Which free AV prog is best?

Francis Marsden - 04.06.2004 17:49 :

> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
> Thanks in advance

te same question came and comes nearly every day. Please read the
postings/threads backwards and you will get many answers/hints.

--
by(e) PS

please reply in newsgroup only
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

Francis Marsden - 04.06.2004 17:49 :

> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
> Thanks in advance

te same question came and comes nearly every day. Please read the
postings/threads backwards and you will get many answers/hints.

--
by(e) PS

please reply in newsgroup only
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

How about ClamAV/ClamWin ?
I think, This is very good as a freeware.


"Francis Marsden" <SeeMySig DeleteThis @ForMy.RealAdress> wrote in message
news:4S0wc.670220$Ig.587240@pd7tw2no...
> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
> Thanks in advance
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

All-in-all you really SHOULD pay for your antivirus software. Most
people don't pay for their operating systems, but I really think you
should be paying money for an Anti-virus program. Considering the
proection they provide they're really not that expensive.
sh4d03

Francis Marsden wrote:

> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
> Thanks in advance
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

sh4d03 wrote:


Here, I'm top-posting for you, which is out of character. Anyway, what
added protection? The two main free ones (AVG and Avast) also provide a
pro version, yet the free and pro still use the same definition files
and scanning engine. So what added protection advantage would the OP
get if getting the pro version of one of these?

> All-in-all you really SHOULD pay for your antivirus software. Most
> people don't pay for their operating systems, but I really think you
> should be paying money for an Anti-virus program. Considering the
> proection they provide they're really not that expensive.
> sh4d03
>
> Francis Marsden wrote:
>
>> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
>> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>>


--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still don't work, kick it.
If it works after that, than it doesn't matter if that helped, what's
important is it works.
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

In article <40c118a8 DeleteThis @dnews.tpgi.com.au>, sh4d03 DeleteThis @TPG.com.au says...
>
>All-in-all you really SHOULD pay for your antivirus software. Most
>people don't pay for their operating systems, but I really think you
>should be paying money for an Anti-virus program. Considering the
>proection they provide they're really not that expensive.
>sh4d03
>
>Francis Marsden wrote:
>
************** REPLY SEPARATER ***************
I disagree. The operating system and the email client should not be anywhere
near as vulnerable as they are. Anti-virus protection should be part and parcel
of the operating system and/or the email client and/or the Web Browser.

Microsoft must be given it's due credit for where the Internet is at today,
both the good and the bad. Unfortunately, one of the bad parts is the need for
outside security sofware because Microsoft's operating systems, web browsers,
and email client programs are so full of holes. And they are not full of holes
because of something that Microsoft forgot to include; they are full of holes
because of all the things they attempted to include. Every new bell and whistle
that Microsoft throws into the pot creates potential new holes. Their software
never has the opportunity to become stable and secure. And to make matters
worse, Microsoft goes to great lengths to hide some of the things that would
make it easier for people to protect themselves (ie. file extensions).

J.A. Coutts
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

Francis Marsden wrote:

> Which is the best of these free progs? (Using Windows 9 : Avast!,
> AntiVir, AVG or Bitdefender
> Thanks in advance
>
>
Avast! 4 of course;-)

BTW - Where Is Your Sig?



--
This posting is provided "As Is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

In article <2lr3c0pqmmmml8l2294e0g562hnoul9sfi DeleteThis @4ax.com>, null DeleteThis @zilch.com says...
>
>I disagree with the last sentence. There's no need for realtime
>antivirus with sane email apps. And sticking users with just one
>choice of antivirus (which is unlikely to be the best) is as bad as
>trying to stick users with a browser that's so embedded in the OS that
>it can't be removed without damaging the OS seriously for any version
>of Windows after Win 98SE. Even if the M$ supplied av can be
>uninstalled, and replaced with a good one, I think it's a bad idea
>since average users will tend to use it, just as 95% of them stick
>with IE and OE. Sorry, but I have no confidence at all in any
>"security" software they may supply. They botched that approach once
>before with MSAV and they'll probably botch it again.
>
**************** REPLY SEPARATER ****************
I guess you missed my point. If the operating system (9x,W2k,XP), web browser
(IE), and email client program (Outhouse Excuse) were not so vulnerable, there
would be far less need for any extra security software. Security is not
achieved by simply adding another layer of complexity. Security is best
achieved by stripping away the unnecessary layers. AV software gives people a
false sense of security, and causes as many problems as it solves.

J.A. Coutts
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best? 

In article <2lr3c0pqmmmml8l2294e0g562hnoul9sfi.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com says...
>
>I disagree with the last sentence. There's no need for realtime
>antivirus with sane email apps. And sticking users with just one
>choice of antivirus (which is unlikely to be the best) is as bad as
>trying to stick users with a browser that's so embedded in the OS that
>it can't be removed without damaging the OS seriously for any version
>of Windows after Win 98SE. Even if the M$ supplied av can be
>uninstalled, and replaced with a good one, I think it's a bad idea
>since average users will tend to use it, just as 95% of them stick
>with IE and OE. Sorry, but I have no confidence at all in any
>"security" software they may supply. They botched that approach once
>before with MSAV and they'll probably botch it again.
>
**************** REPLY SEPARATER ****************
I guess you missed my point. If the operating system (9x,W2k,XP), web browser
(IE), and email client program (Outhouse Excuse) were not so vulnerable, there
would be far less need for any extra security software. Security is not
achieved by simply adding another layer of complexity. Security is best
achieved by stripping away the unnecessary layers. AV software gives people a
false sense of security, and causes as many problems as it solves.

J.A. Coutts
 >> Stay informed about: Which free AV prog is best?