I am using Bitdefender suite 2013, and it use less resources running a full system scan than an average session of Chrome. Not been bothered by false positives either. Been using it for a few months now, and the only complaint I have so far is their logs sorting, which seems to be reverse (oldest - newest). I also have a few family members under my license, and the only complaint I have gotten so far has been the nagging for signing up for the web based portal they have, which is a bit annoying.
Best Virus Software
- Thread starter =MGN=RedEagle
- Start date
Modern suites are barely using any resources, at least the good ones. If you were used to Norton, that doesn't compare to something that works. Again, I just took a quick look at Bitdefender resource use (very loose look), and it was using around 17k of RAM and barely no CPU. Every tab in Chrome I have open used more resources than Bitdefender scanning. I saw the same trend with ZoneAlarm when I had that, but I wouldn't recommend anyone getting that piece of ad infested software.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Windows 8...
Sorry, I thought you meant the best virus posing as software...
Sorry, I thought you meant the best virus posing as software...
=MGN=RedEagle
Well-known member
In the end I tried 3-4 virus programs. All of them were bad. My computer became about 1/20th as fast. I am now going without virus software 
.
.
TheBoss
Well-known member
In the end I tried 3-4 virus programs. All of them were bad. My computer became about 1/20th as fast. I am now going without virus software
Suicide by infection...
Maybe not today but it will happen..
=MGN=RedEagle
Well-known member
I have been fine the last 12 years I did this.Suicide by infection...
Maybe not today but it will happen..
If you have a routine on the Internet and a list of trusted sites and some common sense regarding files to download and how to treat them, going without antivirus protection isn't suicidal.Suicide by infection...
Maybe not today but it will happen..
No it won't.Suicide by infection...
Maybe not today but it will happen..
zappaDPJ
Well-known member
One thing you can be fairly sure of is that the majority of people will recommend their preferred solution and that it is almost certainly not the best. The reason being what's good one month gets superseded by something better the next. If you really want to know what currently has the highest detection rates or the lowest false positives, this site is a good start: http://www.av-comparatives.org/
Last edited:
TheBoss
Well-known member
15 years of having my own PC Shop & 25 years Experience begs to differ..
But who am I to argue with such knowledgeable people..
A programmer dude of mine with 20 years experience without an anti virus and still without a single infection and numerous blogs that expose anti virus software as useless scam beg to differ. Personally this is my second year without an anti virus and I didn't regret it.15 years of having my own PC Shop & 25 years Experience begs to differ..
But who am I to argue with such knowledgeable people..
dutchbb
Well-known member
Last I checked Apple were one of the only laptop makers to get 12 hours battery life without crippling the machine. I'm quite happy with the 7 hours my 15" rMBP gets.
Yup, that part is 100% true. Regardless of what platform you put Windows on, its always going to be a Virus magnet due to it's inherent flawed design (i.e networking and security being added as an afterthought.)
I'm on the fence with this one, having both owned Macs and built machines of equal spec. On the one hand, the home-made machine gives you freedom to switch parts out. On the other hand, the mac parts are generally a lot more reliable, and very well engineered to the point where you cant hear fans going, get great cooling, etc. The hardware is designed to run cool, things like the Mac Pro's modular motherboard design are fantastic for reliability and cooling.
It's fun to build your own machine, but reliability wise its got nothing on a pre-built machine (be it a Mac or Windows based box). Plus you cant really fault the Apple tech support service. Walk in with a problem, have a new mac or a fix when you walk out - all part of the warranty. If I tried walking into my local PC World with a broken HP tower, I'd have to pay out to have it fixed or would just be told to contact HP directly, where I'd have to pay to send my machine off and not get it back for weeks.
For people who actually work on their machines, Mac's are ideal for knowing that you wont be without a machine for any long period of time should something go wrong.
'more reliable' in what sense exactly? Part quality? No chance in hell. Sure you COULD build a machine of equal (or better) spec for the price of a Mac. But the end result is a poorly designed metal box that will last 3 years, maybe 4 if you push it. Macs from the early 2000s are still running all over the world, and are very capable machines due to the OS being way more optimised than Windows could ever be (this isn't some sort of 'fanboy' statement - its fact).
Pick up a mac laptop - any one of them. Hold the sides of it and try to flex it. No sound, no flex. Now hold the Vaio and do the same. You'll hear the creaking and flexing of the shell. The mac laptops chassis is a lot more integrated to the point where it can be run over, and cause no damage to the motherboard at all.
You're not just paying for the shiny box either. The internals are hugely different on a mac than on anything else. Take a look at the way the cooling works on the rMBP for example - no other laptop does it that way, and I can tell you from experience that it works very well.
Also, what the hell is with almost every Windows based laptop placing the damn fan intake ON THE BOTTOM. How dumb is that? The second you put it on your LAP it blocks the intake fan.
Not really. Its put together in such a way that makes sure it'll always be more susceptible to security problems. It had networking 'bodged on' due to business demand - it was never designed for what its being used for, and because Microsoft baked the browsing into the OS, its never ever going to be possible to get anywhere near the kind of security you get with Unix based operating systems.
To give you some kind of idea on how your Mac OS security works - its physically impossible to 'accidentally' download something and run it. Firstly everything you run on the OS has to have been executed (and on first run requires manual confirmation before it executes the app package) manually. Then you have the fact that you dont have the ability to have something running in the background without you knowing about it.
To actually get a virus it would have to be downloaded and run manually, so the only time that'll happen is if a package is infected. However even then, the virus cant spread anywhere, it will only run when the parent app is running, making it near impossible for a virus to 'hide' or 'embed' itself into the OS.
=====
Also just a bit of background:
I've used Windows and OS X for years (and built my own high-end machines without crappy £50 plastic cases that look cheap). I was exclusively a Windows user until 2007, when I got a Mac - I've not had any need or desire to 'switch back' at all as I found that within a week of using it I was hooked. Productivity is massively higher for me on OS X, and things just make a hell of a lot more sense. No messy DLL's. No registry nonsense. As much as I hate to use this stupid statement it really does 'just work' for me.
I get that we will always have the silly Mac VS PC arguments, but the way I see it, we use what works for us - without spreading lies about the competing product. They both serve their purpose. I personally find OS X to serve that purpose significantly better.
Price wise its down to your personal choice. I am happy to pay a premium for something I use every day, rather than have to babysit a machine that isn't as good as it should be.
With regards to virus protection - I've never had it on my Mac and never intend to. You'd have to be an idiot to actually go out and get a virus on a unix based system.
@RickM : In 2012, 1% of Macs (approximately) was a part of a botnet called flashback, which infected via javascript exploits. In 2011 pwn2own, the Mac was defeated after 5 seconds, 2012 it did better, and it was taken down in 2013 as well. Saying OS X is inheritently secure is just as much BS as saying if you run Linux you are safe from everything. In regards to what is most secure, there is no definite answer to it, but I would guess that Macs are a little bit less secure than they should be because of the nonsense idea their owners have that they are secure just because it is a Mac.
What you are talking about warranty, it more or less depends on what you are willing to pay. Most are offering a warranty for sale, and in some countries you are covered by law. For example, here I have a warranty of 5 years on my PC, and for a small fee I can buy extended warranty that basically covers everything for the period it is valid (I think up to 5 years). I even got a new PS3 after 2 years of using it, as it was covered by the 5 year warranty. I paid nothing for the replacement, at all.
I think it is more about personal preference than actual quality. Both PC and Macs are high quality products, but as PC have more vendors, you get a variance in the quality of the product, and you also have a greater price spread. If you really want to be nitpicky, you can say PC is the best, cause it is the most available product.
Also, in my line of work, reliability is a huge deal (we are talking about a downtime cost of $10 000 and up per day), and on the critical systems we are exclusively using PC (mainly because a Mac just isn't an option on these systems, at all). They are custom builds, custom designed for their purpose, with custom software running. On some systems, they have lasted for 15 years and up, and the only reason we are looking at replacing them now is that because they are so old, we are no longer able to get spares for them. So you can argue until the cows go home, but I think it is more about personal preference. For me, the limitations of a Mac make it unacceptable for me to use, in any regard what so ever. Even the fact that they just decided to disable java a while ago, could have caused issues for me, as I rely on Java both in my job and privately.
What you are talking about warranty, it more or less depends on what you are willing to pay. Most are offering a warranty for sale, and in some countries you are covered by law. For example, here I have a warranty of 5 years on my PC, and for a small fee I can buy extended warranty that basically covers everything for the period it is valid (I think up to 5 years). I even got a new PS3 after 2 years of using it, as it was covered by the 5 year warranty. I paid nothing for the replacement, at all.
I think it is more about personal preference than actual quality. Both PC and Macs are high quality products, but as PC have more vendors, you get a variance in the quality of the product, and you also have a greater price spread. If you really want to be nitpicky, you can say PC is the best, cause it is the most available product.
Also, in my line of work, reliability is a huge deal (we are talking about a downtime cost of $10 000 and up per day), and on the critical systems we are exclusively using PC (mainly because a Mac just isn't an option on these systems, at all). They are custom builds, custom designed for their purpose, with custom software running. On some systems, they have lasted for 15 years and up, and the only reason we are looking at replacing them now is that because they are so old, we are no longer able to get spares for them. So you can argue until the cows go home, but I think it is more about personal preference. For me, the limitations of a Mac make it unacceptable for me to use, in any regard what so ever. Even the fact that they just decided to disable java a while ago, could have caused issues for me, as I rely on Java both in my job and privately.
