• 0

Definitive Best Antivirus


Definitive Best Antivirus  

950 members have voted

  1. 1. Your choice?

    • Avast!
      94
    • AVG
      110
    • BitDefender
      22
    • Kaspersky
      140
    • McAfee
      36
    • NOD32
      376
    • Norton
      44
    • Symantec
      54
    • Panda
      8
    • N/A
      66
  2. 2. Your choice?

    • Trend Micro
      71
    • Zone Labs
      106
    • Windows One Care
      62
    • AntiVir
      57
    • F-Secure
      31
    • ClamWin
      15
    • VBA32
      1
    • Sophos
      7
    • Other (please specify below)
      52
    • N/A
      548


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I've been an Avast user for a while, really like it but it can be a bit of a memory hog sometimes.

Just tried ClamWin antivirus tho. No active scanner, that I don't really need or even want anyway, but right click windows explorer integration to scan any file anytime I want, and wow now thats low resource usage, and 1 process, just one.

Yea I like this a lot.

  • 0

I don't use AV. I use spyware blaster and a custom hosts file to block nasties that come through the web-browser.

I have an account with 1and1.co.uk who run all my e-mail through spam and av filters.

Never had a virus :D

  • 0

AVG > any other one AV solutions

And FYI, there is no one "end all" solution for AV. AVG will miss things that you'll need another program/tool to remove. It's the best because it takes up the least resources and has the one of the highest detection rate. Not to mention it's free.

Grisoft also just purchased Ewido so spyware protection may be added to AVG.

from my experience this is very untrue.

I used AVG for so long, one day my pc got infected with a virus that it couldnt remove. I decided to try NOD32 and guess what, it detected more than 10 viruses that AVG wasnt able to detect.

using NOD32 since then.

  • 0

well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

  • 0
well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

HOW ABOUT THESE:

Rank

1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.390- 99.46%

Kaspersky 2006 beta version 6.0.15.222- 99.46%

2. F-Secure 2006 version 6.10.330 - 96.92%

3. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 96.62%

4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.522.9 - 95.21%

5. McAfee version 10.0.27 - 94.80%

6. BitDefender version 9 - 90.75%

7. Nod32 version 2.50.41 - 88.79%

8. AntiVir Personal version 6.32.00.51 - 86.55%

9. MKS_VIR 2005 - 86.16%

10. Norton Professional version 2006 - 85.17%

11. F-Prot version 3.16d - 84.96%

12. Dr. Web version 4.33 - 84.68%

13. Panda Titanium 2006 version 5.01.00 - 82.02%

14. Virus Chaser version 5.0a - 79.37%

15. AVG version 7.1.371 - 77.97%

16. PC-Cillin 2006 version 14.00.1341 - 77.84%

17. Avast version 4.6.744 - 76.93%

18. BullGuard version 6 - 74.02%

19. UNA version 1.83 - 69.83%

20. Norman version 5.83.07 - 69.13%

21. Sophos Sweep version 3.99 - 67.76%

22. VBA32 version 3.10.5 - 63.36%

23. Zondex Guard version 5.3.3 - 56.81%

24. Vexira 2005 version 5.001.32 - 51.62%

25. ClamWin version 0.87.1 - 48.45%

26. E-Trust version 7.0.6.7 - 47.84%

27. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 6.1.737.000 - 47.70%

28. Digital Patrol version 5.00.08 - 47.02%

29. Ewido version 3.5 - 46.31%

30. V3Pro 2004 - 44.16%

31. Solo 4.0 version 3.1.0 - 42.45%

32. Fire version 2.7 - 38.38%

33. Protector Plus version 7.2.H01 - 38.06%

34. A Squared Personal version 1.6 - 35.31%

35. Quick Heal version 8.00 - 33.76%

36. ViRobot Expert version 4.0 - 32.37%

37. AntiTrojan Shield version 2.1.0.14 - 26.45%

38. PC Door Guard version 4.2.0.35- 26.05%

39. Trojan Hunter version 4.2.908 - 11.53%

40. VirIT version 5.2.53 - 10.33%

41. Tauscan version 1.70.1414 - 7.21%

42. Trojan Remover version 6.4.4 - 7.19%

43. The Cleaner version 4.1.42.52 - 5.97%

44. CounterSpy version 1.5.82 - 5.87%

45. SpySweeper version 4.5.7.642 - 2.99%

46. IP Armor version 5.46.0703 - 2.46%

47. Hacker Eliminator version 1.2 - 1.77%

48. Spyware Doctor version 3.2.2.453 - 1.55%

49. Abacre 1.3 - 0.00%

50. SpyHunter 2.0 - 0.00%

  • 0

I use NOD32 because it doesn't slow down my computer as much as Kaspersky did. But I trust Kaspersky more and I don't feel as secure with NOD32 :(

BTW, it's "Kaspersky". You might want to fix that ;)

With the introduction of the version 6 release, it has had major improvements. Speed is definitely one of them. Give the new version 6 a try if speed is what was stopping you from using it before.

Isn't 6.0.0.299 (out now) final?

Yes it is.

======

I use both - and resell both. Different customers have different needs. School districts benefit from NOD32 hands down. I could argue the point with anyone, all day and all night. No other solution comes close to satisfying their needs in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, KAV enterprise really falls waaaay short on this aspect.

Plus, in the version 5 world, KAV was always soooo much slower than NOD32 and all my clients noticed it. Changed all of them over to NOD32 and they absolutely love it. Never a single error, as NOD32 has one hell of a fantastic program engine.

NOD32 seems to excel in the program itself, but not as much in the AV database. I still have yet to have a client infected on either AV program, but KAV simply detects more.

We use KAV on Novell servers because it's one of the few that actually update by itself, without the necessity of a workstation to update the server itself. KAV takes care of everything with no user intervention, period. We use it with any client that has a Novell GroupWise installation. KAV detects everything that comes in via the email server.

GWAVA has incorporated the engine, as well as GFI and Sybari. Sybari got bought out, so I don't know if it still does, but anyone who incorporates 3rd party AV tools normally tries to get in good with Kaspersky because it's simply one of the smartest possible moves you can make.

I am actually using Kasersky Internet Security to try out their entire new package. I'm very impressed. Talk about a client interface overhaul. It looks so pretty, as their old versions looked so legacy. Very very very great-looking application interface. It's definitely easier to navigate than NOD32. I'm familiar with all aspects of both apps, as it's part of my job - but for someone who really has to find settings themselves, KAV is simply easier to navigate.

Tech support for KAV is absolutely outstanding. NOD32 has also been great, but if I had to rate them on a 10 scale, it's KAV=10 and Eset=7. When I email my support team with KAV, I get a reply back within 5 minutes most of the time. Makes no difference what time it is - absolutely incredible. Eset has had some hurdles it's fallen over, but they get up very quickly to help out.

It's kinda late here so I'm not as organized in this post as I should be, but I'd have to pick 2 of them - NOD32 and KAV. If you simply want the best AV database - it's KAV hands-down. NOD32 would win my vote for best compatibility with other apps and application stability. I cannot remember one time that I have EVER seen NOD32 crash on ANY PC I have installed it on. KAV has definitely crashed plenty of times for me in many different environments. On my Dell laptop, I could simply install Windows XP (with no mods) and then install KAV 5.x afterwards. BSOD every time, no matter what. We simply couldn't find a fix for it. With 6, I used Acronis and imaged my laptop, uninstalled NOD32 and installed KAV. Perfect results.

I'll see how the new KAV 6 performs. So far it looks to be quite promising IMO.

I'm not a Symantec fan, especially for larger organizations because its MMC plugin is horrible. We've taken schools off SAV CE (where the networks have been infected by various viruses) and migrated them over to NOD32. Amazing how I sometimes see results stating that Symantec detects more than NOD32. Since the schools have gone over to NOD32 from SAV, they have yet to get infected with viruses that NOD32 hasn't detected and eradicated without a network incident.

Hopefully this post is of interest to some of you. ;)

  • 0

With the introduction of the version 6 release, it has had major improvements. Speed is definitely one of them. Give the new version 6 a try if speed is what was stopping you from using it before.

Yes it is.

======

I use both - and resell both. Different customers have different needs. School districts benefit from NOD32 hands down. I could argue the point with anyone, all day and all night. No other solution comes close to satisfying their needs in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, KAV enterprise really falls waaaay short on this aspect.

Plus, in the version 5 world, KAV was always soooo much slower than NOD32 and all my clients noticed it. Changed all of them over to NOD32 and they absolutely love it. Never a single error, as NOD32 has one hell of a fantastic program engine.

NOD32 seems to excel in the program itself, but not as much in the AV database. I still have yet to have a client infected on either AV program, but KAV simply detects more.

We use KAV on Novell servers because it's one of the few that actually update by itself, without the necessity of a workstation to update the server itself. KAV takes care of everything with no user intervention, period. We use it with any client that has a Novell GroupWise installation. KAV detects everything that comes in via the email server.

GWAVA has incorporated the engine, as well as GFI and Sybari. Sybari got bought out, so I don't know if it still does, but anyone who incorporates 3rd party AV tools normally tries to get in good with Kaspersky because it's simply one of the smartest possible moves you can make.

I am actually using Kasersky Internet Security to try out their entire new package. I'm very impressed. Talk about a client interface overhaul. It looks so pretty, as their old versions looked so legacy. Very very very great-looking application interface. It's definitely easier to navigate than NOD32. I'm familiar with all aspects of both apps, as it's part of my job - but for someone who really has to find settings themselves, KAV is simply easier to navigate.

Tech support for KAV is absolutely outstanding. NOD32 has also been great, but if I had to rate them on a 10 scale, it's KAV=10 and Eset=7. When I email my support team with KAV, I get a reply back within 5 minutes most of the time. Makes no difference what time it is - absolutely incredible. Eset has had some hurdles it's fallen over, but they get up very quickly to help out.

It's kinda late here so I'm not as organized in this post as I should be, but I'd have to pick 2 of them - NOD32 and KAV. If you simply want the best AV database - it's KAV hands-down. NOD32 would win my vote for best compatibility with other apps and application stability. I cannot remember one time that I have EVER seen NOD32 crash on ANY PC I have installed it on. KAV has definitely crashed plenty of times for me in many different environments. On my Dell laptop, I could simply install Windows XP (with no mods) and then install KAV 5.x afterwards. BSOD every time, no matter what. We simply couldn't find a fix for it. With 6, I used Acronis and imaged my laptop, uninstalled NOD32 and installed KAV. Perfect results.

I'll see how the new KAV 6 performs. So far it looks to be quite promising IMO.

I'm not a Symantec fan, especially for larger organizations because its MMC plugin is horrible. We've taken schools off SAV CE (where the networks have been infected by various viruses) and migrated them over to NOD32. Amazing how I sometimes see results stating that Symantec detects more than NOD32. Since the schools have gone over to NOD32 from SAV, they have yet to get infected with viruses that NOD32 hasn't detected and eradicated without a network incident.

Hopefully this post is of interest to some of you. ;)

it was a good comparison....but for free antivirus, avast and avg which is better?? Comparing the stability and memory consumption

  • 0

:laugh: That's a spam list, has been posted on several forums, all of them without a source

of where it came from. This list tries to promote eXtendia AVK see how always appear

on the 1st or 2nd place on all those lists.

Take a look

http://forums.infoprosjoint.net/showthread.php?t=6045

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,105...=flat~days=9999

http://forums.techwatch.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=3871&sid=8

So, next time you post a list like that, at least provide a known source ;)

well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Edited by Lare2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • 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!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • 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
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!