best paid antivirus software

[phren]

previously, i went with lot of antivirus software for free, but i didn't controlled whole my system without virus free.....so, now i want to have a best antivirus software to my windows 7 OS for my personal and important document data. so, i want to go with Bitdefender Antivirus latest edition. is it good or not...?

sysadmin here .. simple answer - microsoft essentials /win8.1 has it integrated with a malware protection/ is most best solution.

beside that - Malwarebytes is A MUST

[Replica]

Can't believe it hasn't been said yet, but Kaspersky.
No joke, its ridiculous the amount of protection that comes with this program.

If you don't want to pay a yearly sub - malware bytes

[Primernova]

Most good games are online, thus you can't pirate. And if you did go pirate ones that aint online, you would most likely need to disable anti-virus to install them

Games, movies or any software pirated by torrents.

It's all shit, and why PC users are considered shit by everyone that makes them, and rightly so.

[Xixillia]

sysadmin here .. simple answer - microsoft essentials /win8.1 has it integrated with a malware protection/ is most best solution.

beside that - Malwarebytes is A MUST

Whats the difference between microsoft security essentials and malewarebytes, I thought these things were all the same.

[Illiterate]

Nod32 or kaspersky.

I recommand the Internet Security Suite, for it contains many features that you will need: antispam, firewall, game mode, etc

You don't need any of this, it's just unnecessary bloat. It can easily be replaced with a bit of common sense.

[glo]

This entire thread is full of anecdotal evidence and perceived superiority based entirely on opinion. If you want to see how they all stack up against each other, you can head on over to AV Comparatives for extensive 0day testing, performance testing, heuristics, etc.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Which AV is best all around, including free and paid solutions? Kaspersky and BitDefender by a mile. Panda comes close, but has a much higher performance impact.

Which AV is worst? Vipre and Microsoft, by a massive margin. Their heuristics and infection rates are absolutely horrendous.

What should you install if you're willing to pay for a large feature set with next to no performance impact? BitDefender or Kaspersky.

What should you install if you don't want to pay? BitDefender Free or Panda. Panda has a better feature set on their free version, but has a higher performance impact. BitDefender has almost no performance impact but only includes the absolute essentials (AV + Web Filter).

[fixx]

Best free programs have reached the point where they're better than mediocre paid programs, and even the best paid programs can't do shit against zero-day OS vulnerabilities. The dirty secret of whole AV industry is that home users gain nothing from giving them any money.

[BruceG87]

Which AV is best[/B] all around, including free and paid solutions? Kaspersky and BitDefender by a mile. Panda comes close, but has a much higher performance impact.
-snip

What should you install if you're willing to pay for a large feature set with next to no performance impact? BitDefender or Kaspersky.
-snip

Kaspersky was definitely a top contender, about 2-3 years ago. In the recent years, their reputation has been damaged by a slew of issues ranging from performance impact to effectiveness in comparison to other options (including free options).

I'm still surprised that no one talks about it on these forums all too often, but Webroot is arguably one of the best solutions on the market(and has been for the past two years) that boasts a large feature set and such fractional performance impact that one would argue it is non-existent.

In fact, nothing on the market comes close to how minute Webroot while maintaining effective protection. Personally, I bought a package deal via amazon for $20. I find it's great as I can manage applications on my friends/family pc's from my own home or phone.

Still, for most MSE is more then enough. Of course, no AV will save a user willing to click anything.

[Acelius]

I've been pretty satisfied with a program called Bullguard. Good protection, easy to navigate and somewhat cheap as well.

[vickyjohn]

Kaspersky is always the best paid antivirus software.

[glo]

Kaspersky was definitely a top contender, about 2-3 years ago. In the recent years, their reputation has been damaged by a slew of issues ranging from performance impact to effectiveness in comparison to other options (including free options).

I'm still surprised that no one talks about it on these forums all too often, but Webroot is arguably one of the best solutions on the market(and has been for the past two years) that boasts a large feature set and such fractional performance impact that one would argue it is non-existent.

In fact, nothing on the market comes close to how minute Webroot while maintaining effective protection. Personally, I bought a package deal via amazon for $20. I find it's great as I can manage applications on my friends/family pc's from my own home or phone.

Still, for most MSE is more then enough. Of course, no AV will save a user willing to click anything.

This is a fine example of anecdotal evidence and unfounded opinion, nothing you stated is backed up by reputable sources. I provided the most well respected source of AV lab tests, care to provide your own backing up your claims?

[BruceG87]

This is a fine example of anecdotal evidence and unfounded opinion, nothing you stated is backed up by reputable sources. I provided the most well respected source of AV lab tests, care to provide your own backing up your claims?

The term anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, though I think you'll agree with me on that.

Just when I was about to back my statement with appropriate sources as far as statistics and reviews over the past 3 years reflecting on both Kaspersky, Webroot and other top contenders.. I realized you had in fact edited your post to include a single link, but did so after I responded.

So, rather biting on that poor bait and switch, which was in pretty poor taste, I will leave you with this..

Your reputable source is missing several viable and excellent options that have been on the market for a while. It's hard to be the end all of knowledge when you exclude so much of the competition.

EDIT - Oh, and your reputable source reflects that some AV solutions haven't been reviewed since 2012. A lot can change in a year, let alone nearly three.

[glo]

The term anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, though I think you'll agree with me on that.

Just when I was about to back my statement with appropriate sources as far as statistics and reviews over the past 3 years reflecting on both Kaspersky, Webroot and other top contenders.. I realized you had in fact edited your post to include a single link, but did so after I responded.

So, rather biting on that poor bait and switch, which was in pretty poor taste, I will leave you with this..

Your reputable source is missing several viable and excellent options that have been on the market for a while. It's hard to be the end all of knowledge when you exclude so much of the competition.

Yeah, I must have traveled back in time 6 hours to make that edit after your post. You can quite easily take note of the timestamp on the edit which was a whopping 3 minutes after my post.

Further, if you dig through their archives, you can see when they drop coverage of different vendors when they fail to meet certain thresholds. Lastly, you have failed to provide any reputable source for your claims.

[lloose]

I used to use NOD32 but took a break and use Microsoft Security Essentials for a few years. I just did the 30 day trial on the new NOD32 and I really don't think its that great anymore. I'm using Avast and would upgrade if there was something I wanted from their paid package. I don't need internet security, just a good antivirus and Avast gives full functionality from their antivirus for free.

[Twoddle]

This is a fine example of anecdotal evidence and unfounded opinion, nothing you stated is backed up by reputable sources. I provided the most well respected source of AV lab tests, care to provide your own backing up your claims?

Certainly not respected by me, those tests are flawed in the extreme. Firstly you have to read essays of bullshit text just to see how they arrive at their statistics and it seems they include attacks on unpatched systems and malware that is purposely run by people double clicking on dodgy executables in their junk email attachments! Of course you can make an anti-virus get as high of a rating in these artificial tests as you are willing to get.

If you were to do a so-called "real world test" on my computer you would find that running no anti-virus program at all would actually come top of those charts. Why? Because I don't run viruses! It's not rocket science.

[glo]

Certainly not respected by me, those tests are flawed in the extreme. Firstly you have to read essays of bullshit text just to see how they arrive at their statistics and it seems they include attacks on unpatched systems and malware that is purposely run by people double clicking on dodgy executables in their junk email attachments! Of course you can make an anti-virus get as high of a rating in these artificial tests as you are willing to get.

Yeah, typically when you have reputable sources with consistent testing, they provide their methodology in detailed form. Welcome to the world of accurate and proven testing, deal with it. Further, you're ranting on about one of their eight or so labs. I suppose you're just ignoring the rest. File detection is but a small factor in their overall security ratings, perhaps you could take the 2 minutes required to read their summary reports and other quarterly tests.

If you were to do a so-called "real world test" on my computer you would find that running no anti-virus program at all would actually come top of those charts. Why? Because I don't run viruses! It's not rocket science.

Yeah, I'm sure your "all you need is common sense" approach will work wonders when you get hit with drive by malicious javascript on a reputable site, malicious ads, etc. You're browsing and posting on mmo-champ right now, are you seemingly unaware of the last three times this site has been compromised? Will your common sense spidey senses magically detect that this site or others are compromised before you visit?

[Raphtheone]

In my experience, having a proper firewall far outweighs any antivirus program in terms of security. Naturally depends on what you do with your computer, if you download and install a lot from unverified sources antivirus is the way to go, otherwise, if nothing can get in there's nothing to scan for.

[Twoddle]

In my experience, having a proper firewall far outweighs any antivirus program in terms of security. Naturally depends on what you do with your computer, if you download and install a lot from unverified sources antivirus is the way to go, otherwise, if nothing can get in there's nothing to scan for.

Professional firewalls for the average user are quite cumbersome. Thinking you're OK installing from unverified sources just because you have an anti-virus installed is rather naive.

[DiscoGhost]

i've used norton for 6 years+ and never had any problems, ever.

[Layuth]

Panda Antivirus actually used to be malware back in the day. I don't trust a company that originally started as the thing its supposed to protect against.

Almost every "big" anti-virus software company has been known to write viruses for their product to cure. Including Norton and McAfee.