The Best anti-virus

[CoffeeFiend]

Any SYMANTECian product should be fine, especially, Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition.

I can't feel safe nor sleep deeply without my PC being protected by SYMANTEC technology.

It's about the only one I don't trust. I'd loose some serious sleep over it They once were good... 10 years ago, erm, wait - even back then there was much better

[buletov]

I can't feel safe nor sleep deeply without my PC being protected by SYMANTEC technology.

this is a joke, right?

[Schadenfroh]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

[magicfly]

BIT DEFENDER 8 PROFESSIONAL

[Synapse]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

ahahah! love that site especially "ugly dude with an umbrela" in your con list for AntiVir. while testing the program i couldn't stand lookin at him anymore lol.

[shuangyefei]

I think

Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition

[buletov]

"you should do that much of a thinking errol" (snatch)

[CoffeeFiend]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

There are many other and well known places on the web (and even suscription magazines) that do AV testing as their specialty. They test things like see if it catches every single of the last 100 wild viruses, scanning speeds, memory usage, and reports what it scans or doesn't (web/email/files/...). Also, some have very limited support for archives (like, will only scan inside zip files) whereas others can scan inside say, a .msi package inside a iso image that's RAR'ed or something like that... Benches and stats don't mean much when it comes to that. Either ways, from what I read in general, the only common thing is - don't use Norton junk (I read not long ago that some are starting to include spyware detection/removal too, but i can't remember which one that was for sure)

edit: Looking at the results on the link, they don't seem too bad overall (looks like my fav -kaspersky- detects everything) but we kinda need more information about the testing procedure. NAV is known to be like the absolute total SLOWEST in terms of scanning speeds (kb/s), so I don't know what it did or didn't scan (or any of them), or perhaps he had a couple iso's on his HD that most apps scanned other than norton? We can't really tell, and things like that have a HUGE impact on scanning times. I think scanning speeds in kb/s would be a much better measurement. He says that archive scanning was off (but do all apps actually have that setting? what would it really skip? ...) Anyways, just seems like NAV is missing a digit (or 2 ) in front of it's scanning time...

[Schadenfroh]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

ignore memory usage on the apps, a few are off, i am working to correct it, probably will be done by tommorow.

[CoffeeFiend]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

ignore memory usage on the apps, a few are off, i am working to correct it, probably will be done by tommorow.

Oh, I had not realized it was yours. Nice job you did there. That must have taken some time. Memory wise... Lots of the applications' reported memory under task mgr is wrong anyways.

It's interesting when you do a bit of comparison or checking what some numbers really mean too...

One thing for example: 28.6gb used, 60752 files, nod32 full scan time: 3M 13S. That means, it has scanned in average at nearly 150mb/sec! or around 315 files/sec. Not that longer scanning speeds are a direct indication of scanning depth/quality, but no wonder detection rate is only 82%. It definately has to cut some corners to be THAT fast.

Best in detection rate (which is really the ONLY reason why we run an AV in the first place): kaspersky. Closely followed by mcaffee, which takes even more ram (well, a little worse on all specs) and about 10$ more. Also the update process for McAfee isn't the best either (download/apply DAT/SuperDAT and such, depends on versions...) I have ran (the trial of course) it on TONS of PCs friends and such bring over and usually, even if they had another AV - updated and all - it ALWAYS finds more. It also scans inside everything, updates daily and all.

I haven't had time to peek at the in depth reviews yet, but I'll find sometime soon. Thanks a lot for those reviews Schadenfroh

[prathapml]

BTW, ZoneAlarm AntiVirus isn't in that review!

ZoneAlarm Security Suite 5.0 and higher, come with this very good anti-virus.

That one is being used by a lot of people now (don't start flaming its firewall, its only the AV we're interested in).

[Schadenfroh]

Linky

I did a review of 11 antivirus software applications, enjoy

ignore memory usage on the apps, a few are off, i am working to correct it, probably will be done by tommorow.

alright, i think i got all the RAM issues fixed

[CoffeeFiend]

alright, i think i got all the RAM issues fixed

Hmmm, what did you change exactly? I'm not sure about the others but my version of kaspersky kasvc.exe reports 20300kb and kav.exe 760kb (21060kb total). That's about 2 megs less than what your site says (not that it makes a huge difference mind you) RAM usage seems to change a bit with every build of most apps.

[Schadenfroh]

alright, i think i got all the RAM issues fixed

Hmmm, what did you change exactly? I'm not sure about the others but my version of kaspersky kasvc.exe reports 20300kb and kav.exe 760kb (21060kb total). That's about 2 megs less than what your site says (not that it makes a huge difference mind you) RAM usage seems to change a bit with every build of most apps.

in the main review, i have pics of the windows task manager. i added what was displayed to me, out to the 3rd decimal place. check the pics in the individual reviews

[caesar]

I'm curently using and I've sticked to Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 8.0 wich suited my needs and haven't let me down till now.

The Kaspersky (at least the 5.0 version I've tested) is way more advanced than most AntiVirus software out there just for the fact that it dose look inside .zip file, inside "packeted" .exe files and so on, check out it's features page for a list, BUT the thing that sucks at it is the resources that consumes. Way to much.. The same thing I can say about McAfee 9.0 (or whatever is the latest version), Norton Antivirus 2003 and 2004, the 2005 too but at least it has an firewall thing included. BitDefender? Who are they kidding with this? I've got an utility to clean an welchia worm and it said I'm not infected when I was. Definitly SUCKS bigtime! On Windows 200 I had Notron Antivirus 7.0 Corporate Edition too and I've liked it but moved to something new. As for the others from the list I haven'te tested them too much. Sticked to what suited my needs and didn't drained my sistem out of resources.. Tha's SAV 8.0 CE (Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 8.0)