Antivirus Software - Free vs Paid

[Cs342]

When Linus unboxed the Gigabyte U2442D ultrabook, he mentioned that there's no point in buying antivirus software because there's so many free options available. I was wondering if this is actually true, because most of the free antiviruses are lacking a lot of features. Should I stop paying for my Norton subscription and get a free program instead?

[MzCatieB]

AVG is free and is better than Norton by far

Avast is also a recommended AV software that is also free

 

Free antivirus software might be lacking, but compared to most paid/ subscription based AV software they update more frequently and maintain it allot better

[Godlygamer23]

AVG is free and is better than Norton by far

Avast is also a recommended AV software that is also free

 

Free antivirus software might be lacking, but compared to most paid/ subscription based AV software they update more frequently and maintain it allot better

One review I saw of Norton's Internet Security would prove that notion wrong. Way wrong. AVG hogs resources. Norton doesn't slow down your computer at all.(recent versions) The review I saw(on Cnet I think) showed the computer with Norton installed took no performance hit whatsoever.

[MzCatieB]

One review I saw of Norton's Internet Security would prove that notion wrong. Way wrong. AVG hogs resources. Norton doesn't slow down your computer at all.(recent versions) The review I saw(on Cnet I think) showed the computer with Norton installed took no performance hit whatsoever.

really, from my personal experience norton just likes to scan and take up CPU and ram usage, with AVG is scan every day and i dont even notice till its done and it gives me the report, with norton everything freezes, cNet's download section always trys to install norton so they are most likly being paid to say that

[Cs342]

Norton uses 0% of my CPU so that isn't an issue.

[Godlygamer23]

really, from my personal experience norton just likes to scan and take up CPU and ram usage, with AVG is scan every day and i dont even notice till its done and it gives me the report, with norton everything freezes, cNet's download section always trys to install norton so they are most likly being paid to say that

Like Linus is being paid to say the stuff he does?

[MzCatieB]

no cause linus doesnt get paid to do reviews, and can i just say, norton is an antivirus for people who dont know what an antivirus is for. there are much better free options online, i use AVG, Superantispyware and malwarebytes, all are free and well kept, and in the past i have known norton to actualy bypass some viruses meaning it isnt 100% safe, then again no AV software is safe, but thats where updates for the AV logs come in handy, reason why i trust free AV software is cause they update more frequently to compete with subscription based ones

[Godlygamer23]

PCWorld's review of Norton Internet Security 2013. Direct quote: "On the other hand, Norton Internet Security is a relatively lightweight program that won’t bog down your system."

[Cs342]

 i use AVG, Superantispyware and malwarebytes, all are free and well kept

 

You use 3 antiviruses?!!!

[MdX MaxX]

You use 3 antiviruses?!!!

AVG is antivirus, Malwarebytes is antimalware, Superantispyware is, you guessed it, antispyware.  They serve different purposes, so it's cool to have them all installed (although the standalone antispyware may not be as necessary).

 

Also, I think 2011 or 2012 is when Norton got awesome and stopped being a huge resource hog.  But yeah it used to be terrible.

 

I think the main draw for paid programs is the all-in-one functionality.  You install one security suite and you're done.  Free solutions work awesomely, but you usually have to install multiple programs depending on what types of protection you want.

[neon]

When Linus unboxed the Gigabyte U2442D ultrabook, he mentioned that there's no point in buying antivirus software because there's so many free options available. I was wondering if this is actually true, because most of the free antiviruses are lacking a lot of features. Should I stop paying for my Norton subscription and get a free program instead?

Features or redundant bloat?

Windows has a firewall built in, it also has parental controlls, all browsers have phishing protection built in, there are free well known trusted password managers and there are free online backup solutions that most are already a member of.

So what 'features' do you need that aren't better served elsewhere?

Paying extra for these 'features' has long been pointless but 'they' don't want you to know that.

So now that you know all you need is the anrivirus part comparisons are a lot easier, and you'll find that the free ones do just as well as the paid ones so why pay.

I use Avast and have Malwarebytes installed as a backup scanner (which I would do even if I paid for AV) and it works flawlessly, has done for years now.

Also Avast (along with the other free AVs) is antimalware, which includes antivirus, antispyware and other antimalware (they really should be called antimalware not antivirus), the other post makes it sound like you need all 3 which you don't but, like I do, you should have one or two extra on demand only scanners if only for your own peace of mind and that no AV is perfect, and you can't get better than Malwarebytes and superantispyware.

[Zims]

I use malwarebytes+Microsoft security essentials. I`m using that combination for only 2 weeks but no problems jet.

I have not used Norton for a long time. And I remember it as a resource hog. I would not pay to use it and would seriously think about it if I would use it if they paid me. Haven`t not heard anything good about it. I might be wrong.

[MzCatieB]

AVG is antivirus, Malwarebytes is antimalware, Superantispyware is, you guessed it, antispyware.  They serve different purposes, so it's cool to have them all installed (although the standalone antispyware may not be as necessary).

 

Also, I think 2011 or 2012 is when Norton got awesome and stopped being a huge resource hog.  But yeah it used to be terrible.

 

I think the main draw for paid programs is the all-in-one functionality.  You install one security suite and you're done.  Free solutions work awesomely, but you usually have to install multiple programs depending on what types of protection you want.

 

honestly they are the best combination you can use without paying anything

[Woodypc]

honestly they are the best combination you can use without paying anything

yep

[Scia]

I've switched from Kaspersky 2013 to BitDefender 2013 when my Kaspersky ran out. BD is quite lightweight, and finds tracking cookies and stuff Kaspersky did ignore. And it's like 60 Bucks for 3 PC for 2yrs, so not much to complain.

[Lemonsquare]

There's literally no valid reason to pay for an anti-virus/malware/spyware/adware program of any kind. Unless, maybe (and I mean maybe), your level of computer literacy and understanding of rudimentary internet safety is so nonexistent, that you manage to need every possible type of protection under the sun, in which case you almost certainly wouldn't be on these forums. You know what, that still isn't true, often free alternatives are better than paid ones in regard to AV, frankly. If you were to pay for AV software, at least pay for a quality one with a good reputation and an extremely respectable free counterpart (Like avast!). Microsoft Security Essentials, Malwarebytes, and especially avast! are all free programs I would recommend, and you really only need one. 

[MR TECH]

I use Windows defender made by Microsoft Its Way Better then Norton

Link  http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/windows-defender-details.aspx

[SirReallySam]

I use Spybot search and destroy for spyware and Either AVG or Avast! depending on the mood I'm in... nah just kidding but either of them are great choices. I've also heard a lot of good reviews with malwarebytes.

 

Seriously go to free Anti-stuff because, it's really just as good as the paid stuff.

[zoltan]

There is only one way to securily scan your Windoze system for malware, and that using a live linux distro with clamav installed.

 

Advances malware will elude or sabotage any native Windoze scanner, and commercial software doesn't have the same access to the latest and greatest malware definitions like free and open source software has.

 

Also scanning for malware on a linux system is a lot faster and more efficient than any scanner in windows.

 

What to do is the following:

 

You donwload the linux distro of your choice (preferably a tier-one distro that doesn't endorse tainting of the kernel out of the box, so you're sure you don't have any non-open source software on it, like Arch Linux, Fedora/CentOS, Open SuSE, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, Mageia/ROSA), then insall it on a USB stick, then install clamav with or without clamtk for GUI, then configure clamav by editing the configuration file, which is very easy as it contains a lot of comment on how to configure it, no specific knowledge is required, then run freshclam to update the definitions, then start the scan in clamtk or by using clamscan in CLI. Do this once a week or as often as you like. On a normal system, it will take about 10-50 % of the time needed to run a NOD32 Windoze native scan.

 

For real-time protection, you can use free windoze applications, like security essentials, zonealarm, AVG, etc... which are just as good/bad as paid-for applications (they truly all use the same definitions database!). Don't use paid-for software, because it contains a lot of "features" that only slow down the scanning process and the entire computer, you really are better off with the free versions. Also do a daily run of malwarebytes free edition, just as a supplementary temporary measure. And that's what all of these native windoze scanners are, a temporary measure, until you do the real scan through a linux distro.

[Cs342]

If free antiviruses are so good then why do companies still make money off of paid programs? :P Is it just because everyone is ignorant or are they actually more reliable

[zoltan]

If free antiviruses are so good then why do companies still make money off of paid programs? :P Is it just because everyone is ignorant or are they actually more reliable

 

It has nothing to do with software or technology, it has evenything to do with the basic principle of economy "Value is what a damn' fool will pay for it". This implies that something has value if you get someone to pay for it, independent of the intrinsic value of the product. The comparison between free and paid-for proprietary native windows anti-malware applications is like the story of the two dogs fighting over a bone, as the third dog is an external linux scan with clamav, which uses all the latest and greatest definitions and Google's SafeBrowsing databases and state-of-the art heuristics, etc...

Facts: Google uses free and open source software for their own purposes, the Google SafeBrowsing databases can be enabled for clamav, clamav has plug-in filters for most major free and open source mail clients, free and open source mail clients/servers and operating systems are used by ALL security critical professional systems, ...

The value of paid-for anti-malware programs is in the packaging (most used commercial arguement is the "real-time protection"), you can pay for a BDSM mistress to whip your ass or you can do it yourself, the end result is the same, the experience isn't, most will probably (I hope) prefer the choice of whipping their own ass or not, some will be so inclined or compelled to pay a "professional" to do it for them.

Other example: there actually are people with a driver's license that hire a chauffeur, it's not correct to conclude that anyone that pays for a chauffeur can't drive, like it's not correct to conclude that anyone that pays for commercial antivirus software has no clue about PC's. It has nothing to do with the services or their quality, it has everything to do with consumption and the economy.

That doesn't change anything about the fact that the best way to scan windows systems for malware is to scan them using a live linux distro, and that it is superfluous to pay for commercial native windows software as a temporary measure once you already have the best solution (external scan via linux) implemented.

On top of all this, it's contrary to common sense to count on a closed source program to provide your security. How would you know what it does, because it says so? Free and Open Source programs can be verified, you know what they do and everything they do. The "best" commercial anti-virus is like the "best" washing powder, it's on every box, but in the end, every washing powder is a mixture of common chemical agents, if you just put them together, you'll get the same thing, but without the box saying it's the best, just like anti-malware scanners, they consist of two components, the scanning engine and the malware definitions database. Everyone effectively uses the same malware definitions database, the update speed is what makes them different, and the most up-to-date are those available to the free-and-open-source community, and as you will see when you use them, every update is built and signed by one person, one person that is known and that doesn't hide from responsability, and that gets no money from anyone to screw with the databases, they are complete and up-to-date, they don't exclude "commercial friends", "commercial contract partners" or "befriended government administrations". The engines are quite different, but the windows engines all run slower because of the legacy nature of windows, so the commercial competitors exclude features to make the engine faster. There are no miracles, if it runs faster on the same platform, it has less features, just like Vista was the most complete version of Windows ever, it was a windows tech dream, because it had everything, but it was a resource hog with a lot of problems. With Windoze 7, everything Microshaft did was to exclude quite a lot of features to make it faster and less prone to problems, and with Windows 8, they did the same once again, but basically, it's still the same Windows NT platform, that was derived from IBM's OS/2 Warp after IBM phased that out in the mid nineties. Why pay for a compromise in a nice box if you can have everything for free without a box?

[Cs342]

So my Norton automatic renewal is coming up, should I let it renew my subscription or should I cancel and getting something else?

[naca1227]

really, from my personal experience norton just likes to scan and take up CPU and ram usage, with AVG is scan every day and i dont even notice till its done and it gives me the report, with norton everything freezes, cNet's download section always trys to install norton so they are most likly being paid to say that

I have Norton and I love it. I remember I used to hate because it would slow me down like 50% but I think they have gotten way better. Not only that but I love their software. My vote goes for Norton

[naca1227]

So my Norton automatic renewal is coming up, should I let it renew my subscription or should I cancel and getting something else?

I say just stick with Norton

[neon]

So my Norton automatic renewal is coming up, should I let it renew my subscription or should I cancel and getting something else?

My own opinion is uninstall Norton (you may need to use the Norton Removal Tool to remove everything) then install Avast Free, even if you wanted to keep Norton you shouldn't use the auto renew, it's cheaper to buy the boxed product and just insert the key.

Go look at the features matrix and only pay for the version you need, remember Windows has a built in firewall and parental controls, all browsers have phishing protection built in and there are top notch password managers and online backup services for free.