Top 5 AV software, ranked by preformance.

[rhcp]

I don't need this to be Stickied, but I feel it would be helpful.

It's the top 5 Preforming anti-virus programs according to preformance standards. (detection+extra features+effectiveness-bulkiness-scan speed)

I'll make it top 10 soon, when I stop being lazy (likely tomorrow).

1. BitDefender Total Security 2009/2010
Great scan speed, file shredder, firewall, active monitoring (what good AV doesn't?), free online backup, computer tune-up, secure file vault, relatively slow Scan times, Relatively easy-to-use interface. One downside is that windows doesn't see it as an Anti-Virus, therefore you must turn off that monitor in the settings (if you don't want an error message coming up every 5 seconds), free online support

2. McAfee
Superior, Extremely easy-to-use interface, Very Good, Many Features, good scan speed, expensive phone support ($3/minute), good detection.

3. Kaspersky Lab Anti-Virus
Superior, OK interface (not great), fastest detection of malware outbreaks, fast scan speeds, many people who have installed this complain of an error, not being able to boot their PC completely. Detects Trojans, Malware, and backdoors better than 99% of the time.

4. F-Secure Anti-Virus
Good virus outbreak response time, extremely easy-to-use interface, many great features, superior. Seems to have less detection when it comes to older viruses.


5. Symantec Norton AntiVirus
highest ranking ease-of-use, some good features (not many), good outbreak detection time, has quite a few false-positives, database of almost all viruses (huge), expensive support ($30/incident)

 

[carnageX]

http://www.techist.com/forums/f51/tech-forums-top-rated-antivirus-167005/

The ones you listed are generally frowned upon; especially McAfee and Norton..

 

[hikaricloud]

Yeah, there's already a stickied list, like Carnage said.

And there's no way McAfee or Norton should touch that list, as bulky as they are and as crappy as they work.

 

[rhcp]

I know, they do suck, blame PCworld for that >_>, but that's rated by the people that have had those AVs forever, they wouldn't change their vote.

 

[carnageX]

Well its stickied right at the top...kinda hard to miss...

And I don't trust PCWorld all that much. They get paid by those companies to make them look good.

 

[rhcp]

Well its stickied right at the top...kinda hard to miss...

And I don't trust PCWorld all that much. They get paid by those companies to make them look good.

I know, I read it b4 I posted. should take into account that the people at PCworld don't get paid to express their opinion, but rather show the facts.

 

[KSoD]

Sorry but PCWorld is paid. And greatly by Norton and McAfee. They always rate Norton very high and McAfee always get good ratings.

Not to mention that they are mainly based in the USA where these products are also highly used.

If you check world wide you would see that McAfee and Norton are very rarely used outside of the US at all.

To show the facts they would have to do a comparison of all anti-virus solutions out there. Yet NOD32, Avast, AVG and many more are always left off their list or not highly rated cause they get a lot of money from Norton and McAfee for advertising.

You need to check out unbiased sites that dont get any money from the developers of the software and do their comparisons on all products not just a select few.

I have read PCMag before. I had a subscription for a couple of years. I even had a very lengthy email conversation going with the Editor in Chief about this. But the truth is that Norton and McAfee pay them a lot of money for advertising (formerly in their publication) and they get benefits from it. Like being highly rated in topics like this.

Just for fun take a look at their site.

Antivirus - Archive

Look at the related Ads on the lower right corner. What are the top ads?

Norton

Same thing on this page.

Antivirus - Archive

Norton again. Not only as the top Ad but listed twice for 2 different solutions.

Antivirus - Reviews and Price Comparisons from PC Magazine

The main AV Page. The Related Ads are of course, Norton followed by Spyware since Antivirus 2008 is spyware and we all know that here, followed by more spyware. Antivirus for XP is spyware again.

Even this list of Editors Choice and Editors Ratings are all Norton or McAfee. Norton pays them well. So they get rewarded with high marks.

 

[rhcp]

I had norton AV for 5 years, It's perfectly capable.

 

[carnageX]

You should switch then...

I ran Norton forever too..before I learned there were others out there. Used ZoneAlarm for a short while...didn't really like it. Been using Nod32 ever since...love it. Small, not intrusive, and powerful. Best paid AV out there IMO. Free ones, can't go wrong with AVG or Avast.

 

[KSoD]

I had it for many years myself. But i was duped. After uninstalling Norton and installing Avast which is free, it had found over 50 infections that Norton said were fine. Including keyloggers.

Aside from that Norton is known to eat up resources as well.

I am not trying to say your opinion is wrong or that you are wrong for what you have stated. I am jsut trying to show how PCMag is in fact very much for Norton and how if checked you will see that Norton isnt all that it is claimed to be.

For some real information check out a site called Virus Bulletin. They are totally independent and registration is free to see the test results.