out there.

< Disclosing DRM | Used News: Constitutional Protections, Hooked on Phonics Can't Spell Privacy >

GripeLog Poll: Which Anti-Virus Vendor Do You Trust? | 112 comments (112 topical) | Post A Comment

catching virii[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 10, 2004 at 09:05:59 PM PDT

Twice in the past week I have run Grisoft's free vcleaner.exe utility on two different client computers running Norton's AV 2004 and twice they have found virii that Norton doesn't see. The systems were fully up to date and AV was running in the background.

[ Reply to This ]

Grisoft[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by tsingher on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 03:10:21 PM PDT

I have had the same experience with Grisoft; I remove Norton, install Grisoft, scan and find viruses. I also like the fact that Grisoft offers free AV licenses for home use. For that reason, I purchase them for my clients' business computers, and install it free on their home machines.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

AVG beats NAV[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

Last week I have to fix a PC with about:blank problem. NAV 2004 detected 4 virus but can't clean them so I loaded AVG7 trail version to try, not only it cleaned the 4 it also found and cleaned other 4 viruses. I then ran Ad-aware 6 and CWS shredder to clean out all the spyware. The system runs much better. I told my client if her NAV expired buy a copy of AVG7.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Norton Antivirus[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
by Red Rat on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 01:20:54 PM PDT

Several months back my subscription for Norton AV expired. Based on what I read here and there, I decided not to renew (basically all the hassels with renewal, etc). I put on an old copy of McAfee (4.51 to be exact) since this is our enterprise AV program and we are licensed to use it at home. To my surprise, in the very first scan, McAfee caught 4 virus programs on my computer. I had been running NAV for about 1 year, yet NAV let them through. I am definitely not impressed with NAV when an ancient copy of McAfee catches viruses. Also went back to Zone Alarm and have had fewer problems.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

McAfee finding viruses Norton missed[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#83)
by LasVegan on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 01:23:49 PM PDT

Well, for years McAfee has said one machine of mine has potentially unwanted program on it. Only I know exactly what the file is that it's griping about and there's nothing one bit malware about it. I can believe it could be useful to a malware author but so can an awful lot of other things. It's a commercially-available compression routine in an OBJ file. What's an AV program doing even looking at an OBJ???

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Avg/Grisoft[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
by auctionhugh on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 06:35:40 AM PDT

My norton ran out on my son's machine and after much pondering I decided to install the free AVG by Grisoft. You need to request it, then receive an email, download through an email link, then get an activation code via another email. It took only a few minutes to install but a half hour waiting for all the emails to show up. Other than that it seems fine.

-----
Get help with your website from AuctionHugh's wife Kathleen.
Professional, artistic, and EASY for you!
Kallen Web Design of Kalamazoo

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Virii?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:36:39 AM PDT

VIRII? I don't think so. 'VIRII' is not listed as a word in Merriam-Webster's dictionary; neither in the printed dictionary nor in the online dictionary. Moreover, the entry for virus does not show a plural form; hence it is presumed to be a regular noun, that is, it forms its plural by adding -s or -es. So the plural of virus is viruses.

Quote from Explanatory Notes: "A plural for all standard nouns is shown in this dictionary if it is NOT formed regularly by adding -s or -es and changing a final -y, if present, to -i-: man... n. pl. men; mouse... n. pl mice;.... If there are two or more plurals, all are written out in full and are joined by or or also to indicate whether the forms are equal or secondary variants." (emphasis added)

An additional clue may be seen in the definition for the word virucide: An agent that kills VIRUSES.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Virii[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous User on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 01:40:49 PM PDT

Virii is the term used for years in the HAPVC world...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Viri[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous User on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 07:38:24 AM PDT

If you follow standard Latin declination, the proper form would be "Viri" with only one "i". This is only applicable if virus is a Latin word, but it does appear to be.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Noone Cares.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous User on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 08:01:00 AM PDT

Way to go, spelling nazi.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I hate to be picky, but...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous User on Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 10:52:00 AM PDT

...that should be "spelling nazus".

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Virii is correct[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous User on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 09:56:14 AM PDT

It is the U. S. English dictionary and a lot of folks that do not remember or have the knowledge on how to spell some words properly. Viruses came about because people did not know the proper term was virii. Virii is the plural form of viri or virus and is derivated from Latin.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Virii is not correct[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 11:04:35 AM PDT

Latin would indicate this is probably a second declension noun like locus (place) for which the plural is loci. These are all masculine gender. There are a very small number of 3rd declension neuter nouns ending in ~us, like octopus, for which the plural is formed thusly: octopodes!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Octopodes is not correct either[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#66)
by zorrojd on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 03:22:04 PM PDT

According to my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the preferred plural form of octopus is actually octopuses and the second preferred is octopi. And to try to put this off-topic thread to rest, Webster's lists loci as the plural of locus and, believe it or not, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary lists NO plural form of the word virus. Virus is both singular and plural, just as it stands. This is confirmed by a quick search on Merriam-Webster Online, and a check of Encyclopedia Britannica Online also confirms it. Just in case you might be interested, the word virus derives from a Latin word meaning "slimy liquid" or "poison".

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Well, Shame on Me[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#67)
by zorrojd on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 03:46:01 PM PDT

I guess that I am going to violate my own attempt to end this thread. While I was right, I was also wrong about the word "virus". I cannot just leave it at that. After a more careful search, I definitely agree with Anonymous User (#53) that virus is a common noun and its plural is actually formed by adding "es". But, what is interesting is that the word virucide, while both correct and accepted, is not the preferred spelling. The preferred spelling is viricide! Go figure! Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.

Now I'm finished. I am not even going to look at this thread again. I might find something else that I want to be half-right about.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Buncha Latin-manglin' wannabees![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous User on Mon Dec 13, 2004 at 10:41:49 PM PDT

'Virus' is Latin, sure, but it's fourth declension, not second (and certainly not "declination"!), hence the plural (and genitive, if that means anything to you) in Latin is 'virus', with a long 'u' instead of a short 'u' as in the singular. I won't go into whether or not that should be the correct plural when used in English.

And FYI, the 'pus' in 'octopus' is actually of Greek origin, so really the plural ought to be 'octopodes', as AU #64 said, though the reasoning isn't quite right. Again though, that's according to the language it was borrowed from, and doesn't necessarily make it right for English.

--
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary.
- James Nicoll, 1846 - 1918

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Holy cow[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

Don't you people have jobs or something???

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

no, im jobless. just 1 humored contribution[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#89)
by Octavius on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 06:36:25 AM PDT

i found this when looking references for and vir, viri-> (vir viri m. [a man , male person]; esp. [a grown man; a husband; a man of character or courage, 'he-man']; milit. [a soldier, esp. an infantryman; a single man, individual]).

for all i can remember theres no VIRII or even that possibility in latin. it may be a "built" latin word, like its done on the science world - but other than that, no. i'm forwarding here all the possible "desientias" for virus, viri (aha thats why i was thrown here and opened an account to reopen this nice thread. here it is: virus -i n. [slimy liquid , slime; poison, esp. of snakes, venom; any harsh taste or smell].

a *i 3/2 m/f sing dat a *i 1 masc sing gen a *i 3/2 neut sing dat a *i 3/2 neut sing abl a *i 1 neut sing gen a *i 1 masc plur nom a *i 3/2 m/f sing abl n *i : masc. dat. sing. 3 n *i : fem. dat. sing. 3 n *i : masc. dat. sing. 3 n *i : fem. dat. sing. 3 n *i : masc. gen. sing. 2 n *i : masc. nom. pl. 2 n *i : neut. abl. sing. 3 n *i : neut. dat. sing. 3 n *i : neut. gen. sing. 2 v *i 4 sing. pres. imperative act. : (you) GO! a *ia 3/2 neut plur nom a *ia 3/2 neut plur acc n *ia : neut. acc. pl. 3 n *ia : neut. nom. pl. 3 a *ibus 3/2 m/f plur dat a *ibus 3/2 neut plur dat a *ibus 3/2 m/f plur abl a *ibus 3/2 neut plur abl n *ibus : fem. dat. pl. 3 n *ibus : masc. abl. pl. 3 n *ibus : masc. abl. pl. 3 n *ibus : masc. abl. pl. 4 n *ibus : masc. dat. pl. 3 n *ibus : masc. dat. pl. 3 n *ibus : masc. dat. pl. 4 n *ibus : neut. abl. pl. 3 n *ibus : neut. dat. pl. 4 n *ibus : fem. abl. pl. 3 n *ibus : neut. dat. pl. 3 n *ibus : neut. abl. pl. 4 n *ibus : fem. abl. pl. 3 n *ibus : fem. dat. pl. 3 v *imus 3-5 1p pr act ind you and I see, we are seeing. a *ior fem sing nom comparative adjective a *ior masc sing nom comparative adjective a *iora neut plur nom comparative adjective a *iora neut plur acc comparative adjective a *iore fem sing abl comparative adjective a *iore neut sing abl comparative adjective a *iore masc sing abl comparative adjective a *iorem fem sing acc comparative adjective a *iorem masc sing acc comparative adjective a *iores fem plur nom comparative adjective a *iores masc plur acc comparative adjective a *iores masc plur nom comparative adjective a *iores fem plur acc comparative adjective a *iori neut sing dat comparative adjective a *iori fem sing dat comparative adjective a *iori masc sing dat comparative adjective a *ioribus fem plur dat comparative adjective a *ioribus fem plur abl comparative adjective a *ioribus masc plur abl comparative adjective a *ioribus neut plur dat comparative adjective a *ioribus neut plur abl comparative adjective a *ioribus masc plur dat comparative adjective a *ioris fem sing gen comparative adjective a *ioris neut sing gen comparative adjective a *ioris masc sing gen comparative adjective a *iorum fem plur gen comparative adjective a *iorum neut plur gen comparative adjective a *iorum masc plur gen comparative adjective a *is 3/2 m/f sing nom a *is 1 masc plur abl a *is 1 fem plur dat a *is 1 fem plur abl a *is 1 neut plur dat a *is 3/2 neut sing gen a *is 1 masc plur dat a *is 1 neut plur abl a *is 3/2 m/f sing gen n *is : masc. nom. sing. n *is : neut. abl. pl. 2 n *is : fem. dat. pl. 1 n *is : neut. gen. sing. n *is : fem. abl. pl. 1 n *is : fem. gen. sing. n *is : fem. gen. sing. n *is : masc. abl. pl. 2 n *is : masc. gen. sing. n *is : masc. dat. pl. 2 n *is : masc. gen. sing. v *is 3-5 2s pr act ind you see, you do see, you are seeing. v *issem 1-5 1s pp act sub HAD I STUDIED, I would have passed. v *issemus 1-5 1p pp act sub HAD WE STUDIED, we would have passed. v *issent 1-5 2p pp act sub HAD THEY STUDIED, they would have p. v *isses 1-5 2s pp act sub HAD YOU STUDIED, you would have p. v *isset 1-5 3s pp act sub HAD THEY STUDIED, they would have p. v *issetis 1-5 2p pp act sub HAD YOU ALL STUDIED, you would have p. v *it 3-5 3s pr act ind it sees, he does see, she is seeing v *ite 3-5 pl. pres. imperative act. : (you all) GO! v *itis 3-5 2p pr act ind you all see, you all do see. a *ium 3/2 m/f plur gen a *ium 3/2 neut plur gen n *ium : fem gen. pl. 3 n *ium : masc gen. pl. 3 n *ium : neut. gen. pl. 3 a *ius neut sing nom comparative adjective a *ius neut sing acc comparative adjective ty so much, regards to all the participants of the thread. Octavius Motta, from Rio, Brazil.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#255)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:15:07 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピング SEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Grisoft A+ , Symantec F[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

I had such a bad experience with Symantec (can you say lost weekend) trying to get it work again after a system crash, trying to get support (how can I totally remove it from the system???)that I finally through in the towel. I then tried the free version of Grisoft AVG, it found infections Norton missed. I'm sold, I went on line and bought a subscription (which was painless) because I like to support companies that do the job right with as little hassle to me as possible. Way to go guys!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#261)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:19:21 PM PDT

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#251)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:41:04 PM PDT

Nomination for firewalls, anti-spam tools, etc.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by RocDoc on Sat Jul 10, 2004 at 10:54:51 PM PDT

My nominations for other "protection" products:

Firewall: Combination of hardware and software.
Firewall - Software: Zone Alarm Pro - Integrity Desktop. I've watched it stop intrusions and protect my ports.
Firewall - Hardware: DSL/Cable Modem Routers by D-Link, Linksys, Netgear, et.al. Doesn't have to be expensive, nor does it have to be "feature rich". But you DO need to know WHAT and WHERE to configure. (Side note: I chose not to nominate Cisco Routers or more dedicated "true" firewall equipment because I believe these two items take care of 99% of my needs.)

Anti-Spam Tools: Spam Assassin for the email server. Set blacklists, white lists, configure thresholds and delivery locations, and away we go! I haven't found one yet for the client side that I'd recommend.

Anti-Spyware tools: Hijack This, LavaSoft's Ad-Aware, and Pacman's Start Up Lists (three way tie). Ad-Aware finds them when they sneak in, Pacman's Start Up List lets me identify them in the start up areas and registry, and Hijack This lets me see everything going on with the browser. A three-way hit!

Browser Advertisement Stops: Pop Up Cop and Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File (two way tie). Pop Up Cop stops the pop up ads and is HIGHLY customizable, while Mike's Hosts File redirects most ad URLS to the bit bucket, speeding page views and eliminating advertisements. Yeah, I'm not popular with most web site operators because of this, but I enjoy my online experience more without the "junk".

Quick & Dirty Sys Admin / Sysop tools: GRC Utilities. Steve Gibson's tool sets help me close up several vulnerabilities without having to load M$ HotFixes that have been known to cripple my systems. Also, his port tester tools have made it easier for me to make sure my connection is "secure". I love shootthemessenger and uPNP!

Probably more categories to consider, Ed, but let's start with these. I'd love to know what other sys admins are using in these arenas.

[ Reply to This ]

Complete pakage necessary--hopefully compatible[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 11:19:37 AM PDT

This post was really good because it covers the complete package needed. I had Lava SoftAd-aware, Spybot Search and destroy and McAfee Antivirus on my machine and they fought with each other. I had to keep reinstalling one or another to make them work. Recently, I uninstalled McAfee and went to the Full Zone Alarm professional. So far so good, but it's too early to tell if this is the real solution. I would like to see more recommendations for the "total package" to use. Thanks for the info so far! Anonymous Jim

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Complete Package[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:08 PM PDT

I used NAV and NIS 2003 until one of their updates caused both programs to quit working.After 6 phone calls to Symantec and paying for tech support noone could fix the problem.The last tech told me my registry must be corrupt and that I should reformat and reinstall the programs. I don't think so.I switched to Grisoft's free home edition and never looked back. The first scan I ran found stuff that NAV had missed. For anti-spam programs I highley recomend Mail Washer Pro. It does it all and makes reports to spamcop also.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#249)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:08:49 PM PDT

anti-spam and anti-spyware additions[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by rothmem on Wed Jul 14, 2004 at 06:34:51 PM PDT

I'd second RocDoc's nominations, I'd only add Spybot S&D as an anti-spyware tool, and system tweaking tool.

And also add Sentinare Messaging Solutions as a great anti-spam AND anti-virus solution. Their server side spam and virus filtering is top notch, and keeps email borne viruses from ever entering the LAN, traps spam and virii on their servers.

Oh and of course Firefox for popup blocking

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Protection[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Tourette on Sun Jul 11, 2004 at 03:42:31 PM PDT

My life (especially online) is moving to Linux, but I do keep a couple of Windows 95 (non-IE and Outlook) beasts around for legacy apps. For Windows protection, I started looking elsewhere when the "standards" - Symantec and McAfee - became so bloated that their system requirements read more like that of an office suite than virus protection software. But when Internet Explorer became a requirement (for updates and more), that was it for me. For a while I swore by Panda Antivirus; it was lean, reliable, cared not what browser was aboard, and the support - timely and personal - was a shocking but welcome change when compared to that which we've learned to accept from the Big Two. But like the others, it became loaded with "features," and a recent upgrade started clashing with my browser (Opera). Nobody at Panda could figure out what was wrong, and we all agreed that "turning off Internet protection" kinda defeated the purpose. After a bit of searching, I stumbled upon Protector Plus, who offer a Win9x version. It's lean, it works, and virus definitions are updated regularly.

Elsewhere in the Windows protection arsenal I've tossed aside the regulars for lesser knowns: Spybot Search & Destroy (I swear by AdSubtract, but SpySubtract missed much that Spybot caught) and Tiny Personal Firewall.

Another argument to step off the popular path besides horsepower requirements and horrible support is popularity, or "IE syndrome." (Let's for a moment forget that security issues plaguing IE indeed go beyond market share.) Better malware has been known to defeat by design the popular virus and firewall software, while being thwarted by the lesser knowns.

[ Reply to This ]

Panda and Opera[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

I've used Panda Platinum and Opera together without problems for years and recommend them both highly.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Another Viri checker[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by rnc on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 01:06:18 PM PDT

I use this one; extremely fast and hasn't missed anything yet. Nod32

[ Reply to This ]

AV software[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 08:02:08 PM PDT

I second this recommendation for NOD. It is small, fast, and very effective. http://www.nod32.com/home/home.htm Check out the University of Hamburg AV testing: http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/naveng.htm The University of Tampere, in Finland also has interesting information. http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/virus/

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#264)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:20:46 PM PDT

NOD32 is tops![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 09:33:04 AM PDT

I third this one. Having used NAV, McAfee, GRiSoft, and FPROT by Command Software, I trust NOD32 with my digital life when I have to use or work on people's machines who run Windows.

GRiSoft caused my machines to blue screen on the several different occasions that I tried it. NAV causes machines to not work and misses viruses. McAfee requires a new update to the engine too often. Both of the latter two interfaces are too big (as has been mentioned in other messages).

NOD32 is small, sleek, stable and doesn't miss anything. Machines work better when it's installed.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Another vote for NOD32[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 19, 2004 at 09:57:59 AM PDT

Works very fast, minimal impact. A number of my clients are now running it (maybe 7 locations with 5-20 computers each) and none have ever been infected by a virus since installing it. Also, it just plain works, updates are trouble free and background scanning is almost unnoticeable. Manual scans of an entire hard disk used to take 45 minutes-1 hour with Norton, now take 15-20 minutes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#262)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM PDT

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#260)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:15:48 PM PDT

Grisoft's AVG[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 12, 2004 at 04:41:51 PM PDT

I've seen many comments on other message boards and I'm sure I will on this one as well voting/singing the praises of Grisoft's free AVG virus scanner.

What *many* people fail to realize is that AVG V6 Personal Edition (as well as Avast and AntiVir) are NOT completely free for anyone anywhere to use. They are free for *personal* use only and NOT business or even non-profits such as users groups. Each of the companies named has pay-for "Pro" versions to serve that market.

Ray Paternostro Jr
President NOPC club
http://www.nopc.org

[ Reply to This ]

In addition...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (