Yet another Anti Virus/ Internet security topic!

[ithehappy]

Well I am looking for some good and light internet security for Windows 10. Someone suggested me Bitdefender (it's the general suggestion anyway), so I used that for couple of months with Windows 7, the Internet security, and I am not sure but I think the bootup time was pretty much affected, at least 10-15 seconds. It wasn't the case with Norton, which was great, except for the false positives, ultimately had to add quite a lot of partitions under exclusion list, so the point of installing any kind of security at first place seemed to be irrelevant. And Avast is out of question.

So what shall I install on my Win 10 x64? Which will not affect the system performance in any way and be decent enough for malwares and threats and all that. Free or Paid, whatever.

Thanks in advance.

 

[PliotronX]

BitDefender is one of the better AV when you disable what they call Active Virus Control which is heuristics. It has been known to slow down the system or prevent legitimate software from running (especially with DRM). I would check out Eset Smart Security though.

 

[Berryracer]

Look at these 3 charts:

AV-Comparatives Performance Test

AV-Comparatives Real World Tests

AV-Comparatives False Positives

I am currently using Emsisoft Anti-Malware, try the demo, it's very light and has superior detection rates / PUP proptection

 

[balloonshark]

I've been using Emsisoft Anti Malware (paid) for a while and I really like it. It does have a behavior blocker which occasionally gives a pop-up which I mostly see when certain programs change after an update. It uses its own engine/definitions as well as Bit Defender's.

 

[ithehappy]

All right, thanks guys. Will check ES Smart Security and Emsisoft.

 

[Oyeve]

I use ESET for everything. All work PCs, all of my work servers, exchange server, all of my personal PCs and even my android devices. in 5 years at work only one of over 100 of my users actually got nailed with a virus/trojan/malware and ESET kept warning her but the bitch kept clicking the .zip file and got toasted. Anyway, its relatively cheap and work rather great.

 

[andrev588]

AVG internet security 2015 is worth trying. Get free trial for 30 days. I personally feels that AVG internet security is best.

http://softlay.net/security/antivirus/avg-internet-security-2015.html

 

[Iron Woode]

I am still liking Panda Free AV.

 

[Berryracer]

I am still liking Panda Free AV.

AV-Comparatives Performance Test

 

[WebDesigners]

BitDefender is one of the better AV when you disable what they call Active Virus Control which is heuristics. It has been known to slow down the system or prevent legitimate software from running (especially with DRM). I would check out Eset Smart Security though.

Why don't you simply use NOD32, because it is known as anti-virus with the smallest impact on system resources. NOD can be used in 32-bit and 64-bit systems, it is supported by all major OSs (Windows, Linux, MacOSx).

 

[ArisVer]

It wasn't the case with Norton, which was great, except for the false positives, ultimately had to add quite a lot of partitions under exclusion list, so the point of installing any kind of security at first place seemed to be irrelevant.

When I install an antivirus program I do a full scan and then I add everything but the C : drive and downloads to the exception list (you may want to leave the USB and CD/DVD/BR on if you transfer a lot of unknown files from them). The reason is that I do not want a scan for everything that has already being scanned, and most (all?) of the files to be added in the disks come from downloads which is monitored. Maybe not so safe though.

 

[Berryracer]

When I install an antivirus program I do a full scan and then I add everything but the C : drive and downloads to the exception list (you may want to leave the USB and CD/DVD/BR on if you transfer a lot of unknown files from them). The reason is that I do not want a scan for everything that has already being scanned, and most (all?) of the files to be added in the disks come from downloads which is monitored. Maybe not so safe though.

With NOD32 once you do a first full scan, it whitelists the files so it won't scan the same file twice unless the hashes have been changed.

 

[Oyeve]

Why don't you simply use NOD32, because it is known as anti-virus with the smallest impact on system resources. NOD can be used in 32-bit and 64-bit systems, it is supported by all major OSs (Windows, Linux, MacOSx).

Yep. I love ESET. low impact on all of my jobs systems and servers.

 

[Chiropteran]

Windows Defender is good enough for me.

 

[aShufflinZombie]

Windows Defender is good enough for me.

Agreed. Between uBlock Origin, Windows Defender and common sense, I've been fine for years.

 

[Berryracer]

Yep. I love ESET. low impact on all of my jobs systems and servers.

Using NOD32 v9.0.141.0 BETA for 3 days now it's much ligher than NOD32 v6,7, and 8 and has 0 bugs. I was told on their forums that v9 Final is soon to be released. This is the only AV which gives me 0 FPs and doesn't clash with any of my installed software.

 

[The Day Dreamer]

Just dropped by to warn you about Avast. Do not install it.

 

[Mem]

Just dropped by to warn you about Avast. Do not install it.

Nothing wrong with Avast, I use it on Win10, https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-8/june-2015/avast-free-antivirus-2015-152313/ ,not had any FPs yet and all my software works fine.



I say that as an user that has tried them virtually all.

I'll say no point in paying for any anti-virus program IMHO, plenty of good free alternatives.

 

[accguy9009]

I am still liking Panda Free AV.

Works great for me also

 

[accguy9009]

AV-Comparatives Performance Test

Panda AV runs in the cloud and is extremely light

 

[Carfax83]

I tried Bitdefender about a month ago just to see if it was better than Norton Internet security, and I didn't like it. The performance hit was noticeable, even on my high end rig..

Went back to Norton and I think I'll stay there. Never had a problem with NIS, and the performance impact is very light.

 

[Berryracer]

I tried Bitdefender about a month ago just to see if it was better than Norton Internet security, and I didn't like it. The performance hit was noticeable, even on my high end rig..

Went back to Norton and I think I'll stay there. Never had a problem with NIS, and the performance impact is very light.

I'd love to use Bitdefender AV but I will never touch it as long as it has all the crapware it currently has, system optimizer, etc.....

 

[MongGrel]

Windows Defender is good enough for me.

I agree personally, but I use a few other things not AV related really.

 

[Carfax83]

I'd love to use Bitdefender AV but I will never touch it as long as it has all the crapware it currently has, system optimizer, etc.....

Trust me it's not worth it. Bitdefender will protect your system from viruses, malware and everything sure, but it does so by using hyper aggressive means which take up a lot of CPU.

After installing Bitdefender, I noticed that webpages loaded slower, and even Windows explorer itself was less snappy. Apps and programs also loaded slower as well.

When I first did a system scan with it, the damn thing had my CPU at nearly 100%.....and I have an overclocked 4930K with six cores. It scanned my whole C: drive unbelievably fast (seemed like less than 5 minutes), but if it's hogging my entire CPU, then it should be fast

 

[John Connor]

I use Bitdefender Fee and have had ZERO problems. Unless you game and edit crap in games, use hacks, etc you will have trouble because of Bitdefender's debugging crap interference.

If Bitdefender FREE isn't your cup a tea try Immunet.