View Poll Results: Are paid Anti-viruses better than free ones?
- 20. You may not vote on this poll
SOMETIMES / DEPENDS
January 16th, 2007, 02:36 PM
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.
January 16th, 2007, 02:44 PM
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.
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?
Last edited by Jonny Lee Miller; January 16th, 2007 at 03:07 PM.
January 16th, 2007, 06:25 PM
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.
Last edited by ShagDevil; January 16th, 2007 at 06:28 PM.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton
January 17th, 2007, 01:33 PM
HT~ I would question your terminology here?
Originally Posted by HTRegz
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