honestly, how good is AVG free antivirus?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your source is not exactly top notch, nor is the analysis, have a look at a Comparison Table from PC World Magazine

Note particularly the entry for AVG. This product is, quite simply, CRAP. Also see this article from PC World:

[ QUOTE ]
But some fared less well with the zoo collection of 14,288 Trojan horses, malware that can't spread on its own but can be carried by worms or viruses or be hidden within infected downloads. Despite accounting for a significant proportion of all malware, Trojan horses are not included on the WildList. And the antivirus scanners varied considerably more in their handling of these pests: AVG detected just 23.5 percent of the Trojan horses, while the McAfee and Norton scanners nabbed 99 percent and 97.5 percent, respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying buy Norton. Buy whatever you want. But when it comes to antivirus (as opposed to firewall or spyware), because of the sheer range and complexity of threats out there, the large professional companies have a huge edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with the test or the analysis?

I was not the one that claimed that Norton had the most extensive database or the fastest response (which it is obvious they don't, quite the opposite).

That Norton catches 5 year old viruses doesn't satisfy me. If it can't detect new ones or get out virus definitions asap it is pretty useless. I used to use Norton and abandoned it the second time I got a virus that Norton failed to detect for a long enough time to wreck my computer.

My post isn't about Norton, it's about AVG being total and utter crap. Have a look at the table, it's not just old worms they're missing. AVG doesn't come close to any paid virus software on the market. Period.

As for Norton, they have Deepsight software installed on various PCs and internet hubs which reports on new threats very quickly, and they are fixed within hours. I've read they are the fastest at updates for any serious/semi serious (category 2+) threat, I can't find the article though.

On the downside the software is slow on old computers, and the firewall isn't as good as zonealarm nor particularly intuitive. But I dont' care about that stuff.

And the article you quoted is a poorly done analysis from a site that's not respected. PC World is considered the authority on software reviews. Read each and you'll see the difference in the kinds of things they tested. Testing such things as "Number of new virus updates added to the database during the test week" is a joke, for (I hope) obvious reasons. In addition, they only tested against a few viruses, nowhere near the number of active or old ones.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
My post isn't about Norton, it's about AVG being total and utter crap. Have a look at the table, it's not just old worms they're missing. AVG doesn't come close to any paid virus software on the market. Period.

As for Norton, they have Deepsight software installed on various PCs and internet hubs which reports on new threats very quickly, and they are fixed within hours. I've read they are the fastest at updates for any serious/semi serious (category 2+) threat, I can't find the article though.

On the downside the software is slow on old computers, and the firewall isn't as good as zonealarm nor particularly intuitive. But I dont' care about that stuff.

And the article you quoted is a poorly done analysis from a site that's not respected. PC World is considered the authority on software reviews. Read each and you'll see the difference in the kinds of things they tested. Testing such things as "Number of new virus updates added to the database during the test week" is a joke, for (I hope) obvious reasons. In addition, they only tested against a few viruses, nowhere near the number of active or old ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way are they not respected? Point me to some outside sources that claim this. Otherwise it looks like it is something you just claim because Norton didn't do that well in the test.

As for the test. They test new viruses. They submitted new viruses to each vendor. Norton had a week to get a detection list out to it's users to protect against these current viruses. In that week Norton managed to get their program to catch 3 out of those 10. Ie, it was a test of both the ability to detect new viruses and the ability to get fixes out to their customers in a week. Seemed like an excellent test of the demands I have of my anti-virus software. You see, I don't get all that impressed with size of the company, brand and all that crap. I care about what the product actually does for me.

If you are really interested in what software is best against the viruses that currently are in the wild, check out Virus Bullentin.

[RevAgain]

Wow. I mean. Wow.

AVG is excellent (although the Interface is worse since the new version came out) and is so much better than Norton or McAfee it's untrue. Norton in particular is a pile of shít.

I used to fix PCs for a living and recall going to one office where they had Norton installed and had managed to get their PCs virus ridden, probably because they hadn't being doing the updates but nonetheless, I tried to fix one PC using Norton, it just deleted a load of vital system files which were infected and meant I had to do a reformat. The next PC I installed AVG, fixed the lot in one scan, no reinstall required, cleaned the files didn't delete them.

Norton is absolute bollocks, AVG is all you need, I've used it for years and never got a virus.



[ QUOTE ]
My post isn't about Norton, it's about AVG being total and utter crap. Have a look at the table, it's not just old worms they're missing. AVG doesn't come close to any paid virus software on the market. Period.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even look at this table?

[ QUOTE ]
In what way are they not respected?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's like the New York Times vs The Jonesville Independent, Nature vs The Scientist Journal. Your sources say a lot about the quality of the information. I don't give a crap that Norton didn't do well, in the link to the table that I provided Norton isn't recommended. I don't give a crap about Norton except that OP asked about AVG vs Norton. OK???!?!???

As for the test, whatever. If a good source does it, I'll believe them. The tests sound odd, as do the results, and the article is poorly written and formatted.

[ QUOTE ]
You see, I don't get all that impressed with size of the company, brand and all that crap. I care about what the product actually does for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't either. I use OpenOffice.org. I use zonealarm because their firewall is superior to Norton's. The table that I linked totells you everything you need to know about what AVG actually does for you. Granted it may be outdated, I don't know. It doesn't look good regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I mean. Wow.

AVG is excellent (although the Interface is worse since the new version came out) and is so much better than Norton or McAfee it's untrue. Norton in particular is a pile of shít.

I used to fix PCs for a living and recall going to one office where they had Norton installed and had managed to get their PCs virus ridden, probably because they hadn't being doing the updates but nonetheless, I tried to fix one PC using Norton, it just deleted a load of vital system files which were infected and meant I had to do a reformat. The next PC I installed AVG, fixed the lot in one scan, no reinstall required, cleaned the files didn't delete them.

Norton is absolute bollocks, AVG is all you need, I've used it for years and never got a virus.

[/ QUOTE ]
Forgive me for not taking your word. I'm using Norton because a friend who's a computer technician (and spends most of his time fixing business and home PCs with virus/malware problems) told me it's worth paying for. Though he said any of the big three are pretty much equally good. There is another computer technician who claims Norton is better, in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
From a professional computer technician who is out in the field every day, been doing this work for 17 years catering to home computer users and small business, there is nothing better than Norton for Anti-virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

So forgive me for not taking your claim seriously, especially the anecdote about two computers you tried each on. Two computers?!?

And not getting a virus says nothing. I surfed up until January this year on my old computer with absolutely no virus protection, and never got a virus.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like the New York Times vs The Jonesville Independent, Nature vs The Scientist Journal. Your sources say a lot about the quality of the information. I don't give a crap that Norton didn't do well, in the link to the table that I provided Norton isn't recommended. I don't give a crap about Norton except that OP asked about AVG vs Norton. OK???!?!???

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, any sources beyond your imagination? You claim they aren't trusted. So once again, who doesn't trust them beyond you? It is starting to look like you just make up things here you know.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the test, whatever. If a good source does it, I'll believe them. The tests sound odd, as do the results, and the article is poorly written and formatted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe they didn't do what they claimed they did? Do you believe they fabricated the results? Your objections seem entirely emotional because they don't fit into what you have belived in.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, any sources beyond your imagination? You claim they aren't trusted. So once again, who doesn't trust them beyond you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is getting hilarious. I'm not saying they're making things up. And unless someone specifically says bad things about them and publishes them on the web, there won't be any sources saying they're not trustworthy. It's about how authoritative their work is, and how good the editorial process is. Do you understand this idea?

PC World is one the leading PC magazines among home users AND PC professionals. In contrast, this what T.H.E. journal say about themselves:
[ QUOTE ]
T.H.E. Journal is the solid foundation of a rapidly expanding suite of information-based products and services offered by T.H.E. To be sure, it is the longest running, most widely read education technology publication, serving the educators for over 30 years! It is FREE to educators in the United States. Come take a look!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you didn't find that amusing, end of discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe they didn't do what they claimed they did? Do you believe they fabricated the results? Your objections seem entirely emotional because they don't fit into what you have belived in.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, first of all, his tests consisted of 10 (count em) supposed viruses that were specifically not self propagating (which is the definition of a virus). He ran them through the virus scanners and looked at the results. Then, he emailed them to the various companies, updated his virus definitions one week later, and ran it again. This was entirity of his test. The 10 programs he emailed the companies aren't even considered viruses by most, based on how they work and the fact that they do no propagate except through downloaded programs, WHICH YOU GIVE COMPLETE PERMISSION TO RUN ANYTHING ON YOUR SYSTEM ANYWAY! Because they're not self propagating they don't attach themself to files and infect legitimate downloads, they have to be deliberately put there by a malicious user who could alter the program code anyway to do the same thing! God damn, this stuff ain't that hard.

If you can't see why this isn't an adequate test compared to professional testers for a major magazine checking each product against tens of thousands of viruses, and many different virus types and propagation methods, you are a fool.


Finally:

[ QUOTE ]
Scott Brown has been an information security analyst with Colby-Sawyer College, an independent and comprehensive liberal arts college located in central New Hampshire, since 2004. Prior to joining the school, Brown ran his own computer consulting business for nearly 20 years, specializing in building and repairing hardware and troubleshooting operating systems for small businesses. By the late 1990s, he found himself doing more and more operating system and network troubleshooting. Brown has been working with malware since the beginning, so he clearly understands viruses and other forms of malware.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. End of discussion.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

This is getting hilarious. I'm not saying they're making things up. And unless someone specifically says bad things about them and publishes them on the web, there won't be any sources saying they're not trustworthy. It's about how authoritative their work is, and how good the editorial process is. Do you understand this idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Which is why I have now three times asked you to substantiate your claims that they are not trustworthy. You haven't been able to and clearly you can't. Or is any magazine that isn't PC World by default not trustworthy in your world? All I am doing is asking you to back up your claims here and you fail over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]

OK, first of all, his tests consisted of 10 (count em) supposed viruses that were specifically not self propagating (which is the definition of a virus). He ran them through the virus scanners and looked at the results. Then, he emailed them to the various companies, updated his virus definitions one week later, and ran it again. This was entirity of his test. The 10 programs he emailed the companies aren't even considered viruses by most, based on how they work and the fact that they do no propagate except through downloaded programs, WHICH YOU GIVE COMPLETE PERMISSION TO RUN ANYTHING ON YOUR SYSTEM ANYWAY! Because they're not self propagating they don't attach themself to files and infect legitimate downloads, they have to be deliberately put there by a malicious user who could alter the program code anyway to do the same thing! God damn, this stuff ain't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he tested the detection ability and the ability of the companies to update their database. You seem to think this is an oddball test but in fact that is exactly what you want to test your anti-virus software to do. Furthermore it is an excellent way to test your hyperbole claim about Norton ("nothing can beat their response time or information base"). Perhaps you should retract that statement.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see why this isn't an adequate test compared to professional testers for a major magazine checking each product against tens of thousands of viruses, and many different virus types and propagation methods, you are a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't test the response time of the virus companies at all. Remember your claim?

Norton isn't crap. It is decent. It is poor at detecting new viruses. They are slow at updating. Hardly the worst antivirus program you can use, but certainly not the best.

[obsidian]

[ QUOTE ]
Norton isn't crap. It is decent. It is poor at detecting new viruses. They are slow at updating. Hardly the worst antivirus program you can use, but certainly not the best.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement. Norton isn't bad. It is just not that quick with updates and is extremely bloated. Go look at some of the other reviews out there. There are solutions that are just as or more accurate and are much less invasive.

http://www.software-antivirus.com/
http://www.wilders.org/anti_viruses.htm
http://www.transceiver.co.uk/txt/av05.html

[garyg1]

Have to totally disagree with you here!!!!!!!!! Nod32, avast, AVG are losers compared to Norton in my 17 years full time computer technician experience. Have fixed many viruses in computers using Norton that the free programs not only couldn't fix, they didn't even recognize. I have tested all of those free one's on computers, hoping to find a free solution to advise my clients to use, but all came up short. For a while there last year when virus and spyware problems were running rampant, 70% of my work week was spent on those type service calls alone, so I have had a great opportunity and got great experience in the field testing them all possible solutions.