QOTD: Is Free Antivirus as Good as Paid Software?

All Norton and Mcafee seem to do is cause more headaches than they solve. Compared to Avast and AVG most paid solutions seem to be nothing more over priced bloatware.

IMO, no. most free solutions only offer narrow protection.

conception of bloatware is another issue

When I bought my copy of Win XP Pro x64 a year after it had been released, Norton didn't have a product to support me, which forced my switch to Avast in the first place.

I currently run Avast on all my personal computers. It supports Windows XP, Windows XP Pro x64, Vista 32 and 64-bit, and now has Win7 support. It even has a Linux clinet (no real-time scan though), so I can check files I've downloaded.

I'm never switching back to Norton or McAfee again. As I type this on my work's PC, McAfee is consuming 150MB of memory out of my 1GB, and I'm not sure what its doing with that memory either.

I haven't had a problem that a mix of free programs couldn't fix, so I would never pay for AV software.

Indeed. Any AV will slow down a system a bit, but Norton can really kill one. They had to make their own "removal tool" for pete's sakes.

Comparatives, and other independent tests, will show that free Anti Virus software can perform on par or ABOVE paid anti virus software.

AVIRA FTW!!! Works great. Caught more than AVAST or AVG (which is becoming bloatware apparently).

I'd like to see some testing on this topic. I wouldn't trust people on the net (nor myself) to make this kind of judgement.

PS: http://www.avira.com/en/download/index.html
And yes, it supports Linux.

PSS: Does anyone have another link to the video? The posted one reports as 'removed by user'.

I agree with thearm...there needs to be some more reviews on paid vs free AV protection.

I downloaded MSE and installed it on my newly replaced laptop just yesterday. So far I'm happy, but I'll withhold judgment until I see how it fares against viruses. I'm also a current user of AVG on my desktop, and I've dealt with the costly names like Sata- er, Norton in the past. Hands down, I've found the free antivirus to be more effective, as well as friendlier and easier to use. You won't catch me recommending Norton or McAfee.

I'd say yes yes it can be as good as paid software. Never ever had a problem that Avast couldn't catch. made the switch from AVG after I couldn't get the virus update one day and I've never looked back. Avast is great and does a wonderful job

Speaking from a business stand point, both McAfee and Symantec SUCK. They don't auto detect anything and they dont invent and push the envelope on anything. NOD32 is always top notch, SuperAntiSpyware is even detecting viruses that Symantec can't and update my programs and defs religiously.

I just wish I could find a good AV solution that works with Windows Me.

Plus even BitDefenders online scanner detects what other scanners cant. So far NOD32, BitDefender, SuperAntiSpyware and Avira have been the best I've seen. Kind of funny because I was recently at a security conference where McAfee was there and they were toating how much they are changing and blah blah blah and the main programmer from NOD32 was there and he could blow through the water with the knowledge he had compared to what any big corporate solution is.

I think Microsoft has the resources to provide effective coverage for Windows. They need to approach it as "value added" to the OS instead of just "freeware." Have the OS ask to download updates on a regular basis. It means a little more investment in time and resources from MS but I think it could be very effective for most consumers. Apple keeps their users happy with a similar feature.

Well, I had AVG installed on my parents PC for over 2 months. That's the last time I will install a free antivirus software to a PC that is handled by IT "novices". I bought myself a Kaspersky 2010 license, and guess what: AVG scan reports no infection, Kaspersky found and neutralized over 10 different trojans that were seriously slowing down the OS. That PC finally breathes again.
On the other hand we have the Norton solution at my company. That is seriously the worst piece of antivirus sofware ever invented. (I would elaborate, but I guess most of you already agree with me ).

So, my conclusion is somewhere in between...you can have good and bad free software just as you can have good and bad paid ones.

There are PLENTY of recent comparatives done on a regular basis. Do some searches.

Here's one: http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

AVG is by far, the best anti virus software i have used. After using bit defender, Norton(full security), McAfee, and Kasperkey, i have found nothing but head aches, and even discovered that Norton software uses root kits just like Trojan viruses. Trying to get a paid version of Norton off your computer without a complete reinstall is almost impossible (Norton 2005 that is). I will never go back to the terrible paid for service they provide, even if avg started to charge for its service, i would pay for it, its not a matter of cost entirely its a matter of how your product runs, and unfortunately the current paid for providers can't keep up to the freeware versions.

+1 for free antivirus and spyware:

How many clients that i got that whines there computer run slow and thinks its spyware / virus on system.....

When i boot up i see 512 mgs ram + norton antivirus..... lol
Call up to say you have to invest money on memory cause norton is hoggin up.

Avira and Malwarebytes are the best ones right now. Nothing else comes close besides norton SEP. Everything else is somewhat useless. Even kaspersky isn't top dog any more.

Plus I still believe that Kaspersky pays Russian hackers to create virii and spread it on the internet. Just to keep that in mind, since it is also a Russian company that apparantly popped up out of nowhere 4 years ago.

I see Symantec pulled the video! What kind of message does that send? I've been using MSE since the day it came out and so far so good. I was using AVG before, and MSE seems to use less resources.

What kind of question is that? The answer is, like an answer to many life's questions: DEPENDS.

Some free are as good as paid.
Some are not.

Some paid are better than free.
Some are not.

..

video not working..

Anyhow, company wide rollout -> Symantec SEP is the best bet. It eventually catches up with the free ones. If you don't believe me, give it a shot.

Also check out:
http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/cont [...] -september

they have a detailed comparison of the latest fee/paid AV software

to this question: do you think free antivirus is enough for the average computer user?

I answer not always. Most people who come here with heavily infected computers use Avast. To them we install Avira and they go ok, and vice versa. Some people will find that AVG fits their needs better.

One sure thing, I've never seen a Norton 2008 or 2009 user come here with a virus problem.... yet

PS: Norton 2008 used to be a piece of crap but still did its job. 2009 however is a very nice one. I've been complaining against Norton since 1998 but for the first time, 2009 isn't that bat. It's actually good.

The questions is what you want the end user to think about you. I had a similar question asked of me about LCD TVs. I own Dynex, Westinghouse and some other generic brands but I always recommend a Panasonic, Sony or Samsung depending on the customer or person I am speaking to.

To answer this question you must ask yourself, is the person you are loading the free AV a person that will not go to questionable sites or download questionable content? If you don't know then why put yourself in a position that would put your reputation on the line?

We can all agree that Norton isn't what it use to be from back in the 80's and it contents too much extra stuff and consumes way too much memory, but on the other hand if the customer gets a virus, they will blame the software no you.

I currently run MalwareBytes and Avast on my system and again, they work for me but for others, I have to provide them a paid solution.

I noticed people are complaining Norton is a bloatware. But does it do it's job? Does it really protect computers well?

I use AVG on home computers and computers of others. At work, we use eTrust and it is great for a paid product. I have used norton and seen the norton effects on computers and wouldn't recommend to anyone. I wonder how the paid AVG product is? I should try that out.

Okay after the rambling I didn't answer the question. So let me say that my answer is yes. For the average user AVG would be good to use.

That Norton my grandpa used to pay for.... all it did was block everything he needed for work. Not only was it Virus free , it told the user to "fuck off , this is my OS now bitch."

And Toms... you do know that the Youtube movie has been removed since last time you posted it right?

The best protection against malwares is really free. It's wisdom and common sense.

Norton and McAfee was awesome 10+ years ago. Since then they tried to take over my PC. Free-AVG ONLY checks for viruses which is what I always wanted. Under System and Security (Vista & Windows 7) AVG is also seen as a valid virus checker. So in this case, free is better than paid.