Eset. Low overhead, fast, efficient and very configurable. It consistently does well in the AV comparison tests. The polar opposite of McAfee, which is what my family had previously used.
Since I was part of a Symantec broadband study back in the year 2000 I have always used Norton Internet Security. However this all changed last year when I decided I didn't appreciate paying £30 (always waited for half price versions at PC World) for a years "protection" and slow-down of my machines. Instead I opted for Microsoft Security Essientials and what a great decision that was. Fast and runs in the background with no annoying pop-ups like others. My wife used to swear by AVG Free even when I used Norton, but after seeing MSE running and being non-intrusive on my desktop / laptop opted to transfer her faith over to MSE for her desktop too. So yes we'd both recommend MSE.
That's one thing I love about MSSE no annoying info pops up and no Avast sounds VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED! omg the speakers where on full blast I nearly browned my pants there
i use avg just because it's free, on my parents computer i use norton or McAffe just depends what's cheaper when it comes to renewal time.
used to used AVG but had problems with it so I now use the mircosoft AV which I find is excellent and free
over the years i have had many virus scanners. I started of with McAfee asit came with the PC i was bought from PC world - let loads of viruses through even the Chernobyl virus - Conclusion McAfee BINNED then i bought a copy of norton antivirus - worked well for the first year and after that viruses let through left right and centre - Conclusion Nortan BINNED Got bought another new pc then friends recomended AVG had that for about 1 - 2 years and the same..... Virus city - Conclusion AVG BINNED then Avast and so far the best seemed to catch viruses before they harmed anything serious happened , did let 1 or 2 through but nothing that couldn't be put in the vault for deletion - Conclusion best so far the i bought a new computer and i bought a disc which conatined windows live esentials and MSE (i think it was MSE) and just after the first year i got a message from microsoft saying that they were not doing updates anymore or something like that - cant remember exactly - Conclusion abuot the same as avast but about not being able to use the security software FFS! then went back to Avast with that pc and when i upgraded parts to it and the last pc i had which me and my brother in law built, same as before - Conclusion best so far then i got a new Broadband provider (virgin media - 30mb line) and you get a security package with them and so far i can say I am impressed with it it's like avast but ithasn't let anything through yet - Conclusion as good as Avast Nowthat i have my current rig I am still using the virgin media security package and so far so good sorry for long description but hope this helps
This seems to be a controversial view on bit tech, but I really like Norton. They recently changed Norton and now it's very sleek; all the standard comments about it being a huge memory hog and a slow down, I don't agree with at all. I've never been infected and I just checked how much memory Norton is using in the background while I surf: 11MB. I don't think comments about memory usage of "OMGZZZ 200MB!" are as relevant nowadays, especially on this forum where we have powerful rigs, with 4,6,8,16 or even those minted few with 24GB of RAM. Don't give Norton so much hate guys
I use MSE. Nice and lightweight. I've never had any trouble with it. It got recommended to me on these forums.
yeah, also MSE. I used to run without anything, but decided to change to MSE, no real change there, but somewhat more easygoing than without. On my Ubuntu machine, no AV is installed, didn't really felt the need for it...
Norton here, it' s had much better reviews the last year or two, and the newer interface is far better. However, it is not cheap, I'll give you that. I might try one of the others on my new build when I get it done.
