Need suggestion for Antivirus on Vista

Nox

I just upgraded myself to Windows Vista, want to ask for some opinions, which is the best antivirus to use for Vista environment?

I used AVG and Avast before (since it's free) and had been staying away from MacAfee and Norton (slow, RAM eating, expensive). I suppose free antivirus is still better than using hacked version as you can get least get updates from AVG or Avast where the hacked version usually get detected by the software company if not immediately then in short future.

Which antivirus do you recommend? (Basing on level of security, capability of detecting and cleaning virus, paid vs free, and RAM eating and slowing of computer)

[ 本帖最後由 Nox 於 2007-12-3 19:00 編輯 ]

yoursecret

This is a standalone program you can run manually in addition to your regular antivirus program since no program is perfect in catching the baddies, it's extra security at no cost, yes free.

http://www.threatfire.com/

pkphilip

wow... old thread.

Malwarebyte is spyware/malware only. I suggest Avira for AV scan and use Malwarebyte once a while is all you need.

Philip

maldini

Malwarebytes, Spybot search or Avira is good?
So confused now, AVG keeps on scanning the drive for no reason.

pkphilip

Just installed Norton 2009 and Kaspersky 2009, both work equally, just still spyware/malware detection is still no good compare to dedicated software like Malwarebyte.

Both Norton and Kaspersky uses a lot less resources than before and they run amazingly fast on Vista.

Also, you can use your existing license to upgrade to 2009 for free. For Norton, just download the trial version, then it will automatically use your existing license. Kaspersky need to click onto "Free Upgrade" on the site to do so.

Philip

[ 本帖最後由 pkphilip 於 2008-9-9 22:32 編輯 ]

chunsh

use norton la, its not that expensive

cha_wan_mushi

oo?
just bought a Kasperky internet security pack.
am i expected to pay them every year to update the virus definition?
i dun need a newer version of their product..

ACC-HE

Sophos. Free if you are/were from UBC.

http://www.it.ubc.ca/security/antivirus.html

[ 本帖最後由 ACC-HE 於 2007-12-10 17:58 編輯 ]

asmok

UAC is design to prevent anything to install into the system folders including printers, new hardware, active x, etc.....

It's annoying to click continue when you want to go the the place you want to. It's like a system admin trying to go into the computer room, you'll need to scan your access card before you can go in.  The same applies to UAC. It prompts you for access before it let you in.  When you deploy hundreds of Vista PC, you'll want to have UAC turn on so dumb people won't have access to load crap on their machine so we don't have to fix it.  When you are servicing a machine, it's annoying during the time you need to service it, but you won't be the prime user.  The run as administrator is to prevent admin from making mistakes on the system.  If you don't want to run as administrator, then just login as the default administrator account. After all UAC is a tool that MS put in so they don't get blame if your machine get infected. As with all new tools from MS, nobody likes it to start with but we'll use it sooner or later when we move forward.

I prefer people clicking on cancel rather then continue if they don't know what they are doing. If they only click continues when it comes up, that means I'll need to fix their machine pretty soon cause those people tend to not read warnings.

Symantec suites cost $$ for those of us that don't make the big bucks and symantec slows the machine down.

Most home user won't have a choice when getting a new a new machine as all new machine is Vista, but business users can downgrade to XP for free.

pkphilip

I remember Symantec used to have UAC like features in a few of their older security suites. I guess MS figured it would be better to have UAC on Vista.

As a power user, I need to go to Control Panels and access system level applications like Group Policy, Console Management etc on a regular basis daily. UAC warning happens in pretty much in every System Property pages. Many of them I feel is un-needed at all: Why need UAC access for re-checking Windows Experience Index or even Device Manager? Why need UAC for copying files to the guest shared folders? Wouldn't it be better to request permissions only when settings were changed? The most annoying part with Vista is the "administrator" option, why do I have specifically choose to "Run as Administrator" when I am already logged in as administrator?

I understand it's nice to have some more control, but to me it's more of an annoyance and counter-productive when I am servicing machines that run on Vista. Also, based on customer feedbacks, they get confused so much with UAC warning even they are doing legit things like installing Printer drivers. Installs tends to screw up because people click "cancel" as they are afraid of clicking "continue".

Mac does the UAC function better by only prompting when settings are made to the system. With Leopard, you can lock down the settings in Administration mode, until you want to unlock them to make changes.

With a comprehensive suites from Symantec, UAC seems to become unneccessary as the security program will prompt you for awkward changes in the system.

People these days seem to beg manufacturers to downgrade their systems to XP. Where in my case, I am running dual boot because Vista is faster than XP in my desktop. It is however restricted to DX10 gaming only.

Philip