October 6th, 2005, 11:16 AM #1
A/V Software, redone again, and again, and again......
Ive seen a lot of these types of threads - bashing Symantec or NA and praising AVG or some other free A/V program. Personally, Ive never had an issue with Symantec or Network Associate products. Everyone is claiming its a resource hog, yet reviews still point out these 2 as the top tier A/V software. Both of these programs use a background scanner - which will increase the processor utilization. Ive tried to find, but without success, any concrete info on resources these A/V programs use in comparison.
A lot of people seem to love Grisoft's AVG Free scanner for their own PC's, but no one seems to mention they use it in an office environment. We tested AVG (6.0) a few years back for one site and that site was constantly infected. Out of the other 18 sites we had, the one running AVG had to receive 8 times the average amount of technical attention. AVG would not run an update unless logged in as an administrator. It wouldn't catch virii on the fly - only when a scan was initialized, allowing a virus or trogan or malware program to run unobstructed until a scan was initialized. And when a virus was found, it would try to clean or delete the file, not minding the potential registry entries that may have been added as well. Review after review always put AVG 6.0 at the 'dont bother' list.
Now, that was 2+ years ago, and I hear that AVG 7.0 is much better. However, reviews and labs are saying that it is still only picking up 77% of virii and trojans, compared to 97% & 99% of Symantec and Network Associates. Granted, it is free, which is probably one of its biggest pluses. Now, AVG does have a pay-per version, yet very little is said about this version. Curious - would those that tote AVG or some other free A/V software still use it if it were no longer free?
Dont get me wrong - Im not praising Symantec or NA. While I havent had one major issue for over 8 years and 1500+ servers & workstations and think they make a decent product, there have been issues - albeit minor and fixable. I realize that this is an IMO site, and that's great, but cant we do better than the widespread, lemming reasoning of "Norton's sux", or "Use some-other-product - its better"?
October 6th, 2005, 11:21 AM #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Blog Entries
Well i guess it all depends on the system. I have had machines brought to thier knees when norton was installed. So pretty much i have the complete opposite experience with Norton and AVG.
I have seen many times where norton didnt pick up infections from files. I dont run Anti virus on my main desktop since i do most of my downloading on a vmware image and have AVG running in that. Since i have installed it i havent had problems with slowness or finding problems.
Its hard to say what really is the best because different os's are out there, different system specs, different viri. When ever you are in the market for a anti virus you have to remember nothing is perfect and one program will not catch every single virus.
October 6th, 2005, 01:54 PM #3
What magazines are you reading that says that?
Most magazines I read never review anything except Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro.
The reason I always recommend free AV software is that the signature updates are FREE as well. Most non-technical people I help don't understand the messages they receive when it's time to renew the signature subscription. They say 'they've already bought the product, why do they have to pay for it again?'
It's one thing to charge for updates but to charge $25/year that's ridiculous. If the smaller companies can do it for free AND offer a free product why can't the big companies?
October 6th, 2005, 05:31 PM #4
ZDNet did a review of 6.0 a few years ago. I havent seen any reviews in any mags that I get today - but I do search out reviews online when Im interested in a 3rd party, not-so-biased opinion on items.
Just like most software, yes it is overpriced. Same things goes for a lot of other software though - web filters are a big one - paying a monthly charge for the same software/hardware. But how many of these people are also the ones who pay for a MMORPG game, then pay to play it online month after month?
I agree - I have had some of those same customers that dont understand it. To most, software is just that - a piece of code that you purchase and you're done with it. A/V software though is very different - a piece of code that constantly requires updating inorder to make it effective.
As to why the big companies cant make it free - that's probably why you will see those programs are more effective in their job and in corporate environments. I know I wouldn't trust our network to something that only statistically caught 3/4 of potential virii, trojans, etc. Features are another item - there's so much more that a pay-for product will do over a free version. But again, like GZ3 said, nothing is perfect.
Still doesn't answer the question though - would people still tote these freeware A/V programs if they weren't free? On top of that - is free worth a potential inferior product to what is available?
I guess my point is that when people state "Norton's sux" or "Use something else" with nothing to back it up with, it sounds like the earlier "Windows sux - use Linux" arguments that were around a few years back, just because there was some alternative that was free.
I appreciate yalls responses!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By jberkes in forum Security and Privacy IssuesReplies: 3Last Post: January 25th, 2005, 03:29 AM
By gicio in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 0Last Post: March 17th, 2004, 01:46 PM
By bdj in forum General Tech DiscussionReplies: 3Last Post: June 14th, 2003, 06:43 PM
By ZENYO in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 19Last Post: January 25th, 2003, 06:17 AM
By RedFury in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 9Last Post: July 13th, 2002, 05:13 PM