IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

Which Antivirus?, Kaspersky Or McAfee?
LukaBuka
post Sep 18 2005, 15:30
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 29-June 05
Member No.: 23038



I am looking for an antivirus for Windows XP because I am tired of all that shit that tries to infect my PC. So far I looked into Kaspersky AntiVirus Personal and McAfee Antivirus. Which one is better or should I pick something entirely different?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
William
post Sep 19 2005, 04:09
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 8-January 02
Member No.: 959



In my PC usage history, my computer has not been infected with a virus since the release of Windows 95 (The last virus my computer got infected called "11th November" when I was still running MS-DOS 5.0), so I cannot really comment on the performance of the AV engines.

However, I do know that McAfee, F-Prot, Norman, etc, have a long history on AV, and I think their AV products can be trusted.

On the other hand, NOD32 is a (relatively) new entry that has a very powerful AV engine. Great detection rates on ItW viruses, very light on resource, and fast. It seems to be a great choice nowadays.

There are tests that show that NOD32 detects less viruses than other major players, though I tend to believe that this is due to their short history on AV (i.e. they do not have database of some very old viruses). However I believe they have no problems detecting viruses discovered in recent years.

My impression on Norton AntiVirus is that I dislike it more with every new version released every year. The functions are essentially the same (i.e. No improvements), but the UI is becoming more bothersome and stupid, resource usage climbs higher with every release. So my advice is that, stay away from it.

(Frankly, I have seen too much computer issues, especially performance and stability issues, when Norton products are running on the machines. When they are disabled or even uninstalled, the machines became much more stable.)

I have tried some version of McAfee, like 4.x, 7.0 and 8.0. 4.x was trouble-free, 7.0 was not stable on my computer (it crashes every time during scanning). 8.0 crashed less, but still...and I have no experience on newer versions. The command-line version of SCAN.EXE is great though.

F-Prot is a great product as well, I liked it during the DOS days. Large virus database, fast, and light on resource. F-Secure uses the same engine I think, but I have not tried that.

During the DOS days I tried ThunderBYTE AntiVirus (I believe it is now Norman). It was very light on resource and fast too, though I don't know the detection rate. Maybe you can take a look at it as well.

Currently I am using AVG Free on my machine, simply because I think it is feature-complete, and light on resource (Yes I have a constant internet connection, so scheduled updates of database every day at 7:00am is no problem for me). The interface is OK (much better than AntiVir), and it does not look like a media player (like Avast). The only usage of AVG is just to filter NetSky virus from my POP3 account though.

This post has been edited by William: Sep 19 2005, 04:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 19 2005, 06:00
Post #3


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (William @ Sep 18 2005, 07:09 PM)
On the other hand, NOD32 is a (relatively) new entry that has a very powerful AV engine. Great detection rates on ItW viruses, very light on resource, and fast. It seems to be a great choice nowadays.

There are tests that show that NOD32 detects less viruses than other major players, though I tend to believe that this is due to their short history on AV (i.e. they do not have database of some very old viruses). However I believe they have no problems detecting viruses discovered in recent years.
*


I don't think Eset NOD32 is that new. It has been available for several years. I don't know if it goes all the way back to early DOS though.

And as for NOD32 detecting less viruses, where did you see these tests? On the Virus Bulletin website, NOD32 has often had a higher rating (more consecutive 100% awards) than just about all of the competition. In contrast, some of the more well known products like McAfee (in particular IIRC) and Norton have often failed to achieve 100%.

Anyway, I don't use Windows anymore for the most part so I don't use any of these, but when I did, NOD32 was definitely the best one that I found. Fast, non-intrusive, and easy to use.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
William
post Sep 19 2005, 13:25
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 8-January 02
Member No.: 959



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 19 2005, 05:00 AM)
And as for NOD32 detecting less viruses, where did you see these tests?  On the Virus Bulletin website, NOD32 has often had a higher rating (more consecutive 100% awards) than just about all of the competition.  In contrast, some of the more well known products like McAfee (in particular IIRC) and Norton have often failed to achieve 100%.


Here is one that shows. Of coures you can disagree with it. I disagree with it, as it did not say the criteria for choosing the viruses.

And I don't think we need to argue here:

QUOTE
On the other hand, NOD32 is a (relatively) new entry that has a very powerful AV engine. Great detection rates on ItW viruses, very light on resource, and fast. It seems to be a great choice nowadays.


I have been watching Virus Bulletin since the day of NOD-iCE and I know that it has passed ItW tests nearly continuously since it was named NOD32.

My point is that NOD32 is definitely one of the best bet in AV today, though I guess it may miss some older viruses that, say, McAfee can detect, simply because McAfee exists longer in AV history (12 - 13 years IIRC). Many AV tests can manipulate test results by incoporating different kinds of viruses in a test. By including older viruses in tests, older brands can achieve better results. However I don't think missing an old virus is as important as 100% detection of ItW viruses.

To conclude, I think NOD32 is great, not to mention that it costs lowest here in Hong Kong. However, I don't think this means that other AVs are not worth checking out, e.g. take a look at AVG and AntiVir, they are doing well for the more recent VB100 tests.

This post has been edited by William: Sep 19 2005, 14:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- LukaBuka   Which Antivirus?   Sep 18 2005, 15:30
- - neutral_00   QUOTE (LukaBuka @ Sep 18 2005, 03:30 PM)I am ...   Sep 18 2005, 15:36
- - Garf   NOD32 Whatever you do, don't buy a Symantec p...   Sep 18 2005, 15:48
- - kotrtim   since both are paid version, I don't have any ...   Sep 18 2005, 15:48
- - Sebastian Mares   According to this heise test Avast doesn't eve...   Sep 18 2005, 16:32
- - kotrtim   QUOTE According to this heise test Avast doesn...   Sep 18 2005, 17:29
- - Digga   in my experience, NOD32 (2.5x) is pretty non-intru...   Sep 18 2005, 18:47
- - emr   Both scanners mentioned in the first post are good...   Sep 18 2005, 18:58
- - spoon   >Whatever you do, don't buy a Symantec prod...   Sep 18 2005, 19:43
|- - Garf   QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 18 2005, 08:43 PM)>What...   Sep 19 2005, 02:47
|- - evereux   QUOTE (Garf @ Sep 19 2005, 01:47 AM)QUOTE (sp...   Sep 19 2005, 10:06
|- - Garf   QUOTE (evereux @ Sep 19 2005, 11:06 AM)Symant...   Sep 19 2005, 19:26
- - NiQCo   I use Avast for some times now and have been prett...   Sep 18 2005, 20:26
- - Brink   If online scanning is not in your list of needs, y...   Sep 19 2005, 02:25
- - QuantumKnot   I'm using NOD32 as well. It's relatively ...   Sep 19 2005, 03:26
- - Lyx   Symantec is similiar to microsoft - they cannot wr...   Sep 19 2005, 03:30
|- - William   QUOTE (Lyx @ Sep 19 2005, 02:30 AM)Symantec i...   Sep 19 2005, 03:44
- - William   In my PC usage history, my computer has not been i...   Sep 19 2005, 04:09
|- - Dibrom   QUOTE (William @ Sep 18 2005, 07:09 PM)On the...   Sep 19 2005, 06:00
|- - William   QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 19 2005, 05:00 AM)And as ...   Sep 19 2005, 13:25
- - DilbyŠ   I dont use any of this detection type software, no...   Sep 19 2005, 05:04
|- - legg   QUOTE (DilbyŠ @ Sep 18 2005, 11:04 PM)I dont ...   Oct 7 2005, 23:29
- - ddrawley   I have been very pleased with AntiVir. It has many...   Sep 19 2005, 15:12
|- - Brink   QUOTE (ddrawley @ Sep 19 2005, 06:12 AM)I hav...   Sep 19 2005, 21:43
- - Digga   QUOTE (Garf @ Sep 19 2005, 07:26 PM)BTW. NOD3...   Sep 20 2005, 01:17
- - Andavari   eTrust EZ Antivirus free 1 year trial from Compute...   Oct 8 2005, 00:18
- - rjamorim   F-Prot. For my Windows 2000, my Debian, my Kubuntu...   Oct 8 2005, 04:38
- - VCSkier   do any of you have any opinions on the free malwar...   Feb 23 2006, 22:49
|- - William   QUOTE (VCSkier @ Feb 23 2006, 09:49 PM)do you...   Feb 24 2006, 02:34
- - VCSkier   hmmm, that is interesting, and slightly dissapoint...   Feb 24 2006, 21:52
- - William   QUOTE (VCSkier @ Feb 24 2006, 08:52 PM)hmmm, ...   Feb 25 2006, 02:38


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 15:58