Indeed... Why pay when you can use Avast! for nothing. It's updated regularly, and unlike Norton or McAffee doesn't hog your resources anywhere near so much.
Plus getting Brent Spiner to tell one when it's finished updating is awesome. "Virus database has been updated." I only wish I knew when it was going to happen as I'd say summat like "Update the virus checker Mr Data".
Fodda wrote:Indeed... Why pay when you can use Avast! for nothing.
For better protection?
For instance, Avast professional detects 55% of Windows viruses against Kaspersky's 92% and 33% of Trojans against Kaspersky's 58%. It's unlikely that the freeware Avast outperforms the payware version. Obviously it's your choice about how much of a chance you want to take, but don't expect a free AV to protect you as well as a high-end security suite. I've got cyberbrat's surfing habits to consider so I'm prepared to pay for stronger security. Just because your AV doesn't detect anything doesn't mean there's nothing there :o
Without trying to get into an argument, those stats were for pro-active scanning of new unknown threats.
The August On Demand stats showed 100% or viruses and 97% of trojans compared to Kaperskys 99%/94%
The home version has the same scanner functions as the pro version.
At work we use Nortons - complete rubbish and resource hog.
Well documented that Avast and AVG are about as good as painting walls white with milk. At £18 for 3 machines... thats £6 per machine for a year, I would suggest that represents exceptional value.
Anyone who wants to really find out about AV performance, ignore the PC magazines, they are full of biased crap from the various manufacturers, do some proper reasearch and make sure your compairing apples with apples. No point in compairing a security suite with an AV scanner as one will use more reasources than the other as its doing more. ;-)