What Is The Cheapest, Lightweight, Antivirus Software
WindowsPro
Senior Member
So! you actually think that malware shows itself like they did in the late 90´s?
Today you do not notice them untill they have encrypted your files etc.
And by the way! What do you mean with "REAL" malware or viruses???
do you Believe in FAKE viruses..
"So! You actually think that malware shows itself like they did in the late 90´s?"
Hi
I haven't had an intrusion beyond cookies for years, I have had many things blocked. Of the things detected by Malwarebytes, none were detected by Microsoft's built-in Defender, or Hitman-Pro for that matter. My files have not been encrypted, and I haven't had a blue screen, or any other problems.
I attribute it to Malwarebytes Pro because my friend haven't been so lucky.
I usually go to their place with Malwarebytes on a disk to fix their computer for them.
If you are suggesting taking no precautions to each his own, there are many packages that appear to be more of a virus than the Virus itself.
Malwarebytes does not slow my computer as far as I can detect.
I still keep a System Image file and extensive off computer backups just in case.
Mike
Hi
I haven't had an intrusion beyond cookies for years, I have had many things blocked. Of the things detected by Malwarebytes, none were detected by Microsoft's built-in Defender, or Hitman-Pro for that matter. My files have not been encrypted, and I haven't had a blue screen, or any other problems.
I attribute it to Malwarebytes Pro because my friend haven't been so lucky.
I usually go to their place with Malwarebytes on a disk to fix their computer for them.
If you are suggesting taking no precautions to each his own, there are many packages that appear to be more of a virus than the Virus itself.
Malwarebytes does not slow my computer as far as I can detect.
I still keep a System Image file and extensive off computer backups just in case.
Mike
WindowsPro
Senior Member
This thread is about the cheapest lightweight antivirus-software and as you all can see here: Test antivirus software for Windows 10 - April 2020
Malwarebyte premium ONLY GET MEASLY 4 as score in performance test.. thus beeing Everything BUT lightweight.. (6 is most lightweight, while lower scores are slowing your computer more and more ..) So malwarebytes is NOT anything any one should even mention in this thread..
And this also shows the Power of "sugarpills", If you strongly beleive there is not issues, then you often turn "the blind Eye" towards any actual issues..
So by showing FACTS (by well known test organisation av-test.org) malwarebytes premium is way to Heavy for any computer, and whats even worst..
As being a security software malwarebytes premium has the SECOND LOWEST PROTECTION SCORE OF THEM ALL!
Thus meaning Malwarebytes premium is not only slowing your computers to a halt, (even though you dont know) its NOT giving you a satisfactory protection either, The test resaults show its more a scam than an actually working antivirus software, compared to the others.
NOTE! Even F-secure and Kaspersky gets full score in both performance and protection!
Back to the thread..
If you want security that is lightweight (=not installing any extra softwares at all) the perform the SUPERSIMPLE windows 10 installation that implements the tweak: "One tweak can make your Windows PC virtually invulnerable" and THAN ads alot more like making sure all the securityfeatures IN Windows 10 actually works..
Last edited:
All I know is that I haven't been infected by Anything for over 10 years, Windows Defender never captured anything and Malwarebytes has no negative effects on the performance of my computer, nor does it act like a virus itself fighting any effort to control how it acts.
I have 3 computes on my package so it is cheap, and I see no indication that it doesn't work, at least it does something which is more that I can say for other things I've tried.
Things like Norton and McAfee are resource hogs and almost impossible to get rid of if you want to stop using them.
What's more Malwarebytes has proven its ability to repair an infected computer many times "Without Fail" repairing the computers of acquaintances who have had their computer infected while using other anti malware programs.
Most of all to me, who does 3D animation the fact that it isn't a drag on my computer is a big factor.
I don't want anything that slows my computer down.
I'm not going to gamble on anything I have no experience with, when I have a proven application that I've used for many years and still works fine.
And you yell too much!
I have 3 computes on my package so it is cheap, and I see no indication that it doesn't work, at least it does something which is more that I can say for other things I've tried.
Things like Norton and McAfee are resource hogs and almost impossible to get rid of if you want to stop using them.
What's more Malwarebytes has proven its ability to repair an infected computer many times "Without Fail" repairing the computers of acquaintances who have had their computer infected while using other anti malware programs.
Most of all to me, who does 3D animation the fact that it isn't a drag on my computer is a big factor.
I don't want anything that slows my computer down.
I'm not going to gamble on anything I have no experience with, when I have a proven application that I've used for many years and still works fine.
And you yell too much!
Having a computer magazine to test antivirus and anti malware software and they don't create all forms of attacks on computers. I went to a website that has ebooks and magazines. Malwarebytes blocked websites that was marked as fraudulent and risk ware when l was looking at ebooks to download. My antivirus didn't notice anything and took no action when l was on a ebook website. Malwarebytes Premium does it's job very well. I no longer use Kaspersky because of it's ties to Russian government.
Sent from my LM-Q720 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LM-Q720 using Tapatalk
I always recommend checking out this site for in-depth reviews for EPP (endpoint protection platforms). AV-Comparatives | Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software
WindowsPro
Senior Member
The trouble with PC matic is that it has ALOT of FALSE POSITIVES (that mean it says that clean and healthy software are malware)
Check out the: USERABILITY part of this test: Test PC Matic PC Matic 3.0 for Windows 10 (201618)
" False detections of legitimate software as malware during a system scan " is a whopping 19 to 21 false detections (1 or 2 are somewhat OK)
" False blockages of certain actions carried out whilst installing and using legitimate software" finds a similar 5 false positives..
(Exactly what the test in your link told you!)
Both these are many more than needed.. And in the long run people will not trust this software at all.. due to the many false positives...
philsmithstrong
New Member
You can get the most information on which antivirus to choose, when you take a look at sites that use information from independent labs. There are a few labs that test all the best known antivirus software. These labs are AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, SE Labs and there are a few more. According to AV-Test, the one that doesn't take almost any toll on your computer is Avira. But it doesn't offer the best security. If you're looking for good performance figures with 100% protection you shold opt for Norton. Check out this comparison of Bitdefender vs Norton. All the figures there are from independent labs and show every aspect that is important when choosing antivirus software.
pratibha91
New Member
There is plenty of antiviruses available in the market. As windows default antivirus, Windows Defender is the best fit for your windows but if you really want to go for pro features then I recommend using AVG and Systweak Antivirus software, on personal experience. But I like systweak antivirus most because of its support service. For free version I recommend to use Windows Defender.
WindowsPro
Senior Member
I´m afraid that webroot is no loger any good: https://selabs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/jan-mar-2021-home.pdf
In this test by SELABS webroot only shows 95% in total accuracy rating (The only that is even worse is Malwarebytes premium at 91%)
At page 6 you will learn that some AV´s simply does not protect well enough and that thos with lower percentage are those that let malware run without stopping it, untill later (Like webroot and Malwarebytes)
"The graph below takes into account not only each product’s ability to detect and protect against threats, but also its handling of non-malicious objects such as web addresses (URLs) and applications. Not all protections, or detections for that matter, are equal. A product might completely block a URL, which stops the threat before it can even start its intended series of malicious events. Alternatively, the product might allow a web-based exploit to execute but prevent it from downloading any further code to the target. In another case malware might run on the target for a short while before its behaviour is detected and its code is deleted or moved to a safe ‘quarantine’ area for future analysis.
We take these outcomes into account when attributing points that form final ratings. For example, a product that completely blocks a threat is rated more highly than one that allows a threat to run for a while before eventually evicting it. Products that allow all malware infections, or that block popular legitimate applications, are penalised heavily"
Webroot is still a good option. It works a bit differently than more traditional protections. They capture most threats pre-execution or at execution. They have unique capabilities tied to their bright cloud AI service that will journal activity for anything that isn't classified as either safe or out right malicious. When the analysis comes back if it's deemed malicious all the journaled activity is rolled back and the system is back to a clean state. This includes ransomware operations.
WindowsPro
Senior Member
That must be stuff you repeat from their marketing... The tests above shows they are not at all as good as other AV´s, and even AV-tests own tests shows that webroot NEVER have had any protection worth mentioning Test antivirus software Webroot
Conclution: Everyone should avoid webroot as an antivirusprotection...
It's not marketing material and furthermore basing your opinion on a single web site isn't adequate research to declare a product good or bad.
Due to Webroots detection which for the most part happens in in their cloud normal testing methods don't work or return poor results.
Due to Webroots detection which for the most part happens in in their cloud normal testing methods don't work or return poor results.
WindowsPro
Senior Member
NO! You are wrong! First of all it was not just ONE testresault that was lousy for webroot, Selabs was ONE, Av-tests was many different tests during many years.. All with poor peotection..
And they do not care HOW the hadling of malware is done.. They all measure the RESULTS..
Webroots results (just like malwarebytes) was TERRIBLE! They both let way to many malware run without beeing popelry handled!
I´m sorry! If you sell this to your clients, then concider selling better working protection..
I don't have clients and I'm not a sales person and you're free to believe what ever you like. Most traditional end point protection suites rely on signatures, heuristics and some NX products are now shifting to machine learning. Using these types of techniques most endpoint protection focuses on preventative protection which is great, but also rely on the local machine to handle and process everything and if a detection is not triggered that code is free to run. This is also why many products utilize more local resources. Webroot's approach is to still do preventative protection which is certainly not as good as products that focus on these methods, but also to send code to their cloud and do behavior analysis on said code to determine intent. Because of this significantly different approach to protection traditional tests will either not work or show poor results. There are numerous articles on the web including those from many product testing sites that will confirm this.
Similar threads
