Are paid Anti-viruses better than free ones?

[alakhiyar]

Are they? Post your opinion here.

[brokencrow]

Sometimes.

Obviously, on a large network, a AV app like Symantec or McAfee gives an admin some options for managing clients you wouldn't have, or even need, at home or on a small peer-to-peer network. And the more expensive AV apps will have options and features the free ones may not; more complete definitions or better heuristics.

On the flip side, if you're a home or SOHO user running older hardware, the free AV apps will run with less overhead. Try running Nortons 2006 on an old PIII and it is rendered almost useless it'll be so slow. And, hey...they're free.

And there's all kinds of situations in between. Sometimes the best AV app is the one you know the best and have the most confidence in.

[nihil]

Pay for software is "better" than free software in this area, there really isn't much to discuss there, other than you can sometimes get a stand alone home/non-profit licence for the full shooting match.

The real question, as I see it, is: "do you really need the additional features of the pay for version?"

In a lot of cases this is more frequent updates (although that does not seem to be the case unless you want it once an hour of something, these days)

Major benefits of the pay for versions seem to be:

1. Version has network support............ could be an issue with the growing popularity of home networks?

2. Interactive functionality. A few systems will only let you have this for a limited period of time (the "trial")

3. Product support/warranty

4. Multiple/corporate licensing

5. More functionality/integrated functionality (particularly with those that do not have a free version)

A lot of home users may not need some or all of these?

[cabby80]

I think for home use the "free" (or voluntary contribution) antivirus packages are quite good, particularly for knowledgeable users.

For basic home users though the paid ones often offer more "user friendly" or "idiot proof" programs that make life easier for them.

For corporate use, well I can't imagine anyone offering a free antivirus for corporate use - particularly for Windows!

[cgkanchi]

I'd say the free versions are merely adequate, while the really good ones tend to be paid for. However, I'm not really talking about Symantec or McAfee, since I've had bad experiences with both on the desktop.

Cheers,
cgkanchi

[JPnyc]

I think an AV's effectiveness depends in part on it's popularity. You're better off with a more obscure one, as is the case with a browser or OS. How many people around looking for holes in Opera, or writing viruses for linux?

If you're a sociopath writing a virus, you'll want to check that it can't be detected by the well known AVs, wouldn't you?

[phishphreek]

JP: I doubt that a virus writer would take the time to install all the different antivirus programs. They could just use a site like www.virustotal.com

If found free antivirus programs to be just fine for home use.

I've been a fan of Avast for a while now. In the past, I used AVG.

[jamz]

JP: I doubt that a virus writer would take the time to install all the different antivirus programs. They could just use a site like www.virustotal.com .excellent site there. Thanks for the share!

[Falcon21]

I find freeware like AVG is sufficient for myself as I don't need heavy and non-free antivirus software like Norton which use up too much system resources. You just need to be careful on what you download and run, keep your system updated and use firefox. These are what I do and my system never get infected for years.

[HTRegz]

I'm surprised this has a thread...

Here's how it works..

PAID AV = Bloated and a Resource Hog
Free AV = Light weight and all you really need.

There's no such thing as better...

Paid AV is like buying a Hummer when you live in the city, have narrow, paved streets and travel ALL the way across town each day to get to work... It just doesn't make sense.

Free AV is like buying a smart car under the same scenario... You might not have all the bells and whistles... but it does what it needs to.

[alakhiyar]

Depends on 32 or 64 bit for antivirus paid or free

Concerning whether anti-virus is better when paid for or not -it depends, on your budget, and compatibility issues. For example if you are using 64 bit instead of 32 bit you may be limited as to what you can use.

32 bit vs 64 bit
64 bit has been known to have issues with being limited to certain brands of anti-virus software. "Avast" antivirus or "C/A" (Computer Associates) is something that I know works. If you have 32 bit XP Pro or Vista 32 Pro instead of 64 bit it opens some more doors for you. The new Vista 64 bit non-Beta comes out in Feburary and once the bugs are worked out the software limiting factor may be corrected.

[Jonny Lee Miller]

I think an AV's effectiveness depends in part on it's popularity. You're better off with a more obscure one, as is the case with a browser or OS. How many people around looking for holes in Opera, or writing viruses for linux?Actually if you take a look at sites like zone-h you'll find out very quickly how common malware is used to speed up the process of attacks. And this rarely has anything to do with browsers, operating systems... or even web servers.

[ShagDevil]

Over the years, I have found minimal correlation between cost and quality of product.

When I look for an AV soultion, I look for excellent detection rates, minimal false-positives, system resources used, and the overall track record of the product from magazines/newspapers/internet reviews & anything else I can get my hands on.

Price is the last thing on my mind. If a product comes across as having a great track record (from multiple sources) and passes my criteria but, it costs me $50 for the year, then that's fine with me. I think I can spare the 14 cents per day to secure one of the most important investments I own.

[nihil]

Here's how it works..

PAID AV = Bloated and a Resource Hog
Free AV = Light weight and all you really need.

There's no such thing as better...

Paid AV is like buying a Hummer when you live in the city, have narrow, paved streets and travel ALL the way across town each day to get to work... It just doesn't make sense.

Free AV is like buying a smart car under the same scenario... You might not have all the bells and whistles... but it does what it needs to.

HT~ I would question your terminology here?

By "Paid AV" I think that you must be referring to the "Security Suites" that are being marketed..........as far as I am aware there are no "free" ones out there. Similarly, if you are a business user you have to pay, so both should be left out of the equation?

That would narrow the question down to the differences between, say, the free and paid for versions of AVG, Avast! and the like, for the private, home user.

There is minimal resource consumption difference between them, all you need to know is if the additional features of the paid for version suit you, and are worth the cost?

My personal experience is that they generally do not. You can put together a collection of free products that will do the job, just as well, if not better.

I agree that these "Security Suites" are rather "bloated" and can conflict with other software (my personal experience is that the conflict issue is more of a problem than resource hogging..........at least with individual products you can isolate the culprit)

My advice to most of my users is to stick with the free ones unless there is a really specific feature that you need.

In other words, I agree with what you said, but would phrase it somewhat differently, given that I mostly deal with non-computer literate folks;)