Best Anti-Virus?

super_ferrari · 16-01-2004, 02:06 PM

C'mon friends tell me which one u use tp protect uur PC

16-01-2004, 05:37 PM

First of all i will introduce myself to you.
I am navpreet singh from delhi. I like playing snooker and gaining knowledge of computers.

Norton antivirus is the most trusted antivirus software in india.

it_waaznt_me · 16-01-2004, 11:26 PM

Welcome aboard Navpreet ....

guri35 · 17-01-2004, 12:07 AM

Norton ,though norton 2004 sucks.

17-01-2004, 12:15 AM

My vote always goes to Symantec for their fabulous product named Norton Antivirus 2003.

I rate NAV 2003 & AVG better than NAV 2004! & all the shitty products like UNISTALL

anupamsinha · 17-01-2004, 12:36 AM

Hi All

In many polls I have seen a list that can be considered incomplete. What if I have some other AV. It is not easy to put in the names of the various AV software out there(specially for the non-windows platform) but you can still have an option like "other" or something like that.

Secondly how come

Quote:

Norton antivirus is the most trusted antivirus software in india.

and

Quote:

I rate NAV 2003 & AVG better than NAV 2004! & all the shitty products like UNISTALL

have you tried the UNISTALL AV. If yes please post an explanation as why did you find it bad when compared against NAV 2003 and AVG.

[deXter] · 17-01-2004, 12:48 AM

Norton antivirus all the way. Was a fan of Norton Utilities right from version 2 (ahh those good old DOS days).... NAV2K4 has good features, and though many people, including ice, have reported problems using/installing 2k4, I never had problems with Norton anytime. I especially love the liveupdate, its really fast, efficient and does the job...

sunmysore · 17-01-2004, 08:13 AM

Iwas a Norton fanatic in 2000-01.
Used to download all updats every day.
Then I learnt a lesson.
Just for an attack once in 10 years, why wud I have to spend all those precious resources???

So, I never used AV since Jan. 2002

But I liked Norton Utilities, except For Norton Image, very irritating

super_ferrari · 17-01-2004, 09:05 AM

Welcome on forums Navpreet

anupam u r right..when i made this list i considered da option "any other"..but forgot to add it.... I knew it...NAV will be the favourite...even i vote for NAV. No one uses Mcafee...and what about Unistall, all those who subscribed digit during dat offer

TheMask · 17-01-2004, 05:09 PM

NAV all the way. though i have heard McAfee is a tad better, i am too lazy to find it out myself

abdulabby · 18-01-2004, 10:24 AM

mcafee sucks coz. of it resources....and norton sucks because of it resources too....Trend pc-cillin 2004 rocks coz. its very light and its got better virus detection.Symantec is just a show off. Check out this comparison at http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-3513_7-30588581.html and see how it rocks

abattoir · 18-01-2004, 10:58 AM

What the hell is Unistall? I wanted to subscribe to Digit, but the offer prevented me from doing so. I already have NAV 2004 Pro. I think companies like Symantec do well in Windows due to the support they receive from Ms . They copy even the same activation procedure!!!. Once windows dies and linux rules supreme, Symantec will die too.

super_ferrari · 18-01-2004, 01:55 PM

What windows will die!!! no buddy windows will never die even if linux rules supreme....windows still rules da home desktops and will always do so in future. Billy has not become a billionaire by playing a lottery game 8)

Do u kno linux viruses exist tho not widespread like windows viruses since it is very difficult to infect Linux but nothing is impossible!
The latest Linux kernel 2.6 had security flaws. so u kno no protection is unbreakable. there is always a flaw in everything u only have to find it. minimum requirements--> human brain

sunmysore · 18-01-2004, 02:39 PM

Now everyone is concentrating on making Windows viruses, not Linux viruses 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

anupamsinha · 18-01-2004, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by super_ferrari

Do u kno linux viruses exist tho not widespread like windows viruses since it is very difficult to infect Linux but nothing is impossible!
The latest Linux kernel 2.6 had security flaws. so u kno no protection is unbreakable. there is always a flaw in everything u only have to find it. minimum requirements--> human brain

People generally do not write viruses for Linux because it's impact may not be like if they do the same for windows. Secondly there are lesser no. of viruses for linux.

abattoir · 18-01-2004, 08:00 PM

Dear super_ferrari,
I agree Windows is the best, but 7 yrs. max., that will be its life. Okay, I backtrack on Linux will rule, what I meant was opensource would rule(Not necessarily linux would rule). Once more software is available for Linux, and the more user-friendly it becomes, people would rather use free software(i'm sure most OSs based on opensource will still be free to the masses) than pay a hell of a lot for Windows(Not that many of us pay for it!).But its stability is also legendary.

I also did not say Linux is not prone to viruses. Linux doesn't charge you a fortune for an OS and bundle lots of goodies(Including an Office Suite,though it may not be of the same league as of XP, but common men rather prefer the plain suite for free than something which has features that they would never even use in their lifetime, for 20k.I realise the geniuses who write viruses do it for the pleasure of testing their skills, but another main reason is jealousy and hatred of MS. Even the main variant of the Blaster Virus(I think it was it) had messages about Billy.
And the last, and what I believe will be one of the main reasons for the downfall of windows,piracy.
Okay, Casual piracy may have stopped to a small extent, but people will always find ways to get through anything which Ms does.

And the last reason, attitude. I accept Ms has the monopoly to boss around the computer world w/ hoodlums like symantek and roksio.
But that is exactly going to lead to their downfall.

I'll be here 7 yrs. from now, lets see what happens.

And last of all ferrari is not super

Its the best.

Radon · 18-01-2004, 11:01 PM

Hey where's AVG?

svenkat83 · 18-01-2004, 11:16 PM

I used NAV 2003 but now I am using McAfee.
but soon I'll be changing over to NortonAV.
The reason being McAfee's technique of Real time scanning is worse ,atleast on my PC.May be it might work well on with more RAM.Mine is 128MB.lots of freezes due to McAfee. At times I can't even freely move my mouse.I had no such problems with NAV.

19-01-2004, 12:12 AM

Hey any user of Unistall, please notify us of ur experiences.

rock_ya_baby · 22-01-2004, 11:59 PM

I vote for AVG, man u missed out on that !?? i use AVG7 full-ver but i think it sucks, i find AVG6 free-ver more straight forward and slick.

Those new format update files are really small in size.

Deep · 23-01-2004, 11:04 PM

NAV rocks but 2004 isnt that good..make system kind of slow...

Deep

coolcrook007 · 24-01-2004, 10:57 AM

I think nav 2003 is really good though i haven't tried 2004

ice · 24-01-2004, 12:31 PM

I was using Nav 2003, Had to format, decided to install 2004.. but loads of problems, and friends told me it would make my pc slow(just got 192 Mb ram)

So now im using Norton Corp. 8.. Its wonderful. One thing it doesnt have is email scanning for OE. It does have scanning fot lotus notes. and outlook.