• 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

How many of these clients have you tried out are corporate versions and link into a central server.

Thats how I base my judgment - but then again we are locked into Symantec Corporate with a state wide network.

Man I hope you are joking. :no: You base your judgement on the way the software updates itself? Step into my office where I can sell you a car with no doors or windows but it goes really really fast. :shifty:

We've taken so many school districts off Symantec CE because of how many outbreaks they've had. NOD32's management console works fantastic but that's not how I've been judging them. And the fact that outbreaks have gone down to 0 since the NOD32 implementation is quite an advantage as well.

Kaspersky has the worst central updating mechanism I've ever used in my life but if I passed it on its pretty interface in v6 that by itself wouldn't be fair...would it? :p

Joking aside, I hope you base your judgement on more than just that. ;)

  • 0

Despite numerous people's arguments on this forum, to this day I still do not see the problem with Norton/McAfee. They're widely used, have never slowed my computer down by a noticeable amount, and they're easily available in office/electronics stores. I think I can safely guess that they're used by the most number of people worldwide.

My middle school used a corporate version of Norton (which, unfortunately, they hardly ever bothered to update). My current high school--a lab school run by the University of Illinois--uses corporate McAfee (and so does the rest of the university).

  • 0

Im tired of antivirus, they all gave me more problems than virus themselves..

Its not that hard to keep away from virus.. honestly i dont see much need for an antivirus, my last one was AVG but it ****ed me off..

i used mcaffee, not much problems but its too heavy and they are nothing more than mega-ultra-money-hungry and i hate that.

Norton.. oh crap NEVER EVER tell me to install that piece of **** again, thanks to it i had to do so many stuff to get rid of it completely..it was some time ago but i remember as if it was today..it slowed down my computer startup, stopped other programs, an authenthic virus-like antivirus.

So now i quit no more AVs for me and im good like this, most of virus are easy to detect and delete manually tbh..virus are not magic they are just other programs but made for different purposes, often malicious.

EDIT: Im reading a lot of good reviews of NOD32 around here.. i might try it but if it gives me a single problem i will quit antivirus forever, again.

Edited by paperless
  • 0

Despite numerous people's arguments on this forum, to this day I still do not see the problem with Norton/McAfee. They're widely used, have never slowed my computer down by a noticeable amount, and they're easily available in office/electronics stores. I think I can safely guess that they're used by the most number of people worldwide.

My middle school used a corporate version of Norton (which, unfortunately, they hardly ever bothered to update). My current high school--a lab school run by the University of Illinois--uses corporate McAfee (and so does the rest of the university).

The problems I have with McAfee is that [a] when I used their enterprise products in the past for clients that already had existing licenses, it didn't even have the capability to scan RAR archives. That was horrible seeing as that's what the clients were plagued with. Update options for Novell servers have been truly bad and non-functional without some type of intermediary workstation. [c] Viruses being missed by the scanner, aside from just the RAR archive gripes. [d] SuperDAT updates were constantly coming through as corrupt for many clients as well, with McAfee being well aware of it, as they'd inform us after-the-fact.

Symantec...[a] We've had problems with it installing on Windows 98 machines (version 8 and version 9) to the point where we've had to backrev to 7.50 to get it installed and configured...this was at Symantec's request as they could not find out why this was happening after a clean install of Windows 98SE. Red DOS box would pop up with a "Module did not stay resident" error and kill the PC's AV functions altogether. Support could not solve this issue over a 2-week time period where 8-16 hours of time was spent on it total. Problems with workstations randomly getting the yellow popup box with the "File protection is not enabled" message after various times of working on a PC. Only solution is to reboot it. [c] Communication failures when installing in managed mode - workstations can see the server, but after they select it, a communications error appears. [d] Virus infiltrations even with up-to-date definitions on workstations and servers. [e] Bad uninstall routine leaves plenty of registry keys behind. [f] Symantec tech support hold times were too long, causing the customers to pay us for sitting there, waiting for support. [g] Support personnel not knowledgeable about their own product. Novell support was absolutely horrid altogether.

  • 0

NOD32... trust me everybody, Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky... I've tried them all, and believe me... NOD32 detects even the smallest of viruses, and is not naggy and annoying like the other ones. It has a weird GUI, but think about it, it's from a country that makes practically every virus, they KNOW what they're doing. I will never use anything else than NOD32 from now on.

  • 0

Despite numerous people's arguments on this forum, to this day I still do not see the problem with Norton/McAfee. They're widely used, have never slowed my computer down by a noticeable amount, and they're easily available in office/electronics stores. I think I can safely guess that they're used by the most number of people worldwide.

My middle school used a corporate version of Norton (which, unfortunately, they hardly ever bothered to update). My current high school--a lab school run by the University of Illinois--uses corporate McAfee (and so does the rest of the university).

I was like you. I didn't know that there were more better anti-viruses out. Norton Systemwork 2005 is the last version that I will ever buy from Symantec. They are too bloated and too expensive and do not do a very good job. You can test this by running NOD32, Crap Cleaner, RegSeeker (all those do more than Norton do). You might even be surprised to find that Norton wouldn't find some viruses that NOD32 would uncover. It takes me 5-10 minutes for a good 40GB scan with NOD32. With Norton it takes like an hour.

  • 0

It takes me 5-10 minutes for a good 40GB scan with NOD32. With Norton it takes like an hour.

NOD32 is fast. With Kaspersky (even though I'm a fan, I can't use it...again) I could leave my laptop on and have it scan for an entire weekend and it would not finish scanning my little 80 GB hard drive. The engine is fantastic and the app is great, but the scanning kills me... I still recommend it, but I need something that can scan my hard drive efficiently; KAV cannot.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Turbo Pascal was my first real programming experience more than 30 years ago at university. I mostly taught myself from the included examples and help documentation, because the university only taught the basic syntax and philosophy of Pascal, without going deeply into Turbo Pascal’s advanced features. I still remember when I discovered that I could embed assembly language directly into Pascal code, call BIOS functions, manipulate screen memory, use mouse interrupts, and control peripherals from my programs. That opened huge doors for me. Programming back then felt really fun, direct, and close to the machine. What I loved about Pascal was its readability and the almost instant compile time. Turbo Pascal was an amazing environment, but unfortunately Turbo Pascal for Windows 3 did not feel like it fully carried that legacy forward. Later, Delphi got things back on the right track after the messy transition to TP for Windows. Sadly, Delphi suffered from years of uncertainty as it moved from Borland to CodeGear and then to Embarcadero. That instability made many developers lose confidence in it, even though Delphi itself remained a powerful and productive tool. I still work with Delphi from time to time, but I definitely miss the old days of Turbo Pascal.
    • I hope this encodes in to AV1 or AV2 as currently tiktok uses h265 and h264.
    • Qualcomm reportedly in talks to build custom video chips for TikTok parent ByteDance by Karthik Mudaliar Qualcomm is reportedly in advanced discussions to provide custom chip-design services to Chinese tech giant ByteDance, the same company behind TikTok. According to a report from Reuters, Qualcomm could be involved in designing custom silicon tailored for ByteDance's massive data-center workloads. If it goes through, the deal would make ByteDance one of Qualcomm's early anchor customers for its fastly growing custom chip-design division, For years, Qualcomm was the king of making smartphone processors and modems. The company has also been moving into the PC ecosystem and other formats such as on-device AI for Android XR headsets. However, this particular deal is about Qualcomm's custom Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). For a platform like TikTok, ByteDance needs hardware that can help it ingest, process, and serve billions of short-form videos daily. Generalised hardware is no longer the most cost-effective and efficient route, which is why ByteDance is trying to develop custom Video Processing Units (VPUs). VPUs designed specifically for ByteDance’s algorithmic needs could drastically reduce data-center power consumption and improve encoding speeds at an unprecedented scale. The underlying tech behind these processors is actually from Qualcomm's recent acquisition of AlphaWave Semi, a high-speed connectivity specialist company. By combining AlphaWave’s high-bandwidth IP with Qualcomm’s architectural expertise, the company could begin mass production by the end of 2026, if the talks go through. All this also comes at a time when U.S.-China tech relations have dwindled. Escalating trade frictions between Washington and Beijing have severely impacted the export of high-end AI chips from U.S. firms like Nvidia, AMD, and Lam Research. Yet, the Qualcomm-ByteDance discussions show that U.S. tech companies are still actively seeking growth avenues and are open to doing business with China, where regulators still permit. Reuters notes that the outcome of this deal could be uncertain, and ByteDance might also seek partners other than Qualcomm. via Reuters | Image via DepositPhotos.com
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Almohandis earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      DaviKar went up a rank
      Rookie
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      456
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      117
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Xenon
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!