[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Antivirus on Windows 8: Looking at Your Options here

[jscott418]

So sometimes you have to wonder if these free option are purposely broken to some extent so as to convince you to buy a paid version. I think Microsoft created Defender and Security Essentials as a stop gap measure rather then a replacement for a more robust paid product.

[Vanalan]

One of the things this article kind of neglects to mention is that your online behaviour has a lot to do with how susceptible your computer is to being subjected to viral infection. Caution when opening attachments, discretion when installing wacky software, and abstinence from visiting dodgy websites makes basic protection, as I understand, more than sufficient.

[GautamDivekar]

windows defender and common sense FTW !!!

[Robertla3k]

actually Windows 3.1 did bundle an AV with the OS. I believe it was provided by Symantec, and I recall it was pretty useless.

[LordInsidious]

So all windows defender needs is to get better virus definition to get to 99.9%?

[ReadandShare]

I'm very happy with my current Win 7 / MS Security Essentials setup.

If or when I upgrade to Win 8 -- I will simply continue to use MS' included security product.

For those who don't wish to use MS security products, there are excellent FREE options out there -- such as AVG or Avast, to name just two.

Why people are paying to use Norton or McAfee is beyond me...

[Flocke]

Being an IT guy I have installed MSE on 100's of machines and only had to take care of maleware on said machines twice. But the employees machines internet history showed the true reason they got viruses lol.

[bigjohnl]

Why people are paying to use Norton or McAfee is beyond me...
[/quote]

Read the article BEFORE you post. It tells you why people are paying, and for what reasons.

[mseyf]

It would be nice if the reviewers of free antivirus programs would also rate the 'nag factor' of each package to upgrade to the paid version. AVG's constant upgrade nagging made me get rid of AVG, I've been very satisfied with Security Essentials.

[rje49]

Until 2 years ago, I and all my friends & family used AVG for about 7 years. I got tired of constantly cleaning up infections from malware on their computers, not mine, so I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials - and stopped getting repair calls. The PC World test says one thing, but my experience says another.

[ChuckUFarley]

GautamDivekar, on 26 July 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

windows defender and common sense FTW !!!

I have to agree with this post.
All of my family computers are on Windows Security Essentials, and I have taught commmon sense to my wife and kids, and we are virus free for over 3 years now.
That 3 years is when I decided to dump Norton, and go with WSE.

[jazzy007]

I used to buy anti-virus thinking that a paid version is better than a free one. Like the saying goes " You get what you paid for". In the anti-virus business, its not true. After I got tired of paying large amount of money each year for an Anti-virus, I decided to try Microsoft Security Essential. It perform as good or better than the pay version, and I try many differenty pay versions. From Norton, Kaspersky, McAfee, almost all mention here.

On the recomendations of PCWord I even try what they consider the best free anti-virus, AVG, Avira, Panda. They don't compare.

I now use on all my computers Microsoft Security Essential. Maybe is only 97% efficient, but anything better than 95 is more than enough. It removes 80% of virus found which is a lot much better than all the others. What is the point in detecting (questionable)99.9% if it can remove it? Beside, there is always that one virus that is new and no one can detect. Every day new virus are created. What is 99.9% efficient today tomorrow can be 80%.

[jazzy007]

I remember when Microsoft bought a small anti-virus company and said it will offer a free anti-virus with Windows. McAfee, Norton made a lot of noise and treated with suing Microsoft and talking to the Justice Department. Microsoft back down and offer it as a free option and maybe less efficient than the pay versions. You can tell that is what they did, but made if more robust to eliminate the virus it found. Don't you find interesting that the highest remove rate for paid version is no higher than 60% while Essential is 80%?

[Xwin]

Quote

One of the things this article kind of neglects to mention is that your online behaviour has a lot to do with how susceptible your computer is to being subjected to viral infection. Caution when opening attachments, discretion when installing wacky software, and abstinence from visiting dodgy websites makes basic protection, as I understand, more than sufficient.

It is a test between AV apps, who the [censored] cares about usage when it is all about how well they catch malicious code?
Kinda getting tired of people with your lame attitude, when do you understand the concept of additional layers of protection?
If we all would think like you all the novice users on the net would get infected, cause they don't [censored] know where and what no to click, even after endless hours of instructions.
Everything that can go wrong will go wrong!

[jscott418]

I used to be more impressed with Microsoft's Security Essentials. Until I had decided to try another free option because I was having some strange issues with a Windows 7 PC. After the other program found 3 Trojan's that Microsoft security essentials failed too and that those Trojan's were common in the wild.
I begain to rethink how well MSE really protected me. While I know not every Anti virus program can catch everything. I was surprised that MSE could not detect even in a full scan some common malware.

[jerhardt]

Quote

actually Windows 3.1 did bundle an AV with the OS. I believe it was provided by Symantec, and I recall it was pretty useless.

Actually, the author is correct - No version of Windows back to v 1.0 came with any antivirus whatsoever. DOS 6 did, but not Windows.

[gavinmcniff]

Just got new PC with Windows 8. Surprised that the built-in AV picked up some malware that had eluded both Norton and Eset NOD32 for some time. However then running Malwarebytes Anti-Malware picked up something that Windows Defender missed. So I guess a multi-pronged approach, coupled with some common sense, seems to be the way to go. I must say, though, that I find Norton overly intrusive and trying to do all sorts of things I don't want.

[waldojim]

bigjohnl, on 28 July 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Read the article BEFORE you post. It tells you why people are paying, and for what reasons.

You mean like the "higher than average false-positive rates"?

[Lou3]

This article seems to be misleading. I thought it would give info for what's available and been made to work with Win 8. I have Win 8 and decided to give G Data a try based on this article. When you go to their website it does not say it supports Win 8, but I figured I would just do the 30 trial first and see if it works ok. Well I discovered it breaks IE 10 (Metro version, or Modern UI, or whatever it's called now). After trying to get IE 10 (metro) to work (it would give an error stating that it could not display the webpage for any webpage, but IE 10 - desktop would work fine). I tried little things to get it to work, but nothing help. Since G Data doesn't claim to support Win anyways I decided not to hassle with it and just uninstall it. Now IE 10 (metro) works again.