Free Anti-Virus Program

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...

http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/1/
32 answers Last reply
More about free anti virus program
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Road Runner wrote:
    > AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...

    "New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    You misunderstood. The OP was referring to version 7 of AVG, which is a new
    version.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a virus
    which that program didn't stop

    "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Road Runner wrote:
    >> AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >
    > "New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Road Runner wrote:
    >> AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >
    > "New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!

    André, why is Avast! V4.5 better than AVG V7.289?

    Regards
    Joe Steele
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    J&P wrote:
    > André, why is Avast! V4.5 better than AVG V7.289?

    I never tested 7.289, but in general I would point out two reasons to prefer
    Avast! over AVG:

    - Somewhat better virus detection record. For details take a look at
    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml

    - Much better automatic updates of virus definition files. AVGs autoupdate
    is depending on the computer being powered on and connected to the internet
    at a certain time every day. This is very inconvenient, especially (but not
    only) for dialup users and casual computer users. The Avast! autoupdate is
    completely transparent, and is performed automatically whenever a connection
    to the internet is detected. This is not only convenient, but it is also
    foolproof, which means a lot if you are setting up a computer that will be
    used by family members that don't know anti virus software from rodent
    repellent.

    I have not yet found a single reason to prefer AVG over Avast!, so in my
    book it's AVG-Avast! 0-2. So unless anybody can give me specific (and good!)
    reasons to change back, I won't.

    Oh, and speaking of free antivirus packages starting with the letter 'A':
    Some years ago I tried Antivir from H+BDEV. However, this turned out to be a
    dead loss. I hated the interface, and the virus detection record was a
    complete disaster. The latter seems to have picked up this year, though.
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I'm afraid you are misinformed in regard to "AVGs autoupdate
    is depending on the computer being powered on and connected to the internet
    at a certain time every day." That's just not true.
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "André Gulliksen" <> wrote in message

    > ...... take a look at
    > http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml

    Thanks for the URL. Interesting and helpful site.

    Regards
    Joe Steele
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
    news:OPI1cOozEHA.804@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > I'm afraid you are misinformed in regard to "AVGs autoupdate
    > is depending on the computer being powered on and connected to the
    > internet
    > at a certain time every day." That's just not true.
    >

    Thanks for the info, Papa. I do have a copy of AVG on one of my computers
    which I update regularly, manually. I prefer it this way.

    Regards
    Joe Steele
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I'm with you J&P, I don't take automatic updates on anything.

    I've used AVG for some time now, and am quite satisfied with it.

    JAX

    "J&P" <jopam@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:e16IsmozEHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote in message
    > news:OPI1cOozEHA.804@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> I'm afraid you are misinformed in regard to "AVGs autoupdate
    >> is depending on the computer being powered on and connected to the
    >> internet
    >> at a certain time every day." That's just not true.
    >>
    >
    > Thanks for the info, Papa. I do have a copy of AVG on one of my computers
    > which I update regularly, manually. I prefer it this way.
    >
    > Regards
    > Joe Steele
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Road Runner wrote:

    > Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a virus
    > which that program didn't stop
    >
    > "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    > news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    >>Road Runner wrote:
    >>
    >>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >>
    >>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!


    Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?

    RC
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect Anti-Virus
    program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those website list
    as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be using Norton and
    I know I would never use Norton product ever again .... I rather though
    have an Anti_Virus program that doesn't hog the resource like AVG , nor
    does Avast but with Avast which I was using awhile ago I did get infected
    with a Virus and it didn't catch it , So I move onto AVG which hasn't let me
    down as of yet ... Knock on wood .... I did like the wishbone type
    interface of Avast ... Companies that provide "Free" stuff should get our
    high fives ...


    "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Road Runner wrote:
    >
    >> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a virus
    >> which that program didn't stop
    >>
    >> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    >> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>
    >>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >>>
    >>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    >
    >
    > Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    >
    > RC
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely ever be. The closest
    to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the uneducated say about
    it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the other BS they spew. I
    have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.

    As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...

    AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid testing I have ever
    seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed to detect viruses
    that were detected by NAV.

    Bobby

    "Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect
    > Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those
    > website list as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be
    > using Norton and I know I would never use Norton product ever again ....
    > I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that doesn't hog the resource
    > like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was using awhile ago I
    > did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it , So I move onto AVG
    > which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on wood .... I did like the
    > wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that provide "Free" stuff
    > should get our high fives ...
    >
    >
    > "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> Road Runner wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a virus
    >>> which that program didn't stop
    >>>
    >>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    >>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>>
    >>>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >>>>
    >>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    >>
    >>
    >> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    >>
    >> RC
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I've used AVG for quite a while with exactly zero problems and no failures of
    any kind. I reguarly replace failed/failing/misbehaving versions of Norton
    on my customer's computers and they have never had any problems either.
    I agree that no program is perfect, and there well may be others that
    perform as well, but AVG has done the job for me.

    "NoNoBadDog!" wrote:

    > I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely ever be. The closest
    > to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the uneducated say about
    > it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the other BS they spew. I
    > have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.
    >
    > As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...
    >
    > AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid testing I have ever
    > seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed to detect viruses
    > that were detected by NAV.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    > "Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    > news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > > Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect
    > > Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those
    > > website list as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be
    > > using Norton and I know I would never use Norton product ever again ....
    > > I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that doesn't hog the resource
    > > like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was using awhile ago I
    > > did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it , So I move onto AVG
    > > which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on wood .... I did like the
    > > wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that provide "Free" stuff
    > > should get our high fives ...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > >> Road Runner wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a virus
    > >>> which that program didn't stop
    > >>>
    > >>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    > >>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > >>>
    > >>>>Road Runner wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    > >>
    > >> RC
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Papa wrote:
    > I'm afraid you are misinformed in regard to "AVGs autoupdate
    > is depending on the computer being powered on and connected to the
    > internet at a certain time every day." That's just not true.

    Yes it is. Of course you can update _manually_ whenever you want. If you
    manage to connect to the Grisoft server, of course, which in my experience
    can not always be counted on.
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I was referring to the "at a certain time every day" stipulation.
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Roy Coorne wrote:
    > Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?

    No. But if I was going to pay for a AV software I'd probably take a look at
    NOD32. From what I hear it is _the_ most system resource friendly AV out
    there (unlike, say, Norton/Symantec), and it has a virus detection record
    second to none.
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "André Gulliksen" <> wrote in message ...

    > No. But if I was going to pay for a AV software I'd probably take a look
    > at NOD32.. From what I hear it is _the_ most system resource friendly AV
    > out there (unlike, say, Norton/Symantec), and it has a virus detection
    > record second to none.


    I hope NOD32 users will comment.

    Regards
    Joe Steele
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    NoNoBadDog then you should remove the hook that's inside
    your mouth because you're a fish if you been using norton
    for years . All those years getting rid off for paid such
    a high price for Norton , while their is cheaper anti-
    virus programs that do a better job . All i have to say
    to you NoNoBadDog your're a FISH
    >-----Original Message-----
    >I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely
    ever be. The closest
    >to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the
    uneducated say about
    >it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the
    other BS they spew. I
    >have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.
    >
    >As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...
    >
    >AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid
    testing I have ever
    >seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed
    to detect viruses
    >that were detected by NAV.
    >
    >Bobby
    >
    >"Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    >news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >> Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there
    is a perfect
    >> Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those
    survey that those
    >> website list as to what is good and not so good , If I
    did, I would be
    >> using Norton and I know I would never use Norton
    product ever again ....
    >> I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that
    doesn't hog the resource
    >> like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was
    using awhile ago I
    >> did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it ,
    So I move onto AVG
    >> which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on
    wood .... I did like the
    >> wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that
    provide "Free" stuff
    >> should get our high fives ...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> Road Runner wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got
    infected with a virus
    >>>> which that program didn't stop
    >>>>
    >>>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote
    in message
    >>>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all
    about it ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in
    favour of Avast!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying
    Kaspersky 5.0?
    >>>
    >>> RC
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >.
    >
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Rip off Fish
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    First, I guess you didn't read my post. Second, in any *INDEPENDENT* tests
    I have read, nothing else came close to Norton Antivirus for effectiveness.
    There were two other links posted in this thread that will take you to sites
    that will verify this. On any machine that i have *EVER* used NAV on, I
    have never had a virus. On *EVERY* computer that I have used that had *ANY
    OTHER* antivirus, I have had infections. If you don't like Norton, then so
    be it. I don't care what your preferences are. I know, from years of
    experience, what works and what doesn't. Hope you like manually chasing
    after and deleting viruses and worms, cause that's what you'll be doing.

    Bobby

    "dude" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:7e1201c4cf50$f22c9d80$a601280a@phx.gbl...
    NoNoBadDog then you should remove the hook that's inside
    your mouth because you're a fish if you been using norton
    for years . All those years getting rid off for paid such
    a high price for Norton , while their is cheaper anti-
    virus programs that do a better job . All i have to say
    to you NoNoBadDog your're a FISH
    >-----Original Message-----
    >I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely
    ever be. The closest
    >to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the
    uneducated say about
    >it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the
    other BS they spew. I
    >have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.
    >
    >As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...
    >
    >AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid
    testing I have ever
    >seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed
    to detect viruses
    >that were detected by NAV.
    >
    >Bobby
    >
    >"Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    >news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >> Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there
    is a perfect
    >> Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those
    survey that those
    >> website list as to what is good and not so good , If I
    did, I would be
    >> using Norton and I know I would never use Norton
    product ever again ....
    >> I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that
    doesn't hog the resource
    >> like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was
    using awhile ago I
    >> did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it ,
    So I move onto AVG
    >> which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on
    wood .... I did like the
    >> wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that
    provide "Free" stuff
    >> should get our high fives ...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> Road Runner wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got
    infected with a virus
    >>>> which that program didn't stop
    >>>>
    >>>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote
    in message
    >>>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all
    about it ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in
    favour of Avast!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying
    Kaspersky 5.0?
    >>>
    >>> RC
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >.
    >
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Papa wrote:
    > I was referring to the "at a certain time every day" stipulation.

    What was wrong with that? The "automatic" update in AVG is not really
    automatic; it is started at scheduled times by the software. If you are not
    connected to the internet this operation will fail, and if the computer is
    turned off the operation will not start at all. Thus, if AVG is scheduled to
    look for updates at 7 AM every day and you never turn on your computer
    before 8 AM AVG will never be automatically updated.

    Yes, you _can_ configure AVG to connect to the internet if you are on
    dialup, but even this is a far inferior solution to the one used in Avast!
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Well, all I can say is that I power up my system at irregular intervals,
    sometimes I don't turn it on for hours, yet the updates keep coming. I'm on
    cable.
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Hey there ... I myself use AVG Pro version which comes with 2 years update
    definitions for the price that most other Anti-Virus programs give for one
    year definitions .... And I believe that NOD32 does the same 2 years , which
    i will keep in mind next time around ... Thanks for your post Andre

    "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    news:308u86F2tnh6fU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Roy Coorne wrote:
    >> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    >
    > No. But if I was going to pay for a AV software I'd probably take a look
    > at NOD32. From what I hear it is _the_ most system resource friendly AV
    > out there (unlike, say, Norton/Symantec), and it has a virus detection
    > record second to none.
    >
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    NAV, in my opinion, is an intrusive, bloated, and expensive program. I have
    NEVER had a virus invade my 3 desktops and one laptop since using AVG, and I
    have years of experience with PCs. As you may know, the user must take
    several steps in order to protect against a virus. Using an AV program is
    just one of them.
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    André Gulliksen wrote:
    ....
    > Yes, you _can_ configure AVG to connect to the internet if you are on
    > dialup, but even this is a far inferior solution to the one used in Avast!

    So you _can_ - that's the important aspect, whether 'inferior
    solution' or not;-)

    Roy
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Road Runner wrote:

    > Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect Anti-Virus
    > program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those website list
    > as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be using Norton ...

    Not necessarily - if you follow the website which has been cited
    earlier in this thread, the Virus Bulletin's:
    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table

    Peace!

    Roy
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Sadly, you're exposed as nothing more than a NAV (or anything Symantec)
    apologist! You are easily one of a very very few that supports it claim as
    the "best". Most of the MVPs here, and more notably, the ones that give the
    most knowledgable and accurate help here, all suggest to stay away from NAV.
    Even former users of NAV (that also include MVPs) all say NAV uses to many
    resources, and wants to remove, or alter files it has no business touching,
    hence why many have problems with it.

    FWIW, the free AVs that are reliable, are better for the average user, less
    costly (obviously), and will find it less intrusive on system usage, and
    file handling.
    "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    news:u6JXCCszEHA.3808@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely ever be. The closest
    >to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the uneducated say about
    >it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the other BS they spew. I
    >have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.
    >
    > As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...
    >
    > AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid testing I have ever
    > seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed to detect viruses
    > that were detected by NAV.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    > "Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    > news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >> Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect
    >> Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those
    >> website list as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be
    >> using Norton and I know I would never use Norton product ever again
    >> .... I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that doesn't hog the
    >> resource like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was using
    >> awhile ago I did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it , So I
    >> move onto AVG which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on wood ....
    >> I did like the wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that
    >> provide "Free" stuff should get our high fives ...
    >>
    >>
    >> "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> Road Runner wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a
    >>>> virus which that program didn't stop
    >>>>
    >>>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    >>>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    >>>
    >>> RC
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Not an apologist. Just know that it works, and the claims of bloat an using
    large amounts of system resources are false. I have it installed on all 5
    of my home computers, and my small network of 23 computers at work. The
    only noticeable difference is that *some* files take a bit longer to open
    because they are being scanned. It uses almost no resources on any of my
    computers. AVG simply misses files that NAV finds. It has never altered or
    removed any files without first indicating what it wants to do, so that
    point is moot. The "has no business touching " bit is a knee-jerk
    statement at best, as NAV will not alter files just to alter files as your
    post tries to suggest. This whole "system usage" business is useless in
    this discussion, as your "average user" does little to monitor and maintain
    system health, therefore the often cited "system usage" is often
    attributable to other issues as well. A properly maintained system of
    reasonable power (i.e. non celeron processor and with sufficient memory)
    should and does not have problems with NAV.

    I hope this discussion ends here, as you and I are obviously on opposite
    sides of the fence. You don't like their products, and I do. You state they
    don't work, and I know that they do. You are entitled to your opinion, as I
    am to mine. Life goes on. But others read these posts and I just wanted to
    shed some positive light on a product that I feel is worth consideration.

    Bobby

    "Ted" <lol@lol.lol> wrote in message
    news:1101051161.MIjViZnHYqju3yo8s1xUhw@teranews...
    > Sadly, you're exposed as nothing more than a NAV (or anything Symantec)
    > apologist! You are easily one of a very very few that supports it claim as
    > the "best". Most of the MVPs here, and more notably, the ones that give
    > the most knowledgable and accurate help here, all suggest to stay away
    > from NAV. Even former users of NAV (that also include MVPs) all say NAV
    > uses to many resources, and wants to remove, or alter files it has no
    > business touching, hence why many have problems with it.
    >
    > FWIW, the free AVs that are reliable, are better for the average user,
    > less costly (obviously), and will find it less intrusive on system usage,
    > and file handling.
    > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    > news:u6JXCCszEHA.3808@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>I agree...no "perfect" solution, no will there likely ever be. The
    >>closest to being perfect is Norton AntiVirus, despite what the uneducated
    >>say about it slowing a system down of hogging resources or the other BS
    >>they spew. I have used NAV for years and it has never let me down.
    >>
    >> As far as free AV goes...you get what you pay for...
    >>
    >> AVG in particular always performs poorly in any valid testing I have ever
    >> seen, and on the rare occasion I have used it, it failed to detect
    >> viruses that were detected by NAV.
    >>
    >> Bobby
    >>
    >> "Road Runner" <beepbeep@9y.com> wrote in message
    >> news:ud9alsrzEHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >>> Hey Roy ... To be totally honest I don't think there is a perfect
    >>> Anti-Virus program out there and I wouldn't take those survey that those
    >>> website list as to what is good and not so good , If I did, I would be
    >>> using Norton and I know I would never use Norton product ever again ....
    >>> I rather though have an Anti_Virus program that doesn't hog the resource
    >>> like AVG , nor does Avast but with Avast which I was using awhile ago I
    >>> did get infected with a Virus and it didn't catch it , So I move onto
    >>> AVG which hasn't let me down as of yet ... Knock on wood .... I did like
    >>> the wishbone type interface of Avast ... Companies that provide "Free"
    >>> stuff should get our high fives ...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:eCQQ%23PrzEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Thats funny thats what I did with Avast when i got infected with a
    >>>>> virus which that program didn't stop
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:306desF2sbidpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Road Runner wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>AVG has a new free Anti Virus program , Read all about it ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"New"? I used this years ago, before dumping it in favour of Avast!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Looking for the perfect road - have you been trying Kaspersky 5.0?
    >>>>
    >>>> RC
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Replace "NEVER" with "SELDOM". Slight exaggeration on my part. Sometimes I
    get carried away.
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    <snip>
    > - Somewhat better virus detection record. For details take a look at
    > http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml
    >
    <snip>

    just looked at that site. The latest test for windowsXP showed AVG Pass,
    Avast Fail, hmm.. so I won't be switching t Avast anytime soon. Thanks for
    the link.

    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406

    I don't have an update problem. I used AVG Freeware for over 2 years before
    deciding it was good enough to buy.
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    MartinSGill wrote:
    > just looked at that site. The latest test for windowsXP showed AVG
    > Pass, Avast Fail, hmm.. so I won't be switching t Avast anytime soon.

    When deciding which AV is most reliable you have to look at statistics over
    time, not just at one point in time. In 2004 both AVG and Avast! has a 75%
    pass rate, with three passes and one fail each. If you look at even longer
    terms than last year then Avast! has 10 passes and 19 fails, and AVG has 6
    passes and 20 fails. You do the math. In my book Avast! still has a _slight_
    edge on AVG. But only slight, and if I liked the interface more I'd probably
    stick with AVG rather than switch.

    On a slightly off topic note, if you want to pay for the most reliable AV
    you should probably look at NOD32 or Symantec.
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 06:19:06 -0800, MartinSGill wrote:

    > http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406

    This is not the most recent version of Avast.

    Status: FAIL
    Result history: Alwil (Avast!)
    Product name: Alwil Avast! 4.1.399

    The present version is 4.5. You may wish to await more recent
    results before writing off Avast.

    --
    James E. Morrow
    Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Antivirus Windows XP