Windows Do I have too many anti-virus and firewall programs?

I currently run Comodo Firewall, Avast Antivirus, Ad-Aware and Super AntiSpyware on my pc.

Is this too much? Can Avast do all the jobs adaware and superantispyware do?

I don't understand much when it comes to the internet and virus protection.

Is a virus different to malware and spyware and do I need different programs or not?



Another thing I was wondering is whether comodo actually blocks any viruses or not?

I just visited a site and Avast blocked a "malacious threat" from entering my pc. This seems to happen quite often but I never get similar messages from the Comodo Firewall. It just seems to try its hardest at blocking my programs from installing.

Fair enough if it blocks viruses silently but for peace of mind it should tell me (maybe there is an option somewhere?).

Are these just viruses that are getting past my firewall?

P.s. If anyone could recommend the best possible FREE softwares to simultaniously run; In other words the best combination in their opinion. (I say free because I'm a student)

Thanks.

 

What is your operating system? I need to know so that I give you the best answer.

 

Vista Home Premium. 32-bit.

 

Ad-Aware and Super AntiSpyware are the same thing (I mean anti-spyware programs).
Microsoft security guidelines recommends to not have 2 of the same programs (like above) as conflicts will occur, and render both programs to be nothing more than HDD warmers, than be anti-spyware/virus/wtv security software is duplicated.

Vista and Win7 uses an advance firewall, that is just as good as any other free solutions out there.

My recommendations, is to remove all you "anti-whatever" programs (security programs) you have. And keep it simple.

- Enable Vista firewall (on by default) 0 It's good enough if you are behind any standard router.
- Use Microsoft Security Essentials (100% free, and available in 64-bit as well): http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/


Microsoft Security Essentials is not only non obstructive, but very easy to use, with it's very simple UI. Fully integrates with Vista/Win7 for the best experience. It's anti-spyware, anti-virus and anti-malware all-in-one solution. Very well received by all review sites, and presented itself as just as good as most free security programs available. And you know what's even better? It's fast... real fast.

 

Thanks for the reply. I don't get why there are so many products out there then if microsofts versions is fine. I always heard that the firewall was naff.
What protection do you use? The same?

Also, what would you suggest for XP Professional 32-bit? I'm running that on my aging laptop.

Thanks.

 

Firewall works fine especially if you've got a hardware firewall as well. Microsoft's just came out so there were loads of competitors beforehand all trying to do the same thing (But better than one another). I agree, MSE is very lightweight and provides great protection, plus I'm sure it won't screw up the OS like I've seen the others do because both are made by the same company.
That's for realtime scanning though, if you want to keep a secondary malware scanner that runs when you want to check something specifically, or if you think you've picked something nasty up, I like Malwarebytes' and SuperAntiSpyware. I don't keep them installed because I don't need them, but I would if I thought I had malware (and I use both of them on customers' badly infected PC's with great success).

 

I use Windows built-in firewall. I am behind a router of course. As I don't download anything from an untrusted source, nor install anything I find. I have no spyware removal software, or malware, not even virus protection life protection. I run them once every month. manually just to be safe.. since Vista I am proudly junk free. The same is for my laptop. One reason why I do this, is that I program (not professionally yet, still at university), and when I compile a project, I had my anti-spyware and anti-virus jumping and scanning my in compilation project.. which made compilation extremely long in comparison. Most inconvenient. Yes, I can exclude my projects, but it's still an annoyance.

However, when I build or configure computers, I use what I mentioned to you, and the users are very happy. Some people are even amazed by increase speed of their computer, when they passed from their heav, bulky protection software(s).

A 8 year old kid can make a mass virus under XP within a few days, mixed that with the oh so many problems of the OS, I officially don't help anyone who runs on XP. When Microsoft themselves that XP is NT 3 with so many patches that they their own developers can't find them-self (ok not exactly), and that a new OS re-write was required (which is Vista after 6 years in the works), this is when you know the situation is bad. Now, of course everything would have been fine because project Longhorn (Vista), was supposed to be out in 2003 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y), as Microsoft realized that: 1 - an OS is so complicated, that a re-write (and kernel modification) took more times than expected, and 2- very few people had the computation power to run the OS as you saw in the video above. Few had gaming GPU to run the UI, and they only had 64-bit version of the OS, where back then AMD was the only consumer market 64-bit CPU, and it cost ~1 500$ (yes you read correctly) to get one. So it was delayed, to a point where even when Vista was out, many didn't have the computational power to run it. Today, it is, of course, no longer the case, and about most people can run Vista/Win7.


Anyway, to answer to your question, I would get the best Anti-virus out there no mater the cost.

 

There is no such thing as 'the best anti-virus', as all of them excel at something, but don't do as well at something else. I use AVG free. It's not the best, but I'm careful where I go and what I download, so it works for me. If I do catch a nasty, it's my fault, and I reinstall. All my files are on different hdds so it's only programmes that need reinstalling. But make sure you only have ONE AV running on any pc, as 2 could prevent a pc from booting up.

 

so that microsoft security essentials package can replace my avast and no more avast or can I keep avast on my system too? I've been using avast for years without issues but I'm always up for trying new things, and if I can leave it on even better for me.

 

1 active anti-virus per system only.

 

would you recommend the microsoft security package over avast? I do a lot of downloading but I've never had anything harm my pc while using avast... should I just stick with that since it has worked for me?

 

Sure, and if you want to try Microsoft Security Essential (MSE) just to try, than go ahead, it's in 64-bit flavor. See how it runs, if you prefer MSE better than stay with it, else return to Avast.
Both Anti-virus showed to be equivalent in protection.. well nothing drastic. So they are very fine security protection software.

 

these kinds of threads make me laugh.. all need is uac and then run a vm with antivirus to check whatever your planning on installing (if your unsure) on your main

I dunno, I know I'm not helping XD and they wonder why machines are grinding to a halt.. 3 antivirus XD

rep goodbytes

oh should put in try comodo's system cleaner.. it works pretty well for a registry clean- better than ccleaner at least

 

registry cleaners/defrag are 100% useless. They are useful only for XP system and older, where the registry doesn't stay in the system RAM all the time, like it does in Vista/Win7. The only time you should use a registry cleaner is if you have a specific problem, for instead, a driver doesn't install properly, or a setup says that the product is already installed while it's not. Other than that, not worth it, especially the risk in breaking some software.

 

I use the same set-up as goodbytes OS is windows 7, windows firewall, Microsoft security ess, Spy-bot and Ccleaner to keep the crap down.

MSE is a very good anti-virus AV Comparitives have tested and it holds up very very well.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Avast is also good but i swapped out as MSE is much lighter. If you want a free all in one the latest Comodo is

 

yeah kinda agree with the registry clean.. I'm not a fan of ccleaner as it borks certain things.. comodo I know works as does vista manager (but this isn't freeware)

the defrag- if you've ever tried something like mydefrag http://www.mydefrag.com/

run the monthly script he has in there.. it makes a difference in boot/shutdown times- you only need to run it once and let windows handle the rest

 

Never had any issues with Ccleaner yet (fingers crossed). As for defraging i kinda get the feeling its just a money market, the best defragger i feel is windows own, ya it doesn't have this pretty GUI but it does the job great.

Talking windows 7 here though
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/20...d-engineering-the-windows-7-improvements.aspx

I also remember reading somewhere that with modern HD being the size they are that defragmenting is pretty much opsolete? Any views, maybe Bit-tech could do a piece on this?

 

Hmmm im actually pro-defragmenting.

I run win7 x64, with 3 HDD's and programs installed on two of them. When ive not defragmented, browsing files is slow, boot time is slightly slower too..but after defragmenting there is a noticable difference.

Thats using diskeeper.

 

I was talking about defraging the REGISTRY how useless it is.

 

for me its MSE and malwarebytes anti-malware as an on-demand scanner - stuff is picked up by one or the other.

the windows firewall is perfectly adequate nowadays.