Windows anti-malware?

[vakkotaur]

Last weekend I got sistaur's computer into a reasonably useful state, but in doing so removed an (outdated) anti-virus program or two. Since it is Windows (XP), I suppose there ought to be some sort of anti-malware program. The problem is, I have no idea about that. I haven't had to deal with keeping Windows secure for some time.

So I am looking for recommendations. The anti-{adware,spyware,virus,whatever} should not drag system performance down noticeably, and would ideally be free. Any recommendations?

Comments

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I use Windows OneCare from Microsoft, which is neither free nor lagless (especially during weekly full-scan time, ugh). I do find it far preferable to Norton however, and Microsoft seems pretty good about sending out updates whenever there's an urgent patch needed.

If you can't find anything better, consider giving it a try.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I'll keep that in mind for something of last resort. I do recall that everytime I replaced a Microsoft program with something else (unless it was particularly egregious, as Norton/Symantec stuff is) things always worked better. How big are the updates? This machine is on dialup, when it has a net connection at all.

If I knew it would work out for sistaur, I would replace Windows entirely and solve the problem completely.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

The updates can be pretty large, it does all the WinXP service pack downloads and other OS updates. For dial-up, a different utility would probably be a better choice, if you don't mind missing security patches.

[rbradakis.livejournal.com]

I've recently started running AVG Anti-Virus - the free version. It's not too bad, so far. I had to get rid of the system-slowing Symantec AV software.

[yakko.livejournal.com]

Impeccable timing on an AVG replacement. I haven't been impressed with AVG 8, but the annoyance has been tempered by the fact that I fire up Windows only when I need it.

It's good to know that Spybot is still good.

[hakeber.livejournal.com]

Yes, we dumped AVG recently for Avast! as well. Not only did Avast! spot things AVG had missed, but it's much faster and it's updates are nearly invisible.

The free version of Ad-Aware is no longer updated. Hasn't been since last fall. I've gone and removed it from all the machines we have.

[thepita.livejournal.com]

I know KO's favorite is anti-vir...
and it's free

[invader-tak-1.livejournal.com]

the holy trinity of FREE Windows protection.

Free AVG antivirus,

Spybot search and destroy.

Spyware blaster "For stopping Malicious active X installers"

And if you feel like it, Adaware.

[hakeber.livejournal.com]

Adaware no longer updates, hasn't since last fall. The latest AVG is full of bloat. I've switched to Avast! and do still use Spybot.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

I run XP 64. I use AVG and Avast. Both are free.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Avoid Symantec/Norton. They literally eat up your resources.

I think AVG (available in a free version for individual use) is adequate for users who are reasonably thoughtful about their net behavior.

I find that there is nothing that provides adequate protection for the naive user who insists on clicking everything in sight and letting just anything that looks interesting be downloaded into their machine.

Of course you know that my opinion of Windows at this point is that the OS itself is a virus that is best exterminated and replaced with almost anything else. It's almost as if Windows were designed to be trojan-friendly.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The improvement from ditching Symantec/Norton was to reduce a 3 or 4 minute boot time (it was even worse before other cruft was dealt with!) to about 90 seconds. That's from pressing the power button to having a finished actually usable desktop - not the "it looks done but isn't" nonsense.

Fortunately sistaur has a healthy distrust of strange link and attachments, so even without anything for a while I'm just too concerned. I figure that it's Windows, so some insurance in case of accident or such is a good idea.

I quite agree. As mycroftb said, "A good chunk of improving Windows performance [...] is making sure there's less Windows there to perform. (http://vakkotaur.livejournal.com/453133.html?thread=1392397#t1392397)"* That has been my experience as well. If I knew for certain it wouldn't cause problems I'd install Linux even if as a dual-boot. As it is, I don't know if there is something that demands MS Word (only really a problem with tables, as I recall), or Excel, or if there is a WinModem or WinPrinter. Though I know there are LinModem drivers and WINE, I've never dealt with them. Nor have I dealt with Linux dialup, save on SmoothWall.

--
* This explains why WinCE or whatever it is named this week is often considered one of the best Windows version - there isn't that much of it, while Vista is among the worst - there's so much of it.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Winprinters I've managed to avoid. I'm using a Winmodem right now because it came in the machine. Most of them work in Linux, but you often have to compile and configure a driver for them.

Most MS-Office users can hardly tell the difference between that and OpenOffice. Ubuntu with KDE (ugh) can satisfy most, I find, even the most linux-phobic.

Windows (not Vista, not ME) can be made to behave reasonably, though, as long as you keep the bloatware out of it and have a user who will exercise some caution about email attachments and strange links.