I'm looking for a the best posible antivirus solution:

Best protection.
Allways updated virus database.
Free virus database updates.
Easy to update virus database.
Low on resources.

I'm a tired Norton Anti-Virus user, so i'm not including it.

Linux

These two are the best free ones IMO:

AVG AntiVirus: http://www.grisoft.com/html/us_downl.htm

AntiVir Personal Edition: http://www.free-av.com (seems to be down, use this direct link)

Kaspersky for win, f-prot for dos !!!

Norton, usually. I did try AVG recently and that seemed fine.

F-PROT rules. Completely free for personal use, no-mess-no-fuss, straightforward.

AntiVir has let me down several times; according to c't, that's not a rare case.

+++ i use norton too

Norton user here, too. It's true set-and-forget software.

As far as i can see, F-PROT is only free for DOS users.

Only Kaspersky nothing else...!

Yes, Kaspersky is good, but there's no free version (even the Lite version costs money). From the commercial programs, i think Kaspersky and Norton AV are both good. I use Norton, because it nicely integrates into my download manager (checks each file after downloading).

...So tell me again why Norton Antivirus wasn't included in the poll?

A quick couple of Web searches: ZDNet names Norton Antivirus as Editor's Choice for their 2002 AV comparison. In the review, they mention that Norton has the best track record for catching "in-the-wild" viruses out of any AV software.

Nod32 here, superb

Best Anti-Virus solution: Just use your brains and don't double click on anything which may be trustworthy.

Anyway. Trust is good, control is better.

Many of the viruses I've come across are attached to emails from friends or co-workers, people that regularly send me valid attachments, so it can be hard for me to distinguish between "trustworthy" and "threatening". Also, for Outlook users, some of the most notorious viruses in the last year or two were automatically executed (the user didn't have a choice whether or not to double-click the infected file).

For example, I installed a new computer for my mother, and within three weeks she had contracted a virus that wiped out her (thankfully backed-up) genealogical photo collection, even though she doesn't go to shady, virus-ridden sites, and she religiously avoids email attachments.

Your statement is the same one made by Jim Coates, a notorious U.S. columnist, syndicated everywhere, that almost always gives laughably bad (or worse, dangerous) computer advice. I read him in the morning along with the comics. So simply by your agreeing with Jim, I'm suspect of your argument. Or conversely, because Jim agreed with you, your argument is automatically faulty.

I think a virus scanner can compensate for a lack of brains more effectively than brains can compensate for a lack of AV software.

I thought Kaspersky was cool until it made my plextor scsi drives disappear in EAC and crashed my Win2k when I'd take a source disk out of the floppy drive before closing a MS Word 2000 document.

Now I stick with Norton 2003.

Using Norton 2002

Norton can cause freedb connection problems, PC-Cillin has more advanced options & has never failed me.

No such problems for Norton 2002 on Windows XP!
Once I have virus on my hard drive and Norton seems to ignore it even I scanned it! But PC-Cillin on my friend system prompt that it's a virus!!!????

The virus didn't even harm my system!

Hope this link helps:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/pro...ducts.xml?table

Not a problem for me, I use OpenOffice. Even Word now warns you if there are macros in attachments. I've had many 'friends' sent me viral attachments before (scripts and executables) and I easily spot them for what they are.

Part of being smart, of course, is keeping up to date with all the patches and updates. I did not get infected by Klez although I had a vulnerable OE at one time, because I updated before Klez came out into the wild.

Never seen that article, don't know Jim and he doesn't know me. That's a really lame way of finding fault with my argument.

I ran active virus scanners (the ones which sit in your memory and scans everything) before, but they are too much overhead (very noticable). After taking the scanner off, I have not yet being infected with a virus for over 3 years (I do run a passive scanner maybe once every 3-6 months just to make sure nothing got in). Even though I'm running Outlook Express (not a very smart thing to do. Just waiting for minotaur/thunderbird to be released to switch). I've also seen people who have virus scanners being infected by virus before, either because the virus was really new or they have not updated their virus scanner. There is the problem with virus scanners giving the user a false sense of invulnerability from virus. That statement I quoted is far from truth, in reality.

Kaspersky

Same as Tangent : after 4 years, I decided that having an antivirus was more painful than helpful : one virus per year in average, one out of 2 was harmful (corrupted the content of my hard drive in spite of Norton's protection), I threw two others away without running them, 3 out of 3 (the fourth came when I had no antivirus) were undetected by up to date antiviruses (Norton 4 and Antivir)

Well... you can always dump any message to a text file to review its content and at least the file name of the attachment safely.


I don't understand why people have all these issues with Outlook (Express). In its default configuration, it's damn unsafe, but by tweaking it (making the Untrusted Sites zone as restrictive as possible and adding OE to that zone, disabling the [IMHO stupid] preview etc.) and being a little careful, you can make it "quite safe" if you ask me. I haven't ever applied one single patch to OE - and none of the Klez copies I've received managed to infect me. (I know that's careless because there was, for example, this buffer overflow problem which would let manipulated emails run code [by means of an invalid date tag] before even viewing them, against which even the most careful user stands no chance. But with patches applied and a little carefulness, OE is definitely not as unsafe as most people say.)

AVG has done the job for me. It's good enough for my home use. Easy updating and free.

Norton only. For years.
At work I use Symantec AV Corporative. At home - Norton AV personal. Any problem with both.

I'm a happy Norton Anti-Virus user

First, everything that's Norton/Symantec is evil and shitty in my opinion, their software is horrible, messes up things.
Then, i'd say that Kaspersky has the best protection availible, they are like totally elite. BUT, the software's engine is really slow, it slows everything down. Compared to McAfee VirusScan 7 (along with NOD32 the second best protection) it's very slow. Panda is very fast and painless too. I use McAfee, very satisfied.