Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Recommend anti-spyware, please?

<< < (4/7) > >>

Daleus:
My university has a license for MBAM.

We tested the free version independantly, along side a few others, only one of which was competitive - SuperAntiSpyware.

I prefer MBAM, due to the simple interface and the fact that it finds everything the others do, and a few more. YMMV

In fact, because we use the near useless Trend Micro product, MBAM is invaluable - when you do a scan, as MBAM touches files, Trend finds virii.  Unfortunately, it's too stupid a product to find virii on it's own. Pathetic and embarrassing for the company and it's coders no doubt - what a piece of trash.

If it wasn't for MBAM, we'd be in big trouble.

cmpm:
when you do a scan, as MBAM touches files, Trend finds virii
--- End quote ---

The same is true with Avira.
Mbam will stir the pot, so to speak.

I used Avira for a long time with no problems,
except for a few false positives.
I've now switched to Nod32 and very pleased with it.

If you hide a dormant virus, sure most will miss it until it tries to act.
Detection reliability would be the scores I'm interested in.

For me Nod is lighter then Avira, uses less resources for scans as well.
I don't know what numbers are being looked at.....with everyday use.
I look at, can I use my computer while a scan is running as if it's not.
Nod has that ability, dropping it's load down if the computer is being used.

tomos:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2010/02/03/best-performing-speed-and-memory-usage-antivirus-and-internet-security-for-2010/  IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED AND I'M ALLOWED TO SHARE THIS....
-the_GASS (March 08, 2010, 09:50 PM)
--- End quote ---

that's: Best Performing (Speed and Memory Usage) Antivirus and Internet Security for 2010
thanks GASS :)
-tomos (March 09, 2010, 02:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

well speed & memory can be important - e.g. if the scan takes all week you dont want the product ;)
I have Avira AntiVir Premium - seems okay all round with good results in tests in general, but seems to not interact so well with Filebox Extender (stalls a while - XP) but I have it for another 11 months so will stick that out I guess. It has anti-spyware included but I have no idea how good that aspect of it is - either I'm lucky or I surf carefully... or something :-\

Bamse:
If a scan does not or only poorly detect infections in packed files you also don't want the product ;)

You can do real performance testing of security stuff and still come up with lists but will take much time and effort. So since Raymond has a blog and commentators to feed he use a naked XP image and redo and redo and redo. And he includes what is considered rogue products! = he have no clue. Skips over impact and functionality of settings, like for example the fact some products use advanced cache which needs to work a while to kick in. As a minimum a full scan is required. No list is better than none in this case, is wrong in every way possible. If he instead of wasting time focused on fewer products on real setups he could make a more valuable post about how they "feel" for real, over a period of time and during different tasks. That is what matters. Throw in some numbers and stats too to make it readable/popular of course ;)

cmpm:
As a minimum a full scan is required.
--- End quote ---

Yes, I agree, while Nod will do a quick scan after update or on startup. A true test would be to do a full scan. And watching activity as well.

In other words with the program just setting there doing it's normal monitoring is not a true test if the virus is already there before adding the antivirus program.  To install an antivirus without a doing a full scan is not good practice.

Nod can kill the net connections while downloading when a virus is caught.
But i don't know that much about it. I do watch the behavior of my computer for changes after any activity. Launch speeds and resources.....or whatever....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page