Favorite/Best Antivirus

[Predator33]

Hi, sorry if i'm posting in the wrong message boards, but which is your favorite or most reliable antivirus? I'm looking to buy one, but their so many and don't know which one to get!


Edit: OOOPS realized i clicked the wrong category, feel free to move this to the community or somewhere else :(

[bob05]

AVG is good, and it's free. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
I'm a little paranoid about these online scanners, I mean I don't think I'd like it very much if someone online is scanning my entire hard drive contents. :t

[Bigjakkstaffa]

AVG

Moved to apps+os

--Jakk:t

[specialzied2002]

if u really wanna buy a av which is very strange with the amount of money u can save with a program like [edited] but anyway id say norton av 2004.

[BipolarBill]

We do not promote piracy here, specialzied2002.

http://www.internet.com/corporate/privacy/aup.html

[Predator33]

Yea, but ppl say that norton can really lag down your computer, and if you ever want to remove it, its also a pain. I was leaning towards Mcafee but then it takes forever to scan. Hmmm each antivirus has its pros/cons i guess.

[Direct1]

I've been using AntiVir Personal Edition (http://www.free-av.com/) for a few months now and like it a lot. It is updated regularly and seems much faster when scanning than NAV. It's free too. Good luck! :t

[davewuk]

My vote is AVG, free, updated regularly and works.

[bushmaster]

AVG free has kept me safe from harm (as well as some common sense ) so I actually paid for the pro version. 2 year license for $33. not bad.

[Rat]

Another vote for AVG..... My whole family and work co-horts have it...... great for the price.


Rat

[specialzied2002]

ok ok ive got avg now after using mcafee which is a pile of ****..

avg seems good but i have it on now but is it scanning everything as i use my pc like norton used to ?

if i click to download a trojan now wil it block it or is there no auto protect and u just scan once in a while to check or pc ... ?

[fishybawb]

I'm with Direct1 - AntiVir. Their server can be a little dodgy, but there's a regulary updated mirror at http://www.micro.com/antivirus.html that's much more reliable :t

[cdroman]

I like AntiVir also.

[davewuk]

specialzied2002

Configure the AVG control center to check boot, check exe's, check macros and heuristics, background realtime scanning is taking place. Set a scheduled test for every 24 hours and if on broadband, let it check for updates daily.

Why do you want to try to download a Trojan? Use the Eicar test virus if you want to check operation - http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

Most trojans get in through legitimate programs so just be careful where you get your files from. Most virii writers are one step ahead of anti virus programs, don't go tempting fate!!

[G]

I use F-Secure’s AV 5.41 build 8490 for Workstation. It is superior to NAV (of any version) and the updates come thick and fast. There is none of the nonsense where NAV LiveUpdate is out of sync with the manual NAV AV definitions. This is reckless on Symantec’s part.

There is no fancy email in-and-out going scans because it is unnecessary using F-Secure in its on-line access mode. All there are is system tray icons and that is it. Just how I like it.

However, I use F-Secure in manual mode and NAV 2003 Pro for scanning email in-and-out. I scan regularly using them all. The Cleaner Pro V4 is online, e.g., TCActive! and TCMonitor, and PestPatrol.

I like F-Secure’s AV 5.41 build 8490 version for Workstation best because it hasn’t got any GUI, just system try icons.

End users could afford the 2003 version.

http://www.f-secure.com/products/anti-virus/av2003/index.shtml

As the program is for corporations the updates come think and fast, as mentioned above. I sometimes get updates three times in a single day.

For example, recently F-Secure’s AV program that I’m running has had many updates. In this time, using NAV’s Live Update I received none. It was only when I checked Symantec’s definitions download update link did I find that my signatures were out by 7 days. NAV Live Update said everything was up to date.

Now Symantec is meant to be one of the best AV programs and developers about. I use their removal tools, and they work as prescribed. I cannot understand why Symantec cannot get the LiveUpdate and manual definitions in harmony. It shouldn’t be happening. My confidence in Symantec for this reason is falling. Sure, they catch virii but what about the virii seven days ahead of LiveUpdate.

I do not have the time, and many users will not be aware of this discrepancy anyway, to check constantly and then download 7MB+ of virii signatures. I do check if they are out by 3-4 days nowadays as I know this discrepancy creeps in. If it wasn’t for F-secure, I would have to check constantly.

All I do nowadays is right-click on the F-Secure system tray icon to update their virii definitions. If there are any, it will down load them with the minimum of fuss. No huge, resource hungry Live Update. If F-Secure’s update has no updates then I am happy to carry on, confident in the knowledge that F-Secure is on the ball. The Cleaner Pro V4 works similarly.

F-Secure needs to ensure that their corporate clients risk to virii is keep to a minimum. Hence multiple updates on some days. Their 2003 version uses the same criteria.

I like NAV 2003 Pro for checking emails going out. Otherwise F-Secure will catch anything that’s going. I keep my AV’s off-line so NAV’s email scanning out is handy.

I do not like NAV 2002 (I bought this – what a dog). It installed on some machines, but not on others and would break if other software proceeded it. Scanning was very slow too. I would recommend going up to NAV 2003 Pro but not NAV 2004 (activation sucks)

If an end user has their AV always on then there is no need to have email in-and-out scanning as a feature. If so I would recommend F-Secure’s 2003 version or Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Pro. If you do not keep AV always on then NAV 2003 Pro would be my choice simply for the email scanning feature. One has to protect recipients of emails you see.

The Cleaner Pro V4+ is a good tool too, and I would recommend it.

On a budget, I would go Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Pro and The Cleaner Pro V4. With respect to spyware, I have used Spybot and bought Ad-Aware V6 Plus but the only one I have on my system is PestPatrol.

With a decent firewall, e.g., ZA (freeware) or better ZA Pro with web Protection and a few Windows security tweaks here and there you should be ok, albeit as long a your signatures are up to date.

G

[Bluehail]

McAfee. The only thing I don't like about it is it sucks up 26MB mem, 14MB more for the firewall (which I like by the way, not as easy as zonealarm though)
Norton corporate edition is good too as its not as bloated as standard norton.

[G]

I thought I would let you know how I got on with Kaspersky’s AV Personal Professional V4.5.0.94 AV program. It is very powerful, and the options are numerous for some of KAVs constitute parts, e.g., scanner, inspector, etc. There may be many options for most users concerned about virii. KAV will also be a system resource hog for low specification machines.

The script protector is so powerful that it makes Hotmail and other webmail accounts inaccessible as well as the Add/Remove applet. I was not able to test KAV completely and absolutely, for these reasons and the time it would have taken to get clarification of a fix (option resetting or workaround) from KAVs technical support team. If I had difficulties with KAV then I am certain that inexperienced AV users would find KAV bewildering. Hence, I recommend F-Secure 2004.

It is possible to add/remove components of KAV. Therefore, I uninstalled the scripting protection. Now one of the major computing magazines I subscribe to gave KAV full marks (5/5), as did F-Secure 2004, and reported on its excellent scripting protection. I may have set KAV too aggressively but I do not think so. NAV 2004, AVP free 2 or 3/5, McAfee 3/5. I cannot remember the marks for Trend and Sophos and Panda but I know two of them where in the test and got 1 or 2/5.

Installing KAV completely renders NAV 2003 Pro from scanning my machine but email AV protection and LiveUpdate functionality was ok, as far as I could tell, and for as long as KAV was under testing.

KAV’s scanner & inspector components are very powerful and I liked them a lot. As my favourite AV program is F-Secure Workstation, and works similarly to KAV but from the system/task tray icons, this is duplication. KAV actually licences to F-Secure so I would recommend the end user go for F-Secure 2003/4 rather than KAV. The user gets the virii expertise of Kaspersky but a usable interface from F-Secure. F-Secure 2003/4 in online mode with signatures updated using automatic updating will be all the end user needs.

Vote goes to: F-Secure 2004 (the magazines went to Kaspersky)

Note the magazine tested F-Secure Internet Security 2004.

[G Ray88]

AVG works for me, plan to get the paid for version soon.:t

[BipolarBill]

Kapersky is positively strangling Outlook Express. I'm not liking it.

[G]

Yeah Bill I know what you mean.

KAV is very powerful but at the expense of ease of use, system resources and options interfaces that are so obtuse at times that it will leave novice users scratching their heads. In fact, there are on occasions so many options on offer that even the more technically-minded user will take a while to figure out what is going on. Do you agree Bill?

It is difficult to recommend KAV now. To darn ugly to use.

The script protection is a concern and I personally wouldn’t use it based on my testing. It causes all sorts of problems.

Like any software, it is worth testing in order to figure out the chaff from the wheat. KAV is not chaff however, just not mine or my systems cup of tea, so to speak.

Overall, I think F-Secure 2004 has the right mix – simplicity and power.

[BipolarBill]

Yup - Kapersky is very alien to me. I'm getting some odd "Delayed write failed" messages too.

AVG seems plenty effective and much easier to fathom.

[G]

Bill if you have GoBack enabled it is because the FIFO buffer is becoming corrupted - remember my client’s problem I solved some months back?

Well the delayed write errors will increase over time to the point where you will be constantly clicking on 'OK'.

If you have GB on I would revert your system prior to KAV and call it a day.

It may be that the revert GB process will not work now, or will be incomplete anyway. I hope you have a very resent Ghost image.

It’s a shame as KAV has a lot of promise.

[BipolarBill]

Actually, I think I jostled my IDE cable when I was putting a new fan on my video card (stopped turning - d'oh!).

[BipolarBill]

Funny - the "delayed write" errors ceased when I uninstalled AVG and Kapersky and then reinstalled NAV. Odd - a software error masquerading as hardware.

[G]

A GA and a knocked EIDE HDD cable are two more reasons for write delay errors. Mystery solved, which is good news but odd symptoms.

With F-Secure Workstation that is no longer available (I would probably go with F-Secure V2004) and stay with Symantec 2003 Pro as they use different scanner engines and approaches which compliment each other. With activation becoming more of an issue I may have to look for alternatives to Symantec products overtime (only use AV anyway). That was the idea behind testing KAV.

This is what I will be advising other, e.g., family, friends, clients and so forth.

See you later Bill. It has gone 6am and I have done this three days on the trot so I am off.

Bye

[_Mystical_Night]

I like norton antivirus because they update frequently

[Direct1]

Originally posted by _Mystical_Night
I like norton antivirus because they update frequently
Have your tried AntiVir Personal Edition (http://www.free-av.com/) -- it's free and they update usually every day (except weekends same as NAV). Good luck! :D

[G]

One major reason I find it difficult to recommend NAV is because the LiveUpdates are infrequent.

LiveUpdate was out by 7 days on my machine last week, yet the database D/L was almost current. This cannot be good news for the user. This simply helps propagate virii – user confidence for the wrong reasons.

I would not be surprised if the LiveReg update (3MB+) has been for this non-synchronisation reason.

[intimidator]

Originally posted by G
One major reason I find it difficult to recommend NAV is because the LiveUpdates are infrequent.

LiveUpdate was out by 7 days on my machine last week, yet the database D/L was almost current. This cannot be good news for the user. This simply helps propagate virii – user confidence for the wrong reasons.

I would not be surprised if the LiveReg update (3MB+) has been for this non-synchronisation reason.


Hmmmm...I have been using Norton 2003 Pro now for over a year & the LiveUpdate issue you describe did in fact happen to me, BUT only twice in a whole year. Both times I was off by seven days & each time it auto corrected itself. Not a real big deal & hardly a reason to not recommend. Is it really necessary for anti-virus to update more than once a week? Not IMO but to each his own.

I have been using AVG (both free & 7.0 Pro) for a few weeks now.
7.0 is a pain in the **** IMO, way to many options to mess with & not as light on the resources as 6. If you like to tinker than 7.0 is for you.

I like 6.0 free a lot. Very lean & simple. Wish it would auto update & only auto update.....(it will only update if you enable scheduled tasks, this also enables a once a day scan :mad:. Oh well, beggers can't be choosers. I only recommend running 6.0 free if you get the email add-on:

Personal E-mail Scanner

To support all e-mail program based on the POP3/SMTP protocols
a new program AVG EMS has been created. Download it:


http://www.grisoft.cz/beta/avgemc/avgemc_en.htm



Goback!

:eek:

Please tell me no one is using that god awful program? IMO it is responsible for more dead drives & more hosed OS's than you can shake a stick at!!!!

[G]

It is not my intention to act as provocateur but I must disagree with you entirely on both accounts. Nevertheless, you have your options, and I am sure they are valid for you, so I guess it is a matter of differing options on our parts.

I mentioned above, “One major reason I find it difficult to recommend NAV is that the LiveUpdates are infrequent.” Although the 7-day difference is infrequent and did update on the seventh day this is no agreement at all. Why? Simply because the number of pernicious virii in the wild makes updating the virii database as soon as the fix is available the best policy. F-Secure and Kaspersky do this so why not Symantec? Incidentally, the LiveUpdate is very frequently out by 2-3 days from their main downloadable database. They are one, if not the largest AV developer. Moreover, for the general population and this will include most inexperienced users, this is unacceptable. I would argue that Symantec’s inability to sort this synchronisation problem out is in fact part of the virii problem. Why? Simply because if the last fix to the last 0>7 days worth of virii are not covered then their propagation will be accelerated. Now one can ask if is this is by design or Symantec’s poor programming skills?

F-Secure updates occur as soon as a fix to the latest virus is available. Hence, their database is updated multiple times a day, where applicable. They do this so that their corporate clients have a secure system and faith in their AV software. This policy is carried over to their home AV programs too.

It is sort of like M$ only updating monthly now – of a fashion. It helps with the confusion many users have updating Windows but in turn it leaves systems possibly vulnerable for one month at a time.

If Symantec has the virii database online for downloading why is it LiveUpdate cannot update to the current database too. This is very unacceptable as virii become more prevalent and more pernicious. I cannot recommend Symantec under these conditions as a users main AV program. I still stand by what I have said in my previous posts.

Intimidator, if you use NAV 2003 Pro and are happy with the situation then ok.

Actually, as the main contributor on the GB forum I found that many problems were caused simply because the end user did not have an understanding of GB’s dominion over the MBR and in turn the problems that could arise from using FixMBR, FixBoot, FDISK /MBR, formatting or deleting the system partition and installing a new copy. Again, I must disagree. GB is a very powerful program that should be respected. Users need to understand the negative ramifications of their actions while GB is enabled and its limitations. I would say that GB has saved users many hours of troubleshooting. I have come across one system that seemed hosed by the FDISK /MBR approach and it took some time to find a solution but 5 minutes to fix. Under W2K I only enable GB while making major changes etc. For WinXP there are more reasons not to use it.

Again, as I mentioned, AVP was found not to detect all virii in the test sample. It is free so something is better than nothing.

Most hosted system are not hosed at all, with respect to GB, one simply needs to understand GB to fix the problem. I had to help a data recovery company that needed to know if editing the MBR with the correct system flag would be sufficient to recover the data from their secondary HDD. The answer to his question was very long but yes.

Unfortunately, Roxio found GB to hard to develop and sold out to Symantec and all my detailed replies have been lost – hundreds of hours worth.

Therefore, I will not be buying any thing from Roxio either if they sell their software to the highest bidder. Anyway, there are superior solutions to their products.

All the best,
G

[fishybawb]

Personally I despise NAV for the bloatware that it is, but each to their own. It's worth remembering that the whole AV industry thrives on paranoia and their customers' lack of knowledge. Viruses do not just leap out of the Internet and install themselves on your system (worms might, but that's a firewall's job to prevent) - you need to execute an infected program/document or access a floppy disk with an infected boot sector (more common in the "old" days). If you don't download files from dubious sources or run email attachments, your chances of being infected by a virus are next to zero. Instead of fretting over whether your virus definition file's two or three days old, go and have a beer or something :D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by fishybawb
Personally I despise NAV for the bloatware that it is, but each to their own. It's worth remembering that the whole AV industry thrives on paranoia and their customers' lack of knowledge.

Yup, the theory that AV companies write virii just to accelerate product sales is a common one and i wouldnt be suprised if it were true either

--Jakk:t

[G]

Fishybawb I am neither fretting or in need of a beer – well not until tonight that is. My comments are for everyone – whether they take my advice is entirely up to them but I think it is good to have a mature discussion on AV efficacy etc.

I do not go to dubious sites but I do receive attachments.

I run The Cleaner Pro V4+ online only with ZA web filtering so I am fine. My ‘point’ is that many inexperienced users will be going to dubious sites, will receive attachments (some will be infected) and it is this point that will propagate virii. Moreover, this affects everyone, as ISP’s are swamped by virii to disinfect (this is a fact), spam and an escalation of emails due to the virus’s payload intentions.

I do not need an AV program really, I am well aware of how to deal with most security threats.

Regardless of whether AV companies thrive on user paranoia, this does not mean that virii are not a problem to be dealt with sensible and systematically. Users have a responsibly to ensure they do not add to the problem and AV developers have a responsibility to serve their customers absolutely.

Thanks for your advice I will take it under advisement

[cdroman]

The problem with most AV software is that they only catch known (old) signatures and are not much use with a new (unknown) signature. IMO they should just be used as a back-up to software that works at multiple levels to prevent known or unknown from ever executing in the first place. That's my opinion of course and others will vary.:)

[davewuk]

Education, education, education!!

[fishybawb]

Originallt posted by G
Thanks for your advice I will take it under advisement

lol, mind if I steal that line? :)

Originally posted by cdroman
The problem with most AV software is that they only catch known (old) signatures and are not much use with a new (unknown) signature.

That's true, signature scanning naturally relies on static signatures to find in files. Back in the golden days of DOS, there was only one heuristic (looks for "virus-like" program code and traces code pathways) scanner called Thunderbyte. Nowadays most AV scanners include a heuristic element to deal with the large numbers of variants being produced, and will flag affected files as being infected by Suchandsuch (unknown variant). Virus source code is frequently published on the 'net, and it doesn't take much skill for some script kiddy to alter it slightly :rolleyes:

[cdroman]

Originally posted by fishybawb
lol, mind if I steal that line? :)



That's true, signature scanning naturally relies on static signatures to find in files. Back in the golden days of DOS, there was only one heuristic (looks for "virus-like" program code and traces code pathways) scanner called Thunderbyte. Nowadays most AV scanners include a heuristic element to deal with the large numbers of variants being produced, and will flag affected files as being infected by Suchandsuch (unknown variant). Virus source code is frequently published on the 'net, and it doesn't take much skill for some script kiddy to alter it slightly :rolleyes:

The heuristic element can be good but can be a detriment to someone that tries a lot of software. It can create a lot of false positives. The result being that many users will turn off or down the heuristics of an AV app.

[fishybawb]

Originally posted by cdroman
The heuristic element can be good but can be a detriment to someone that tries a lot of software.

It's not really got anything to do with the amount of software someone uses, but rather the structure of the code in those programs. Heuristics routines can follow program logic in a similar fashion to debugging software, to check for "suspicious" system calls or to compare the code layout to known viruses. The most impressive heuristic scanner around at the moment is probably NOD32 (http://www.nod32sweden.com/), which does a good job of spotting variants long before the competition find a signature for them. False positives are a drawback though, like you say. Still, better a false positive than not finding a virus at all :t

[cdroman]

Originally posted by fishybawb
It's not really got anything to do with the amount of software someone uses, but rather the structure of the code in those programs. Heuristics routines can follow program logic in a similar fashion to debugging software, to check for "suspicious" system calls or to compare the code layout to known viruses. The most impressive heuristic scanner around at the moment is probably NOD32 (http://www.nod32sweden.com/), which does a good job of spotting variants long before the competition find a signature for them. False positives are a drawback though, like you say. Still, better a false positive than not finding a virus at all :t

Very true.

I have my kids keep resident AV for the heuristics in case they d/l some variant baddy.
For myself, I like TPF which has different layers of protection and will prevent any trojan, worm etc. from executing or changing anything without my knowledge. I use AV scanners occasionally just to see if any nefarious code is anywhere on my system.:t

[comp_nut]

i just deleted anti virus program and i am not installing another
one any more they just suck plain and simple ,i couldn't even
log onto this site thats my rant other than that everything
is great

happy computing:t

[G]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishybawb
[B]lol, mind if I steal that line? :)


You may :D

[saimyc]

Originally posted by Direct1
Have your tried AntiVir Personal Edition (http://www.free-av.com/) -- it's free and they update usually every day (except weekends same as NAV). Good luck! :D

Hmm.........you are a pretty convincing group

I may have to try this

Does it work on linux (mandrake,redhat,SuSE) I recently got a hold of some older versions of each, never too old to learn

[BipolarBill]

Originally posted by saimyc
Does it work on linux (mandrake,redhat,SuSE) Afraid not. :(

[racz]

the best is e-trust antivirus.....work so fine with xp.....and download signatures automatically every day...
is better than mcafee, nav...for me...

lok... http://www.ca.com/

[thefossil]

After McAfee trashed my system just installing it (no, really, trashed... it took several hours of copying files from another computer just to be able to reINSTALL Windows, which I needed to do to get my system to BOOT at ALL to the desktop) I decided to try something else.

At the "office" we have NT4 Server on one of the systems (long story, we're just stuck with it, OK?) and trying to find AV software that a.) that worked in NT Server and b.) didn't cost more than all the computers in the office combined.

I found OnTrack Fix-It Utilities 4 on a closeout (it's now called V-Com Fix-It) and it updates everyday (when necessary) with the virus dujour and it works on EVERYTHING, including the aforementioned NT4 Server. Sure, it's really TrendMicro AV, but I don't care... it works, doesn't slow down our ancient systems while active scanning, and doesn't trash anything when installing.

It also comes with the usual laundry basket of "can't live without" utilities, but the only other one that I use occasionally is the Registry Cleaner, which actually lets me pick and chose what's going in the dumpster.

If you find 4 in the closeout bin for $29, I think you'll agree it's money well spent or maybe even try out the new version 5, you'll find its operation seamless and unobtrusive. All the 'reviews' are old ones, but you'll find it here:

http://www.v-com.com/product/fi_ind.html

[PH8]

Originally posted by thefossil
After McAfee trashed my system just installing it (no, really, trashed... it took several hours of copying files from another computer just to be able to reINSTALL Windows, which I needed to do to get my system to BOOT at ALL to the desktop) I decided to try something else...

Mcafee did WHAT??!! :eek::confused::eek:

Whoah, man. This is seriously 'not good news' for me...

What did I install today, hmmm? Yup, you guessed it: Mcafee VirusScan v8.0.

Am I in for a whole world of woes? :confused:

P.S. You guys seem to really know what you're on about (especially G). I wish I had have come here before my trip to the PC shop. Oh well...

[thefossil]

Maybe 8.0 will be better for you, I attempted to use 6.0 (about 2 years ago). I would strongly recommend backing up everything, even your windows setup before installing, that's all.

[PH8]

Originally posted by thefossil
Maybe 8.0 will be better for you

9 HRs 18 min

So far so good :cool::D:cool:

[saimyc]

this is a hard question, being I haven't tried many.

I use NAV mainly because I'm used to it, I also run spybot and ad-aware

once I scanned with NAV, and came up clean, then I ran ad-aware, and it open some files to scan then NAV detected a virus!

so I think you have to use a combination of things, but officially for this thread I'll say NAV

[Angelic Demon]

well, I have McAfee 7, and it's running good and smooth. =)

[thefossil]

Whoops! After posting that glowing report on V-Com Fix-It 4.0, they've decided to discontinue updates for it and are "encouraging" the upgrade to 5.0... oh well, I got 2 years out of it! I hope the new one works on NT Server!

[nadine]

:t Hi:IMHO "Nod32 "The best antivirus in whole the planet
cheers de nadine:t

[thefossil]

V-Com Fix-It 5 is free w/rebate(s) at CompUSA this week. I had already downloaded to to test it on my system at home. I'll pick up a couple more copies this week for the office. Just FYI

[jet.]

Another one hooked on AVG's antivirus. :t

[G]

My recommendation, under the same criteria as previously discussed, goes to Kaspersky Antivirus V5

http://www.kaspersky.com/personal at $49.95

Latest versions updates: Version 5.0.149.4
http://www.kaspersky.com/productupdates?chapter=146244099

Latest database: August 20, 2004 (up040820.zip, 70 KB)
http://www.kaspersky.com/avupdates


They guarantee, that if a new virus etc exists in the wild they will have a fix and update ready in 3 hours or less. Many of the many AV developers use Kaspersky’s engine and database, e.g., F-Secure.

In addition, the best firewall, for robustness and simplicity itself.

http://www.kaspersky.com/antihacker $39.00

Latest versions updates: Version 1.5.119
http://www.kaspersky.com/productupdates?chapter=146244114

[Aznmask]

AVG the best.. i love the interface.. used over 3yr.. no other anti-virus can replace it

[G]

In its freeware version AVG has a lot of respect, and rightly so, and the paid version is cost effective.

I do not agree that it is the best but if it works then problem solved.

:t