But why would I need it?
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
59718 readers
254 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m mentioning this because I’ve noticed that Kaspersky is a common choice among many PC users I know. This might be useful information for those who are considering their options.
Additionally, when searching for antivirus recommendations on platforms like Reddit, Lemmy, or YouTube, Kaspersky frequently appears as a highly regarded option.
I have only seen people recommend against Kaspersky for years.
I haven't found a serious critic that didn't rely on fucking racism yet. If the only real argument is "rUsSian cOmPAny bAD" but you're ok with USA companies, you're just braindead.
I don't even use windows for that same reason, but if a windows user asks me, based on past experiences with low end computers (where you can actually tell the diference), I'd always recommend kaspersky for performance and malwarebytes for precision.
Pro tip: Downvotes without arguments only prove my point.
Kaspersky had a serious fiasco in the early 2000's, that's good enough for me.
Once a software vendor demonstrates theyre untrustworthy, why would I risk using their products?
And spare us from the sophist personal attack on people you disagree with.
At worst it's jingoism, except there's no question of there being significant Russian efforts to meddle in the US and other countries.
Once a software vendor demonstrates theyre untrustworthy, why would I risk using their products?
How are you using windows then? They've had innumerable security breaches, not to talk about how MS demonstrates again and again that the only thing they care about is money. Does "trustworthy" mean "american" or "only sells my data to the USA gov and other US companies" then sure, it is trustworthy as fuck.
Of course you will invalidate that with some mental gymnastics, but this same thing happens even with freaking usb (charge only, mind me) cables from aliexpress, with people saying they have fucking chips to spy on you. Again, racism.
And spare us from the sophist personal attack on people you disagree with
Try to put it however you want, but hating anything that comes from one place just because of that, then adding excuses is fucking racist.
except there's no question of there being significant Russian efforts to meddle in the US and other countries.
And here comes the grand patriotic justification for racism! If you really don't have shit to say about the actual software, just block me or something and spare me from your presence :)
Microsoft Defender is good and free, but it is heavier on system resources than any reputable AV. Kasperskey is near the top for least impact on system performance.
Interesting. Do you have links that support your claims that I can read up on?
That chart doesn't say anything about system resource usage.
Edit: found the performance chart now. Still no explanation on what performance tests(more than two sentences) they performed and how the scoring was applied.
TBH, that still looks good for MS. It suffered a little with compressed archives (mediocre), installation was "fast," and the rest were "very fast." Certainly not as perfect as some, but unless you're doing lots of installs and working with compressed files, I bet nobody would even notice this difference in real world use cases.
The only place I notice Defender is on an old system (10 years) that's had a billion changes - App installs/uninstalls, etc.
With a 4TB data drive, and a C drive that's 90% full. Poor machine has been abused.
Don't notice any issues on other machines, even when using 7zip on 100 gig archives.
why would I need the best Anti Viruse ?
Hahahaha
You must be too young to remember the shit show Kaspersky had in the early 2000's.
I forget the details, but it was clear Kaspersky had become like Norton and the other formerly great names.
Kaspersky is a Russian company. No thank you.
Why would you use kaspersky?
I wouldn't install it even if I would be paid.
"paid" schreibt man das.
anti virus is scam. Or malware themselves
kaspersky is a virus
Never pirate anything that runs with any privilege, that means antivirus, VPN etc.
Also, why use an av?
This is an offical beta version.
"Why use an av?"
Sadly, because JavaScript exists.
Oh oki.
About js. Why not just use something like ublock+ noscript + Firefox
load more comments
(1 replies)
why the heck would I want this when clam exists?!
Immunet shutdown in jan, so no clam.
ClamAV is alive and well. Immunet != ClamAV even if that was the engine Immunet used.
If you're going to make your system worse, you should also combine with Norton anti virus too.
Either that, or just use the Microsoft one that is free
This is the piracy community so I'll write it out:
If you are pirating software you probably need an antivirus and windows defender is easily bypassable.
But I think Kaspersky already offers real time protection on the free tier
what are the additional features in this method ?
Only reasonable purchase for anti virus are for companies where all it could take is one weak link for a hacker to cause all sorts of trouble. Common sense is best AV.