Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zevele10]

Here something i do not understand.
Let say you have antivirus version7 brand XZ
Today ,the last version is version 9.
If you keep the version 7 ,assuming of cause that you have acces to the virus update, are you protected the same?

Or ,tu put under another angle:
you have version 7 on a disc you got when buying motherboard. You have a 90 days updates free.
There is the version 8 out.

If you put the anti virus software on a clean install,starting over the 90 days free update,you get the same data of virus than with the new version?

[xen-uno]

Z...

The virus definitions are what enables the protection. So as long as older versions of the software are able to read current def's, then your A-OK. Of course, newer anti-virus exe's can do nothing but help.

10^-27

[nila]

with AV software, as long as you keep the virus definitions the same, you should be ok.

The only difference with new versions of the software SHOULD be that they provide new features, better stability, more compatibility etc.

As far as catching viruses goes, the old software should do it UNLESS they have invented new methods of detecting viruses that weren't in the previous versions.

The definitions only update the dictionaries used to say what defines a virus, it wont update detection methods.

[zevele10]

Thanks
I got the point.
You have just to check if new version has new ways to detect virus.
I use now PC-Cillin with a 90 days free update.
I like it  because both anti-virus and the firewall work without draging the performance of my computer.

But at $50 a year ,i do think it is a rip of. And ,by the way i think the same about any anti -virus software.
I do not mean they are to be free ,far from it ,by i feel they play with people fear to make prices hight.

I may just be back to Grisoft AVG .

[phelt]

In the case of antivirus software, there can be improvements in scanning/detection methods as well as the improvements mentioned above. AV definitions are just that - they have to be interpreted by the scanner. So if there have been program-level improvements, such as a 'smarter' heuristic algorithm, then it would probably be worth the investment for a new version.

But having said that, most AV programs are only worth version-upgrading every other version, IMO.

[KingSparta]

>> The only difference with new versions of the
>> software SHOULD be that they provide new features
well this is true in most cases

But

The enhancements to lets say Norton Antivirus this year is that it will block worms even before virus definitions are created for them.

it also scans for viruses in instant message attachments.

so the question is do you want to take a chance with an out dated virus program to protect you from new viruses

I would rather spend the money for an update.

[zevele10]

Thank you.
I still do not think the hight prices are right.
I will start again to use AVG.
I do not use outlook express ,do not download other things that mp3 from the web and do not use that much instant messager.
Well i do use Yahoo! messager but only with people on my list.
I never had any virus in years of intense surfing and downloads.
I Had a problem the very first days with Windows 2000.
But changed the settings.

In fact ,if not getting PC-Cilling on a disc when changing my motherboard i would still  be with AVG.
But ,again $ 50 a year look to me as a rip of