multiple licence programs

[piggybank]

My antivrus program expires in 60 days. I plan to buy a 3 licence version next time as we have a few computers round the house. If just one computer gets the AV program installed, does the other two licences start their 'count-down' at the same time despite not being installed?

[le Pingouin]

Usually it's just one license that's authorised for three PCs so it's the entire license that is activated & expires at the end of the subscription. i.e. you don't get different expiry dates on each PC.

[Frelon]

Buy a licence!!!!!

Why not do as many thousands of people do and use one of the excellent free products?

[Tarq57]

Avast, Microsoft Security Essentials, Avira....

[piggybank]

le Pingouin

Thanks for that. It was maybe hoping for too much to get different dates as two of the computers have a while to run, buying another laptop this week.

The price difference between one licence and three is in this case double, so its a worthwhile saving.

Ref use the free antivirus programs. I did for years and think I get a bit extra for paying for it. I use Kapersky and when it hit a hard to move Trojan, it downloaded a one time cleaner which did the job. I have never had that service with a free program.

[Mike-Bracknell]

le Pingouin
Ref use the free antivirus programs. I did for years and think I get a bit extra for paying for it. I use Kapersky and when it hit a hard to move Trojan, it downloaded a one time cleaner which did the job. I have never had that service with a free program.

You won't get that service with many paid-for AV programs either.

[mixture]

Why not do as many thousands of people do and use one of the excellent free products?

Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. There are many good things you get with a paid program that you never get with a free one.

[hellsbrink]

Like what, Mixture?

[mixture]

hellsbrink,

Like having the commercial incentive to provide a good product, there is no such incentive if you're just pushing out free stuff.

Having a commercial product means you have to invest time in R&D, QA,providing support and responding quickly to new threats. Otherwise the ruthlessly competitive environment of the commercial world will eat you for breakfast.

This fact is supported by the independent comparatives, the top three products of 2010 were all commercial, with the top two scoring the highest ADV+ rating across all 7 categories (AVIRA and F-Secure, with F-Secure being eventually named product of the year), closely followed by Symantec (NOT the same thing as Norton !) came a close third, with ADV+ in 6 and ADV in 1 test.

Avast only scored 3 ADV+ and 3 ADV, which, whilst respectable, is nowhere near the quality of its commercial rivals, putting it in 5th place. Plus you don't get any of the commercial backing mentioned above.

I think that says it all.

[hellsbrink]

You say that, but it's only true to an extent. Pretty much all of the "free" products have a full-price "suite" you can buy and which has the "commercial backing". You also have the full helldesk experience too, if you want. The free ones also have full online help and, in some cases, phone support too. You see, most of the "free" stuff is being sent out as a loss-leader in the hope you like the product and pay for the "full" version, it can have the same backup, etc, and "response time", "r&d", etc as a "full price" version.

So, to try and say that you somehow have a "better" product because you paid through the nose for it is, at best, naive and, at worst, a downright lie, especially as the Avira product you mention is also a fully-functioning FREE antivirus. Oh, it also depends on the reviews as they are all different so you cannot make your claim regarding the "top 3" like you have done.

Oh, please don't try to insult our intelligence by saying Symantec is not Norton is not Symantec, etc, etc, etc. They are the same company and, for the purposes of most of the people here, "Norton by Symantec" (indeed, many reviews state the full name as "Symantec Norton blahblahblah") is the product they will use as they do not need "endpoint protection" and, in all honesty, that hasn't had the best reviews, especially for something that can cost $500+.

[mixture]

hellsbrink,

I don't have the time to sit down and write you a War & Peace novel on why life is not that simple.

With F-Secure, for example, one of the things you are paying for is multiple integrated engines in one product. That is why it has a much better detection rate and they are much quicker at responding to outbreaks.

So, to try and say that you somehow have a "better" product because you paid through the nose for it is, at best, naive and, at worst, a downright lie,

It's not naive and it's not a lie. But since you are evidently not in the mood to listen, I'm not going to explain.

I'm not saying the free stuff is abysmal and should never be used, some of it is ok.... but it will never beat the commercial stuff.

Symantec is not Norton is not Symantec, etc, etc, etc. They are the same company and, for the purposes of most of the people here, "Norton by Symantec" (indeed, many reviews state the full name as "Symantec Norton blahblahblah")

Unfortunatley you don't know what you're talking about.

Symantec's range of products for businesses is chalk and cheese from the Norton branded stuff.

It's like HP and their Compaq brand

Cisco and their Linksys brand.

NOT the same thing, no shared intellectual property or anything else.

They are not comparable. To paraphrase you, to think so is naive and to tell others that they are the same thing is a downright lie.

[Tarq57]

The av-comparatives test only tests the paid for versions of AVs.
I've been following the various tests they do every three months or so, for a few years.
Top, second, and third spot rotate around regularly, often in a short period, and often with a very few percentage points separating the leaders from the also-rans.
At times I've seen Avast, or Avira in top spot, at times Norton, other times Kaspersy, Nod32, or F-secure. Point is, it's a tight game, and placement doesn't actually mean that much. Top spot moves every quarter. If not in one aspect, then another. (Scan time, false positives, prevention, removal etc.)

The important thing, though, regarding the following, is that only commercial, or paid for versions of AV's are tested.

The free version of Avast uses the same engines, (yes, engines) and database as the paid one. I'm not sure about the present, but in the past the databases and/or the effectiveness of some of the other free versions was not as good as the paid for alternatives.

So, I'm using the free one, and feel pretty protected, having not had malware for at least three years.

[le Pingouin]

The free version of Avast uses the same engines, (yes, engines) and database as the paid one. Other free ones usually partly cripple these aspects. Avast's approach is to reduce the number of features available with the free one, (firewall, etc) compared to the paid.

So, I'm using the free one, and feel pretty protected, having not had malware for at least three years.

I can't speak for the other free ones. Haven't tested them.I very much doubt any of them "cripple" the engines or databases for their free versions otherwise users will think the brand is crap & not pony up for the paid version if they're so inclined. They follow the same route as Avast & offer fewer features. Avira certainly takes that route.

[Tarq57]

le Pingouin,

This used to be the case. As of recently, I am not sure, as I haven't done any comparisons for some time. I am now in the process of editing my post above.

[mixture]

The av-comparatives test only tests the paid for versions of AVs.


Nonsense. The good ones test both free and paid on the same AV (e.g Microsoft Security Essentials gets tested against the paid AV vendors).


(yes, engines)

Three words for you .... quality not quantity.


So, I'm using the free one, and feel pretty protected, having not had malware for at least three years.


Sure, and it's equally possible not to have malware for years if you don't run any AV, take a suitably cautious approach to your computing and wave a dead chicken over your computer once a month.

However because your average home user doesn't understand the importance of not running as admin, being careful with attachments etc. etc. then they need a form of AV and so yes, I guess a freebie is a case of "something is better than nothing".

As I said before, I'm not saying all the free vendors are rubbish .... I'm saying that the quality varies greatley and that even the best are not rated as highly as the best commercial ones.

[Tarq57]

Three words for you .... quality not quantity.
Well, you were the one who raised the concept of multiple engines. I merely emphasized the fact that it isn't limited to paid-for AV's.

The main site I have examined (av-comparatives) tests paid-for versions.
I don't know about other testing sites, so I defer to your knowledge on that one.

I've never had to wave a chicken over the computer to prevent malware. (Nor do I have good luck charms hanging from the rear view mirror in the car.)