Wait a minute....you cannot prove that any one AV software is the "best solution" in the real world. Your logic of having the ability to complain to someone is specious at best. Now your argument goes over to the POV of paying for the "best solution" rather than just paying for AV software. The question should be whether or not one can get adequate protection from any AV software. If it is not possible to do with a free version, than I agree that one should pay (as I have done for years, but that hasn't prevented inflections). However, if any acceptable good free AV prog exists, then the color of the sky changes.
---- Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ============= At 06:04 PM 27/12/2006, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: >Have you tried the home/noncommerial version of avast? That logic >might need some updating. No I haven't, but I think my point is still valid. If you use free software, then you can't complain when you have problems or expect tech support - so if you are good enough to go head to head with malware writers and/or your data is valueless (and you keep no personal data on your computer and/or you have no money in your bank account) then free is great. But effectively, all virus software is free - $0.14 per day is less than 5 minutes parking in my town, buys a tenth of a cup of coffee or seven bazooka joe bubble gum - if someone doesn't have that sort of money, then I question how he/she pays for Internet access or the computer in the first place. AV-Comparitives puts the Pro version of Avast at Advanced, while Anti-Vir Premium, AVK, F-Secure, Kaspersky, and NOD32 all get Advanced +. Perhaps the free version is better than the Pro one, but I doubt it. So while it's better than AVG, it isn't the best solution. T
