• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which Antivirus?

S

Slickone

Diamond Member
I was looking into getting Norton Antivirus 2003 but after reading comments on cdnet, zdnet, and here on AT forums, of people having problems with systems locking up, not booting, BSOD's, unable to connect to the net, etc, I'm thinking about Grisoft's AVG. Is it as good? Or what about NAV 2002?
I realize some of NAV2003's could be fixed in updates, but if it locks you up or keeps you from booting after installing, I wouldn;t think you could get the updates. Or they might not all have fixes at this point.
I don't want McAfee. A friend has it and Task Manager shows about 5 McAfee related items running all the time.
 
Interesting. I just got Norton Systems Works last night (free after rebates) and chose not to install NAV 2003 because I still have 3 months left on my NAV 2002 subscription. I hope Symantec fixes NAV 2003 before I am forced to install it.
 
I think that the AVG freeware AV package is actually not a bad AV solution for personal user machines. I've used it before and found it to be reasonably good, and not nearly as trouble-prone as NAV and McAfee. It doesn't invade the OS and get its hooks into everything. I'm sure that NAV and McAfee may occasionally catch malware which might slip past AVG. On the other hand I haven't seen AVG do anything to muck up an OS configuration, and I've seen both NAV and McAfee do that.

For my personal systems I use Eset's NOD32. But instead of just taking recommendations from other people you might wish to check out the Virus Bulletin site and the Wilders.org site to try to see if one AV package or another might provide you with benefits for your particular use patterns. It's really not a one-size-fits-all sort of thing, so a little research on your part might pay off handsomely.

- prosaic
 
With NAV you're locked into paying for virus definition updates for the rest of your life in addition to paying for engine upgrades. AVG works well although sometimes it's tough to download updates due to server traffic.
 
Any other comments comparing NAV 2002, 2003, AVG, whatever?

Wonder why this site doesn't mention NAV? Anyone know how to get ahold of them?
 
Im using CA's eTrust EZ Antivirus.... I love it... Consistant signature upgrades, low maintenance.. And the fact that sold me - it doesnt entangle itself into every crevace of your hd
 
For what it's worth-

I personally use Mail Defense for email protection & NAV for general web use & to tell me what Mail Defense has caught. Neither has given me problems.
I've never used them, but i've heard good things about AVG, Panda & Kaspersky.
From things i've read & from 2nd hand experience, i think i'd rather go without AV prtection than install McAfee.
 
Originally posted by: GnomeCop
anyone use Kasperksy?

how is it, read in some magazine a long time ago that it was the most effective.
Click to expand...

I use Kaspersky AV and I like it a lot. It stays out of your way and isn't a resource hog. The documentation is not that great though. They seem to have great customer support -- I've emailed them a couple of times and got answers back within hours.

YMMV.
 
Using NAV 2003 here on a XP Pro / Nforce2 system and all runs fine here. No lockups or any other problems.😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top