At 08:33 AM 28/12/2006, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
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.
Maybe one can't prove a "best" solution (too many variables) but one can prove which AV gives the highest level of protection in testing. The Avast for pay isn't as good as some of the other for pay AVs out there. We can extrapolate from that the the free version is at best no better and at worst, worse than the for pay version. My argument is that if there is a better level of protection, and it's cost is minimal, then there is no point in going with the free version. As an example: If I offer you two condoms - one is free, and it's 95% likely to protect protect you from VD. The other cost $5 and is 98% likely to protect you from VD. Which do you use if you know you are going into a brothel where VD in commonplace (I think the VD infested brother is analagous to the malware infested internet?) Clearly there is still a chance that you get infected, and clearly the best approach is common sense (don't have sex in the brothel) but if one is taking the chance, then why not spend the money? The downside clearly overcomes the cost.
T
