Norton Internet Security - dont renew online

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

Ok then if they were better in reality, rather than just offering stuff that the vast majority of home users dont need, I should be infected continuously. Fact is I'm not so the free ones are just as capable of keeping me free from infection therefore are just as good as the paid versions.

What do I need a paid for version for if the free version keeps me just as infection free???

Well, for starters, if I were an Avira AntiVir user, I would certainly purchase the paid for version as the update server for their free version sucks.

Free versions also have limited (if any) technical support.

The fact is that both the free and paid for versions fill a certain niche. But trying to pretend that the free version offers everything the paid for version does is a bit odd, as its demonstrably not true.

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

Well, for starters, if I were an Avira AntiVir user, I would certainly purchase the paid for version as the update server for their free version sucks.

I would suggest moving to MSE or avast if it bothers you that much I did.

Free versions also have limited (if any) technical support.

Support generally given over an 0845/0870 number. Besides thats what we're here for!

The fact is that both the free and paid for versions fill a certain niche. But trying to pretend that the free version offers everything the paid for version does is a bit odd, as its demonstrably not true.

No ones pretending anything of the sort.

What is demonstrably true is that the free ones protect just as good as the paid for ones. The free ones aren't second rate AVs they just dont have stuff like firewalls, spam filters, email scanners (some do), donations to german foundations, priority updates (some do), rescue CD creation, etc. Things the home user can get for free else where if they want them.

kwikbreaks

asininity wrote: »

Ok then if they were better in reality, rather than just offering stuff that the vast majority of home users dont need, I should be infected continuously.

Precisely.

In all the time I've had an internet connection I've had one machine infected and that was running in the DMZ. It got hit with a buffer overflow exploit that MS had known about for over a year but hadn't put the patch in the update cycle for some reason. The AV reported it but couldn't stop it. The machine had nothing of value on it and I simply restored it from a backup.

The best AV of all is using some common sense although I wouldn't advocate running without a software AV too.

A domestic router firewall is good enough for the level of attack likely to be met by any home ADSL connection.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

I would suggest moving to MSE or avast if it bothers you that much I did.

I use MSE on my Windows PCs, and I also recommend it to others.

No ones pretending anything of the sort.

What is demonstrably true is that the free ones protect just as good as the paid for ones. The free ones aren't second rate AVs they just dont have stuff like firewalls, spam filters, email scanners (some do), donations to german foundations, priority updates (some do), rescue CD creation, etc. Things the home user can get for free else where if they want them.

So they're still not the same. I'm not saying the free ones are second rate, but the paid-for ones aren't a total waste of money either.

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

So they're still not the same. I'm not saying the free ones are second rate, but the paid-for ones aren't a total waste of money either.

They are if you dont want/need the extra "features" which as already mentioned are free elsewhere then yes they are a waste of money. I wonder how many people will use those extras or whether they just want an AV.

jbreckmckye

Marty_J wrote: »

Here's what the free version of Avira AntiVir lacks:

So, the free version lacks:
- The webguard that Firefox and Chrome can provide
- The 'Drive by' protection that Firefox and Chrome can provide
- The bootdisc tools that other, free utilities provide, and better
- The email protection that common sense offers
- Marginally faster updates
- The firewall offered elsewhere
- The game mode that 96% of users will never need
- And nothing that MSE would not provide

Is that really enough to justify the cost? I'm unconvinced.

asininity

Email scanning isnt really that important anyway since the AV will pick it up if you try to open it.

Stompa

Marty_J wrote: »

Well, for starters, if I were an Avira AntiVir user, I would certainly purchase the paid for version as the update server for their free version sucks.

It did for a while, though downloading a manual update aways worked fine. However, they seem to have resolved the problems a few weeks ago, and I've not had it take longer than a few seconds lately.

Stompa

asininity wrote: »

Email scanning isnt really that important anyway since the AV will pick it up if you try to open it.

I'd have thought most ISP's scan before it reaches you anyway - though of course there's nothing wrong with a second line of defence.

Marty_J

jbreckmckye wrote: »

So, the free version lacks:
- The webguard that Firefox and Chrome can provide
- The 'Drive by' protection that Firefox and Chrome can provide
- The bootdisc tools that other, free utilities provide, and better
- The email protection that common sense offers
- Marginally faster updates
- The firewall offered elsewhere
- The game mode that 96% of users will never need
- And nothing that MSE would not provide

Is that really enough to justify the cost? I'm unconvinced.

That's up to the individual. Many people happily pay money for Windows when all they do is use their computer to surf the web and play on Facebook - something they could do just as well in any free Linux distro.

Just because you can get something similar for free, it doesn't mean you're a chump for paying for it.

And anyhow, if you like Avira AntiVir, you should be very thankful that some people pay for it, or else it wouldn't around very long.