What Antiviruses do you guys like?

[ThinkWithPortals]

12 minutes ago, RuLeZ said:

Norton? Damn, do you have an extra 8GB ram for it? 

12 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

Norton is more like a virus, it's one of the worst "antivirus"

11 minutes ago, mpsparrow said:

Norton.... runs in the other direction

What @Principis said. A couple of years ago you'd be right, but Norton is seriously good nowadays.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

current AV is Common Sense Professional 2017™, uBlock Origin, GlassWire.

If you still bothers configuring the filters on Adblock Plus it's still perfectly functional.

5 minutes ago, Principis said:

Still uses more than ESET apparently, but yes what is 57mb nowadays any ways....

[Droidbot]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

If you still bothers configuring the filters on Adblock Plus it's still perfectly functional.

Too bad the memory usage is obscene on 4GB of RAM (school shitter) 

 

uB uses like 85MB, I've seen ABP use 250+ at one point. 

 

 

[Drak3]

Windows Defender is the only AV I actively use.

I used to keep an updated library of 3rd party installers, but fell out of the habit once I graduated highschool.

I keep my photos, music, documents, driver and utility installers backed up.

Finally, I've got Ubuntu/Linux Mint and a Puppy Linux bootable USBs for rescue ops.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Droidbot said:

Too bad the memory usage is obscene on 4GB of RAM (school shitter) 

uB uses like 85MB, I've seen ABP use 250+ at one point.

Really? I have never had any memory usage issue with it, using Firefox as browser, I used to use it on 2gb of RAM i3 laptop and it was pretty rock solid.

 

More importantly I suppose is knowing how to get the good tampermonkey scripts to hide the adblocker on all those websites trying to have you disable it.

[JoeCoke]

3 minutes ago, Principis said:

That's right, back in....

The new versions are really good. 

Well, whenever I have to work on my cousin's PCs (even recently), Norton still annoys the fuck out of me. Usually it ends up deleting a lot of things I leave on there too, twice it's deleted cpu-z. WHY???? Even if it has improved, it's still an unnecessary resource hog. Just don't click on ads and random links and you're good to go. But they're kinda paranoid when it comes to security, so they insist on running it. One time they called me panicking because a "virus" had changed their homepage to "this MSN thing"...

[The Sloth]

6 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

What @Principis said. A couple of years ago you'd be right, but Norton is seriously good nowadays.

not good enough 

[Droidbot]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not good enough 

what is "good enough"

 

is having one of 5 AV-Test.de 'TOP PRODUCT' badges not enough?

 

[ThinkWithPortals]

12 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not good enough 

What's "good enough"? Good enough for what?

[Ry23n]

25 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Usually it ends up deleting a lot of things

You can adjust that from the settings so it asks you if you want remove that file which is "marked as a virus" and you can also restore the "removed file" because it only goes to quarantine.

[Principis]

31 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Well, whenever I have to work on my cousin's PCs (even recently), Norton still annoys the fuck out of me. Usually it ends up deleting a lot of things I leave on there too, twice it's deleted cpu-z. WHY???? Even if it has improved, it's still an unnecessary resource hog. Just don't click on ads and random links and you're good to go. But they're kinda paranoid when it comes to security, so they insist on running it. One time they called me panicking because a "virus" had changed their homepage to "this MSN thing"...

On my pc it only deletes cracking/cheating tools and programs I compiled (because I didn't sign it or whatever) but I know Kaspersky and Bitdefender are better but they are really expensive and I hate their UI. It never deleted CPU-Z in my usage.  

 

You can't expect everyone to not click on ads or strange emails or whatever.

[Principis]

34 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not good enough 

You're using Windows defender so I think you're not the person to say it's not good enough...

I'm using a paid antivirus because I live with other people who know nothing about tech and don't have common sense about computers.

 

[JoeCoke]

10 minutes ago, Principis said:

You can't expect everyone to not click on ads or strange emails or whatever.

I do agree here, the majority of people are computer retarded, and should be using antivirus. Even Norton. I was just looking at this from more of a computer enthusiast standpoint.

[The Sloth]

11 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

What's "good enough"? Good enough for what?

i haven't used a paid antivirus in a long time, i was talking from my experience, not sure how much Norton has changed. 

 

11 hours ago, Droidbot said:

is having one of 5 AV-Test.de 'TOP PRODUCT' badges not enough?

 

Interesting, nice to see them improve 

 

 

 

[_Grid21]

I've been using Windows Defender since it's native to Windows 10 and who better to know how to protect your windows OS than Microsoft since they made it. But Is Windows Defender really that good? I also recently learned you can run Microsoft's "Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool" by searching for MRT in Windows start. I haven't bothered with Mcafee or anything like that because I got sick of the third party junk and from what I heard Mcafee has holes in its own software because at one point they were going to get bought out by Intel. (It's kinda a weird story to explain). Anyway, I was asking myself this same question about "what's the best of the best" but a lot of you seem to use defender but I just wanted to know if that's really all I need or should I use something better?

[Angry Badger]

I'm only running WIndows Defender at the moment, but the paid version of Bitedefender is probably the closest thing to an optimal security suite I've ever had on my computer. It runs efficiently, has some of the best detection rates on the market, and importantly, it's not very intrusive. 

 

Windows Defender is actually a horrible piece of software compared to the importace of its role. It's scanning and disinfecting capabilties are really, really sloppy considering how long a full scan takes and the inconsistent detection rates it sports. It's very dodgy when it comes to eliminating newer threats, and despite not really seeming very aggressive, it still returns a few false positives now and then. It's a really sh**y piece of software all things considered.

 

For a faster, more responsive, more trustable and less annoying computer, I'd run Bitdefender. Sadly, my budget doesn't allow that at the moment.

[Angry Badger]

49 minutes ago, Josh_Grid21 said:

I've been using Windows Defender since it's native to Windows 10 and who better to know how to protect your windows OS than Microsoft since they made it. 

One doesn't actually have to sit on the source code in order to create an efficient and powerful security product, and the current situation of the security software business is an example of that. Despite Microsoft knowing all the ins and outs of Windows, their intergrated solution (which in theory should trump them all, right?) barely competes among the best in terms of performance and detection rates (yep, Windows Defender actually slows you down considerably with the more recent versions). 

 

It's really no wonder, though. Microsoft hasn't really prioritized security a lot before recently, and they won't be able to catch up with the many years of valuable experience and technology which the major AV vendors have accumulated during the years when Microsoft neglected security. The major vendors are sitting on a lot of important technology and research material which makes their products some of the best in class, and you can't expect Microsoft to surpass these behemoths when they've barely even started investing in this area compared to those. Security is more than just knowing the system you're supposed to protect.

[_Grid21]

29 minutes ago, Raxzzer said:

I'm only running WIndows Defender at the moment, but the paid version of Bitedefender is probably the closest thing to an optimal security suite I've ever had on my computer. It runs efficiently, has some of the best detection rates on the market, and importantly, it's not very intrusive. 

 

Windows Defender is actually a horrible piece of software compared to the importace of its role. It's scanning and disinfecting capabilties are really, really sloppy considering how long a full scan takes and the inconsistent detection rates it sports. It's very dodgy when it comes to eliminating newer threats, and despite not really seeming very aggressive, it still returns a few false positives now and then. It's a really sh**y piece of software all things considered.

 

For a faster, more responsive, more trustable and less annoying computer, I'd run Bitdefender. Sadly, my budget doesn't allow that at the moment.

 

8 minutes ago, Raxzzer said:

One doesn't actually have to sit on the source code in order to create an efficient and powerful security product, and the current situation of the security software business is an example of that. Despite Microsoft knowing all the ins and outs of Windows, their intergrated solution (which in theory should trump them all, right?) barely competes among the best in terms of performance and detection rates (yep, Windows Defender actually slows you down considerably with the more recent versions). 

 

It's really no wonder, though. Microsoft hasn't really prioritized security a lot before recently, and they won't be able to catch up with the many years of valuable experience and technology which the major AV vendors have accumulated during the years when Microsoft neglected security. The major vendors are sitting on a lot of important technology and research material which makes their products some of the best in class, and you can't expect Microsoft to surpass these behemoths when they've barely even started investing in this area compared to those. Security is more than just knowing the system you're supposed to protect.

I can see your point Raxzzer. I was told at the time that supposedly Defender was rated as #2 as the best with kaspeky being 1st. But how does Bitdefender compare really to something like mcafee, which is what my dad uses now.

[Angry Badger]

2 hours ago, Josh_Grid21 said:

 

I can see your point Raxzzer. I was told at the time that supposedly Defender was rated as #2 as the best with kaspeky being 1st. But how does Bitdefender compare really to something like mcafee, which is what my dad uses now.

If you're asking specifically for how McAfee compares to Bitdefender, it's a quite easy comparison. McAfee actually isn't that much better than Windows Defender in terms of protection.

 

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/

 

Their lab results are usually quite mediocre, and the last time I used the full version of a McAfee product (the full trial came preinstalled on one of my XPS notebooks, and I didn't bother uninstalling it immediately), the anti-phishing filter simply didn't work very well. You're almost as well off using Windows Defender if security is your main concern, which in my optinion doesn't justify paying for it.

 

Bitdefender on the other hand, scores well like they usually do in pretty much every category except for the user interface, which can sometimes be a little unsightly for certain users, though it's overwise a much better performer than McAfee in terms of protection against both known threats and newer, unknown threats while generally running smoother on most systems as far as I can tell (though today most AV-products actually run quite well, even Norton).

 

So if you're looking for a replacement for McAfee, Bitdefender and Kaspersky are better replacements in most practical use cases. 

[_Grid21]

3 minutes ago, Raxzzer said:

If you're asking specifically for how McAfee compares to Bitdefender, it's a quite easy comparison. McAfee actually isn't that much better than Windows Defender in terms of protection.

 

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/

 

Their lab results are usually quite mediocre, and the last time I used the full version of a McAfee product (the full trial came preinstalled on one of my XPS notebooks, and I didn't bother uninstalling it immediately), the anti-phishing filter simply didn't work very well. You're almost as well off using Windows Defender if security is your main concern, which in my optinion doesn't justify paying for it.

 

Bitdefender on the other hand, scores well like they usually do in pretty much every category except for the user interface, which can sometimes be a little unsightly for certain users, though it's overwise a much better performer than McAfee in terms of protection against both known threats and newer, unknown threats while generally running smoother on most systems as far as I can tell (though today most AV-products actually run quite well, even Norton).

 

So if you're looking for a replacement for McAfee, Bitdefender and Kaspersky are better replacements in most practical use cases. 

One of my friends on Twitter said "Avast is the best free one, Kaspersky is the best paid one, hands down... for scanning I use SuperAnti Spyware, MBAM, Spybot and ADW cleaner,  bit defender is trash, basically as secure as a flour sifter... keeps out big things, small things breeze right through." 

Is that true what he said? 

[bcguru9384]

11 hours ago, mpsparrow said:

The built in Windows 10 security stuff is what I use most of the time. I use BItdefender on my main machine because I get it for free from my Dad's work. Other then that I use Malwarebytes when I am cleaning up my Papa's computer from all the viruses he somehow got

teach papa a better adult site or buy him membership to reputable adult site

bet he doesn't get as many ITD's (Internet Transmitted Disease)

[_Grid21]

1 minute ago, bcguru9384 said:

teach papa a better adult site or buy him membership to reputable adult site

bet he doesn't get as many ITD's (Internet Transmitted Disease)

That was NOT helpful information. Please stay on topic.  

[bcguru9384]

15 minutes ago, Josh_Grid21 said:

That was NOT helpful information. Please stay on topic.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, bcguru9384 said:

I am cleaning up my Papa's computer from all the viruses he somehow got

seems on topic to me although the specific example maynot be but yes it is on topic(viruses)

smart web use to prevent computer diseases

yes on topic

[mpsparrow]

Just now, bcguru9384 said:

 

 

seems on topic to me although the specific example maynot be but yes it is on topic(viruses)

smart web use to prevent computer diseases

yes on topic

All I am saying is that he gets viruses on his computer. Don't all old people? Google search for their golf course and accidentally click on an ad that pops up a "DOWNLOAD NOW" sign that they panic and click on in trying to get it away. This is just one of many examples of how the older people get viruses. And trust me, all my old relatives do stuff like this, maybe not to that extreme of a circumstance, but it happens.

[bcguru9384]

1 minute ago, mpsparrow said:

the specific example maynot be

 

1 minute ago, mpsparrow said:

All I am saying is that he gets viruses on his computer. Don't all old people? Google search for their golf course and accidentally click on an ad that pops up a "DOWNLOAD NOW" sign that they panic and click on in trying to get it away. This is just one of many examples of how the older people get viruses. And trust me, all my old relatives do stuff like this, maybe not to that extreme of a circumstance, but it happens.

very true my post was more for ITD joke laugh at expense of ignorant browsing habits

the book "the outsiders" says it best

stay golden

which means

ignorance is bliss

 

ender wiggins another example of the stay golden