• 0

Best Free Anti-Virus


Which One:  

127 members have voted

  1. 1. Which One:

    • AVG
      61
    • Kapersky
      22
    • Avast!
      31
    • Other
      13


Question

I need a new antivirus software, since his expired, best would be if it was free. It needs autoupdate since he never updates it. Same with with Spyware/adware protection, disk cleanup... :rolleyes:

I curently have Kapersky Installed, but i dont like the looks, and its prety slow but probably its just my bros PC :rolleyes:

So any sugestions...?

Oh, yeah and it should have Active Shield Thing.

Edited by The Napster
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/214061-best-free-anti-virus/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I use avast on one computer, antivir on another, and i have experience with avg too. Anyways, avast is very "futuristic" in the UI meaning - it has become interactive, which I like. Avast is also lots faster and easier on the system than Antivir. I didn't like Avasts default skin - too messy - so i downloaded another one, which made using avast much easier. Also, both AVG and Antivir had trouble auto-updating over ADSL, Avast worked fine. Anyways, avast is and will be my first choice for some years I think.

But I am looking for freeware Linux antivirus with active shield nowdays, but there doesn't seem to be any (only paid versions). Some people say that Linux doesn't need any antivirus, but my experience is the opposite (last year I confirmed/saw 3 virus infections on Linux/BSD systems, that was 3 more than on Windows systems:D).

  • 0

I hear AVG is a good one. I tried Avast once but I find its interface very hard to get around and confusing. Plus the skins deal just don't quite make it. antivirus software is not meant to be skinnable. It is a workhorse, not a toy.

  • 0

for good antivirus comparisons, go to http://www.virusbtn.com/ and look at their vb100 awards

and about the lawsuit/mcafee thing, it was basically "click here if you agree NOT to sue us and we'll give you free software." dunno what it was all about, but i never pass up a chance for free stuff :p

  • 0
I hear AVG is a good one. I tried Avast once but I find its interface very hard to get around and confusing. Plus the skins deal just don't quite make it. antivirus software is not meant to be skinnable. It is a workhorse, not a toy.

why can't it be both?

  • 0

hes using Kapersky for now, and then i gues ill see what to use, prob AVG.

Or install Kapersky from the other CD i got :p

Damn McAffe didnt do too good, thats what im using :D
and about the lawsuit/mcafee thing, it was basically "click here if you agree NOT to sue us and we'll give you free software." dunno what it was all about, but i never pass up a chance for free stuff 
Link???

Thanks for all the help so far :D

Im not so sure about AVG anymore cuz of :unsure: :

Can anyone confirm that?

  • 0

The Virus Bulliten tests from NOD 32's website are real, what is not real however is the VB tests indication of real world detection.

McAfee and Kaspersky both detect far more malware than nod 32 yet lost. How can this be? Simple really, the VB test has a lot of strange tests in it some of which have no real basis for real world detection, for one there is a test where you have to find a virus embedded in html, sounds good, but in practive you can't just put an .exe into html and have it infect people, so in essence that virus was worthless. Some AV's missed it and because of that did not recieve a vb award even though it could not affect you. Another one is a zip within a zip. Some anti-virus programs don't scan that deep so they wouldn't find the virus until you got it down to one level of compression, further some don't scan within compressed files at all, yet easily detect the file once it's unzipped. Again a double zipped file can not infect you without you decompressing it first so again this test is not applicable in the real world. Lastly is one false positive on the test and you fail. This is insane, what this means is that if you misdetect even one thing you're out. I don't know about you but I like heuristics and I think as Eset improves work on thier heuristics engine you'll see nod 32 generate some false positives as well, it's already starting to generate false positives on normal users pc's it's only a matter of time until they get one on the VB test.

Basically I'm saying the VB is crap, but unfortunately it's the best test we have, but take every test with a grain of salt, to know why a AV failed a test you have to subscribe to the magazine because the online results wont tell you.

The McAfee lawsuit if I remember properly was for previouse McAfee users who were complaining that McAfee was forcing them to upgrade by not giving them new DAT's. I don't know why McAfee got sued and every other AV company got out scott free because they all do the same thing but that's how I remember it. The date has ended to take advantage of the lawsuit so you can't get a copy now for free.

  • 0

Hi guys,

Take a look at this:

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=67&mnu=67

Nod32: is fast, good detection rate and good price too (here in New Zealand)

Kaspersky: solid, strong and excellent @ it detection rate (a bit pricey)

Anything above will do the job. However to prevent virus(es), it is not just about the software itself but the way you play/work ur computer :whistle: :alien: :yes: :cool:

my laptop: nod32 ( i got it 4 free) + zonealarm

my desktop: kaspersky (i paid for it) + zonealarm

both of 'em are survivors over several virus outbreak recently. :whistle: Last words, choose the one that u feel most comfortable with...

  • 0
McAfee and Kaspersky both detect far more malware than nod 32 yet lost. How can this be? Simple really, the VB test has a lot of strange tests in it some of which have no real basis for real world detection, for one there is a test where you have to find a virus embedded in html, sounds good, but in practive you can't just put an .exe into html and have it infect people, so in essence that virus was worthless. Some AV's missed it and because of that did not recieve a vb award even though it could not affect you. Another one is a zip within a zip. Some anti-virus programs don't scan that deep so they wouldn't find the virus until you got it down to one level of compression, further some don't scan within compressed files at all, yet easily detect the file once it's unzipped. Again a double zipped file can not infect you without you decompressing it first so again this test is not applicable in the real world. Lastly is one false positive on the test and you fail. This is insane, what this means is that if you misdetect even one thing you're out. I don't know about you but I like heuristics and I think as Eset improves work on thier heuristics engine you'll see nod 32 generate some false positives as well, it's already starting to generate false positives on normal users pc's it's only a matter of time until they get one on the VB test.

My understanding of VB is that each antivirus software is given a set of viruses to test and it has to catch them all. So, as far as passing VB, each antivirus should have caught the same number of viruses (since the set of viruses should contain the same number of viruses - otherwise it is not a fair test!).

There may be some strange tests that VB performs, but I'm sure most tests are reasonable, sound tests.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that NOD32 and Norton Antivirus have received good marks on VirusBulletin, especially Norton Antivirus because Norton Antivirus is very good as far as detecting viruses (a resource hog, though).

  • 0

No the VB is completely fair in how it administers the test notice I said I think it sucks but is the best test we have. However there are more than one kind of test that it tests and that's where it gets flaky. But again you have to subscribe to the magazine to see what test a certain AV failed, and I promise you it's not just a bunch of viruses on the HD and each AV doing a full scan, there are html embedded viruses compressed viruses and other tests.

Plus another thing that is sorta misleading is how they test different platforms. It's all good they should do it, however I don't like how you can't seperate them from the different operating systems. For instance if I have windows all I would want to see is say Windows XP and 2000 since they're relatively the same, I have no need to see if it passed on novell or linux. But that's a minor gripe.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!