# Free anti-virus, why?



## Quickpaw

Obviously everyone uses something different to protect and maintain their pc's, and this forum is no exception. I've seen many different suggestions here for what to use to keep a machine infection-free.

I work as a repair tech in a big box store and have computers come in with viruses all the time, so I'm no stranger to viruses, AV programs, etc. And actually in my time working there I've found that most of the customers I deal with suffering from virus issues are running free antivirus software.

I can't be the only person seeing this trend. Programs like AVG, Avast, Avira, ISP security suites such as Bell Internet Security, are what I find on infected machines 95% of the time. Occasionally I do see BitDefender, Kaspersky, McAfee and other paid antivirus programs as well, but what I've found interesting is that in almost 3 years at my job, I have *never* seen a computer with an *active, updated *Norton program come in with virus issues. Also, aside from Malwarebytes, I have never found a free program that is able to do much more than give you a heads up about a present infection, if that.

Of course this may just be the luck of my area but the numbers do make me wonder why a tech would recommend anything other than the current Norton utility. *I do understand that price is a factor, but sometimes these victims are the ones who get a virus, and a "microsoft rep" calls them and they end up paying $150 to scam artists.*

*TLDR;* Why do you guys choose to use/recommend antivirus programs other than Malwarebytes/Norton when in 3 years I have never had any success with anything else? Stories/examples of situations you have encountered are encouraged.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I've worked on plenty of machines where Norton has an up to date subscription but it still gets infected. Hell, we even sell ESET NOD32 where I work and people still get virus'. It's all in how gullible you are and where you surf, etc. If you don't know what something is, or what you're doing, chances are 99% of the time you'll get infected.


----------



## Quickpaw

In your experience what is the best/worst? What do people usually have? What do you generally recommend?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that the goal of this post is not to promote a certain brand or to hate on what other people do. Im genuinely curious as to how virus situations are handled by other techs and what success other people have had. Obviously no antivirus program is perfect but some definitely perform better than others.


----------



## voyagerfan99

IMO McAfee and Norton are the two worst. Even on new systems they slow the machine down and do too much extra "system optimization" that should be left to other programs.

We recommend NOD32 because it doesn't slow the machine down. In all honesty, I don't care for it. Even with an AV the general user will get infected in some way. I did a test a while ago trying to get a virtual machine infected with one of those generic ScreWare virus'. In order to install it, I had to do a lot of clicking and confirming. It didn't just install itself automatically. So if people are stupid enough to believe that any banner ad that says "You're Infected" then there is no hope for them.

However, in my experience I have used Emsisoft Anti-Malware. I must say if you want tight security that is the one to go with. It blocks EVERYTHING! If you want a program or script allowed, you have to authorize it. Granted a general user would find it confusing and hard to use and configure. That's why they have the more simple stuff like Norton and McAfee.



Quickpaw said:


> Of course this may just be the luck of my area but the numbers do make me wonder why a tech would recommend anything other than the current Norton utility. *I do understand that price is a factor, but sometimes these victims are the ones who get a virus, and a "Microsoft rep" calls them and they end up paying $150 to scam artists.*



Because Norton has been in the game forever and they still suck. It's still a bloaty, resource hogging program. And again, people are stupid. If they are dumb enough to believe Microsoft knows their computer has a virus, then they deserve to get scammed.


----------



## jamesd1981

anti-virus, malware programs help to protect your pc, but as voyager pointed out above alot of infections are due to users themselves, no virus program, paid or free, is going to stop infection caused by total thoughtlessness or criminal use.

most computers end up rife with infections because people click on everything from unknown emails to random links without so much as a thought, then their are constant torrenters looking for free everything, movies, music, software

Torrent sites must be one of the most common places to get infections, i have noticed not so much a trend of infections through particular av programs, but i have noticed that all of the very worst infected machines i have dealt with have had either torrent software installed or files from torrent sites.

i have run most anti-virus programs on my own computers and as far as i know i have never had a virus and i would almost bet i could run my pc for a month without any virus software and still wouldn`t get infected, because i dont even acknowledge emails from anyone i don`t know they are deleted straight off, i never click any strange links that appear on a webpage, and i don`t use any suspicious/ illegal sites.

conclusion most people get a virus through their own fault


----------



## Shane

voyagerfan99 said:


> It's all in how gullible you are and where you surf, etc. If you don't know what something is, or what you're doing, chances are 99% of the time you'll get infected.



This. :good:

I've been running Kaspersky Internet security for about 2 years now, Because I get a free year subscription for it every year from my Bank and I have to admit its been really good,Ive not had any nasty viruses or spware since so i just stick with Kaspersky.


I'm not sure what Norton is like these days, But I remember the older version were such a resource hog like mentioned and its detection was not very good at all....maybe Norton has improved?

If i did not have Kaspersky i would most likely gone for paid for Eset Smart security instead.

Thread moved to appropriate forum section.


----------



## tremmor

I agree Nevakonaza. Thats what i use and have for about 4 yrs. I tried them all.
Its been good but does not get everything. Been the best though for me. 
Going to someplace like Google can get you into a heap of trouble pronto. 
I post occasionally in the security section just to double check. Run Malaware Byte but not nothing serious. Im happy with it. You have to be careful in your travels.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I've read reviews and seen Norton has come out on top in reviews and tests done by magazines like PC World, but I personally think it's junk and Norton just paid off PC World to say that.

And going back to what OP said about the torrents, I have seen and backed up a lot of customer data. A lot of the programs and music torrents they have downloaded are the actual programs and songs themselves, but they have an embedded section of malicious code in the file.


----------



## PohTayToez

I've definitely seen computers with Norton that are infected, but I do have to say that it seems less than average.  My main issue with Norton is how bulky it is, it can make an older computer grind to a halt.

I would say the worst is McAfee.  I've seen lots of infected computers with a current McAfee subscription.  I used to get viruses occasionally on my own computer with AVG, but I haven't had a single one since I switched to the paid version of Malwarebytes over a year ago.


----------



## voyagerfan99

PohTayToez said:


> I've definitely seen computers with Norton that are infected, but I do have to say that it seems less than average.  My main issue with Norton is how bulky it is, it can make an older computer grind to a halt.
> 
> I would say the worst is McAfee.  I've seen lots of infected computers with a current McAfee subscription.  I used to get viruses occasionally on my own computer with AVG, but I haven't had a single one since I switched to the paid version of Malwarebytes over a year ago.



+1 on McAfee being terrible. Those do get infected a lot - even machines I've seen with the corporate copy. AVG is pretty bad because once you do become infected, AVG goes to hell and even after uninstalling AVG, removing the virus, and reinstalling AVG, it just doesn't work right.


----------



## Geoff

Quickpaw said:


> I have *never* seen a computer with an *active, updated *Norton program come in with virus issues.


No one runs Norton anymore!


----------



## voyagerfan99

[-0MEGA-];1699156 said:
			
		

> No one runs Norton anymore!



You'd be surprised. I see plenty of computers at the Kennex that come in with either Symantic Corporate or Norton 360.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> TLDR; Why do you guys choose to use/recommend antivirus programs other than Malwarebytes/Norton when in 3 years I have never had any success with anything else?


Because you're not the world.

Personal good experience/success is not necessarily a very good indication of how something performs at large. Looking at my past experiences and comparing to my experiences with Windows, I can say that personally Linux has never given me any trouble, unlike Windows, and Linux and always been faster and more stable for me. Why doesn't everyone use Linux, then? Because this doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else. I've had numerous people tell me that they've had nothing but problems with AMD/Intel/nvidia, while I've never had any and I've had personal experience with all. I've never personally had any issues with Seagate hard drives nor has anyone who's had their computers fixed/looked at by me, yet some people swear they're the devil. All WD desktop drives I've had (not many), on the other hand, have miserably failed. But in general enthusiast seem to favour WD over Seagate. My experiences just don't apply to everyone else.

I've personally had experience with two computers running Norton (neither were mine) and both were dog slow. On one of them I was able to make faster by simply replacing it with Avira. The general consensus is that Norton is slow, bloated and ineffective. Your personal experience just happens to be very special.


----------



## jevery

I've run Norton for many years now - Never been infected.  I follow links with impunity and spend a good amount of time in areas of the web known to be rife with viruses.  Norton typically blocks 5-10 attacks per month though I don't worry about it anymore, but I do glance at the monthly report to see how many times I've been hit that month.

Those that claim Norton is bloated, ineffective, not used by many, please feel free to post up links to objective measures.  I don't know of any source more unbiased or trusted than AV Comparatives.  Symantec also continues to  maintain a large share of the N. American market, Security Industry Market Share Analysis


----------



## johnb35

It doesn't matter if you have a paid version or a free version, if someone doesn't care where they visit or what they do then they WILL get infected.  No program is full proof, however, some are more fullproof then others.  Nortons and Mcafee are too bloated and very intrusive, not very user friendly in my opinion.  If you ran the paid version of malwarebytes you should be fine.


----------



## voyagerfan99

jevery said:


> Those that claim Norton is bloated, ineffective, not used by many, please feel free to post up links to objective measures.  I don't know of any source more unbiased or trusted than AV Comparatives.  Symantec also continues to  maintain a large share of the N. American market, Security Industry Market Share Analysis



My objective measure is from personal experience working in a computer repair shop. Next time I'm in there for a stretch I'll keep track of how many virus infections come in, and what AV they're running.


----------



## jevery

johnb35 said:


> It doesn't matter if you have a paid version or a free version, if someone doesn't care where they visit or what they do then they WILL get infected.  No program is full proof, however, some are more fullproof then others.  Nortons and Mcafee are too bloated and very intrusive, not very user friendly in my opinion.  If you ran the paid version of malwarebytes you should be fine.



I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's been something like eight or nine years now and hasn't happened yet.  Maybe I'm just lucky.


----------



## johnb35

jevery said:


> I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's been something like eight or nine years now and hasn't happened yet.  Maybe I'm just lucky.



I, myself probably could go without running anything and not get infected since I only visit a few sites.  I do have avast installed though.  It has blocked me from visiting a couple bad sites from links I clicked on at a different forum I go to.  The last time I was infected, it was self inflicted on purpose.


----------



## voyagerfan99

johnb35 said:


> I, myself probably could go without running anything and not get infected since I only visit a few sites.  I do have avast installed though.  It has blocked me from visiting a couple bad sites from links I clicked on at a different forum I go to.  The last time I was infected, it was self inflicted on purpose.



I'd also go without an AV normally, but I do see the benefits. First off, CCSU requires us to use the Cisco NAC Agent to log into the network and in order to log in you need an up to date AV installed. I went to Grooveshark the other day to play a song by Coldplay and MSE stopped some malicious code from running.


----------



## Quickpaw

*To reply to the posts of 'Your experience is not the world' and explanations of how infections get on machine etc:*

I* never *said my experiences were the only ones that mattered, I'm not sure where it was decided that this would become an argument. Perhaps if you'd taken the time to read it all you'd see I was trying to initiate some discussion on people's success/issues with current AV programs on the market to provide contrast with what I see on a day to day basis.
If you want to start something you can do it elsewhere, I'm not interested.

Also, I'm aware of how people get infected, all one trillion billion lovely ways, and working in customer service trust me I have dealt with the computer illiterate. However, how the infection gets on the machine is not what I'm trying to discuss here, I'm looking at solutions. I know what has worked for me and my friends/coworkers and I was wondering what other people thought.

To respond to the performance issues caused by Norton specifically, yes it does take up a nice chunk of resources (as does any AV) but on modern machines, even laptops, you dont notice much of a dent.

Personally I do not run an antivirus software. When stuff gets in I know how to deal with it, whether something intricate or just using a tool.

Kaspersky seems to carry almost as much weight as Norton here, only once in awhile do I see a machine come in infected running that. McAfee, Avira, Avast, AVG and TrendMicro I see issues with all the time.


----------



## Quickpaw

voyagerfan99 said:


> My objective measure is from personal experience working in a computer repair shop. Next time I'm in there for a stretch I'll keep track of how many virus infections come in, and what AV they're running.



That would be great for comparison, thank you!


----------



## Okedokey

I simply have a routine reimage from a starting point that im happy with, and all else on external.  I simply scan the external drivers.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> I* never *said my experiences were the only ones that mattered, I'm not sure where it was decided that this would become an argument.


It wasn't. It was merely an answer to the following question you posed:


> Why do you guys choose to use/recommend antivirus programs other than Malwarebytes/Norton when in 3 years I have never had any success with anything else?


I mean, it does suggest that you attribute your success to Norton/MB, whether or not that's what you meant. I merely pointed out that individual personal experiences aren't be-all-end-all indication of what product is good and what isn't (which you appear to realise). But it is the collective opinion of most computer enthusiast that Norton is sub-par to at least some extent, and that's why we use other software.

If I came across as offensive, sorry about that, it wasn't my intention and I definitely didn't try to make the suggestion that you believe only your experiences matter.


----------



## Quickpaw

ill admit that the tldr section of my post was badly worded but the post was aimed to get insight on other people's opinions. I guess I imagined readers would get the idea and so far we've had some good input


----------



## Dngrsone

I might have missed some finer points skimming through this, but I agree that there are at least two types of users out there causing the big 'problem'--

Those who choose to remain ignorant and click on any button put in their faces.  These people either have no AV at all or they are using the one that came pre-installed on their machine, which is usually Norton's or McAfee.

The 'Free-loaders' who download AVG, Avast!, et al, and hit the torrent sites with a vengeance.


Personally, I have no AV on my computer.  I _do_ have CLAMAV running on my firewall, monitoring incoming traffic, and the kids have MSE running on their Windows machines (because, occasionally, they _do_ click on things).  I am running a linux-based OS myself, and I generally don't go to questionable sites to begin with.

I like to think I am smart enough to recognize a bad situation when it arises, and I have deleted emails without opening them, even from friends, because the subject line itself is often a giveaway.


----------



## blue957400

I agree with everyone who uses Kaspersky, in my opinion it is the best and least resource hogging of all A/V's. Personally if you don't want to waste any money on software that only works 70-80% of the time anyways, i'd use Microsoft security essentials and if you run into anything that disables it just use free tools online to get it working again. I think people that pay for A/V software don't pay for what it actually does but more so for the peace of mind they get of having something actively protecting their PC. I currently work for an antivirus company so these are in my opinion the two best options. =]


----------



## ttomm46

voyagerfan99 said:


> +1 on McAfee being terrible. Those do get infected a lot - even machines I've seen with the corporate copy. AVG is pretty bad because once you do become infected, AVG goes to hell and even after uninstalling AVG, removing the virus, and reinstalling AVG, it just doesn't work right.



I have an old computer and have tried Kaspersky and a few others but Norton is the lightest I've tried..Not the old Norton..also i doubt they paid off av comparatives or avtest.org
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=112203


----------



## tracykuraki

Good habit means the strongest protection!


----------



## tremmor

Dngrsone said:


> I might have missed some finer points skimming through this, but I agree that there are at least two types of users out there causing the big 'problem'--
> 
> Those who choose to remain ignorant and click on any button put in their faces.  These people either have no AV at all or they are using the one that came pre-installed on their machine, which is usually Norton's or McAfee.
> 
> The 'Free-loaders' who download AVG, Avast!, et al, and hit the torrent sites with a vengeance.
> 
> 
> Personally, I have no AV on my computer.  I _do_ have CLAMAV running on my firewall, monitoring incoming traffic, and the kids have MSE running on their Windows machines (because, occasionally, they _do_ click on things).  I am running a linux-based OS myself, and I generally don't go to questionable sites to begin with.
> 
> I like to think I am smart enough to recognize a bad situation when it arises, and I have deleted emails without opening them, even from friends, because the subject line itself is often a giveaway.



Im the same way. Yes i use a retail Kaspersky and do like Foxy Proxy to help closing doors. I don't click on everything everybody sends me. I can get into trouble using search at google and clicking on a link i wish i did not.
I stay clean mostly and pay attention to where im going. Or try.


----------

