AVG Internet Security v8.5 (paid version): An Insufficient Evolution of What You Can Get For Free
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: 2009, antivirus, test | Themes: Software
- 1. One-Stop Comparison for 14 Anti-Virus Titles
- 2. Anti-Virus Basics
- 3. Comodo Internet Security v3.8: The Newbie
- 4. Avira Antivir Personal Free Edition v9.0.0386: The Best of the Freebies
- 5. Clamwin Free Antivirus 0.94.1: Open Source Protection Software
- 6. Avast! 4.8 Home Edition Free: The Classic
- 7. BitDefender Total Security 2009: A Balanced Choice
- 8. F-Secure Internet Security 2009: A Disappointment
- 9. Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet Security Pro 2009: A Reasonable Option
- 10. McAfee Internet Security 2009: Very Complete
- 11. Norton Antivirus 2009: The Choice For Ease and Simplicity
- 12. Panda Global Protection 2009: An Outsider Who’s Left In The Dust
- 13. G-Data Total Care 2009: The Heavy Weight Of Security
- 14. ESET Smart Security 4 (Nod32 Antivirus 4): A Positive Evolution
- 15. Kaspersky Antivirus 2009: A Half-Colored Version
- 16. AVG Internet Security v8.5 (paid version): An Insufficient Evolution of What You Can Get For Free
- 17. The Verdict
- 18. The Test Protocol
- 19. More on this topic
16. AVG Internet Security v8.5 (paid version): An Insufficient Evolution of What You Can Get For Free
After we tested the free version last year, we are interested this year in the latest paid-for edition from AVG.
Original Interface
The choice of layout for the icon functions are well done and, despite their increased number, you can easily find your way among the different functions. It’s not the clearest interface that we’ve encountered during this evaluation, but the attempt to graphically distinguish itself from the competition merits an "A" for effort.
The default settings are very good and the personalization functions are particularly interesting–the designation of the different settings is clear and you do not have to be a specialist in order to use them, which is a definite plus. It would be better, however, if password protection was added.
Insufficient Protection
Even though the detection engine gets respectable results during the analysis of the hard drive, certain formats still systematically pass through the filtering process. We must say here that, as one could probably guess, the free version did the same exact thing, but for free.
The resident protection is, on the other hand, almost as good as not being there at all. Although it is supposed to scan files whenever they are read, the software lets way too many infected files pass through while external media devices are attached. It can’t seem to get rid of the compressed files, and it doesn’t mark any infected email attachments, which is a unique feature among the paid-for software that we sampled.
Very Little Impact On The Operating System
AVG's operation does not handicap how well the computer works. The slowing down of Windows' start-up time is fairly negligible (+10%) and, although the duration of the scan is a bit long (38 minutes), the process does not demand much from either the processor or the memory. The uninstall process is also quite efficient and leaves very few traces behind on the machine (three keys in the register).
Conclusion
Despite an interesting evolution with regards to the functions of the free version, the 2009 edition from AVG is not very interesting with regards to the competition. Even though it is severely handicapped by a resident protection that is almost non-existent, the software's developers have put together a solid platform that they can improve in the future. This offering is not too expensive, has original graphics, and is not power-hungry, and it could have been competitive if its actual security features weren't so permeable.
- Previous page Kaspersky Antivirus 2009: A...
- Next page The Verdict
And here I thought AVG Free was the best free antivirus.
Kaspersky internet security/ anti-virus does not look like that.. what the heck
No NOD32?
What about Microsoft's own Oncecare
These guys sound like they don't know what they are talking about. They claimed that Avast skips text files even though "they are a classic refuge for malevolent programs." Text files cannot be executed and therefore cannot contain viruses. The pictures they have are different as well. In any case I am a happy user of Avast and prefer it to McAfee and Norton but have not tried the others.
the picture they use for Avast is with a different skin. You can switch the skin at anytime.
I m using avast home too. I think the scanning for HD is bit longer and taxing a lot on my P4 2.6. But its free..no complain...
what about Kespersky ??? lol so much missing good antivirus software
Spanish Kespersky = norman?
French... T_T?? not english there we go
KASPERSKY Ftw ...
what I used to like on Tom's site was the use of graphs... can't find any in this round up. More over how the can you judge resident scan performance just on start up time? What about disk R/W after all services have been initialized?
Anyway quite poor article
I use Norton NIS 2009, and have had problems that made me look for another. When I saw this article, I said "Great timing lol !"
Unfortunately, there is nothing in this article that inspires confidence in either the comparisons or the conclusions. There are comments about Norton that my personal experiences tell me are incorrect (at least in the US).
And, as said before, no tables, etc.
Very disappointing.
@Shadow703793: NOD32 is in page 14
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2009-a [...] 15-14.html
@romain_75: Kaspersky in page 15
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2009-a [...] 15-15.html
@shurcooL: So do I, use AVG for last 3 years thinking it was best one.
May be good time for change ...
eset smart security 4!!!and zone alarm extreme security 8
I'm very surprised to hear that Norton is not a resource hog. It is the reason I switched to free AV software like Avast and AVG. I'm not going back to Norton even if they paid me...OK I might consider it.
Why do you have pictures of Kaspersky on the page with AVG antivirus?
haha kapersky became norman.. avg became kepersky.. lol
Was this review bought or something? For Norton to get such a good review I am leaning towards it being bought. I mean c'mon, Norton not being a resource hog and stealing your system. How do you expect us to believe that?
Why not review Kaspersky Internet Security, instead of just the Antivirus, when the Internet Security package for other brands were reviewed?
Also, The KAV Internest Securitiy is $54.99 at Walmart. The review stated it was double.
I seriously have my doubts and found myself shaking my head after reading the reviews for several of the products in here.
I'm surprised you didn't give a "Best Value" award... I'd say for best value go with Trend Micro, for less than $20 you can get protection for 3 PCs for one year (Look online you will find it). I use it on all my computers and no complaints.