Are Symantec and McAfee the only choices?

I use nod32 and love it very low processing power and it updates almost 3 times a day

What about Trend Micro?

I use Kaspersky and I highly recommend it. I especially like that their Anti-Spam works with TheBat!

I’ve been a Norton user for a very long time, since before there was a Microsoft let alone Windows- hell, since before there was a World Wide Web (Norton Utilities downloaded from a BBS) :P For years now I’ve been hearing about how Symantec products have become bloated and resource hogs frequently, but not always, from sources I put some stock in. I just watched Chris’s video about antivirus programs and all through it I wanted to scream “Fine, show me the money!” :) I’ve downloaded and installed trial versions of other products and have as yet been able to detect any substantial performance difference between them and my Symantec product. I ain’t here to defend Symantec, I’m here because Folks like Chris and the rest of you are tuggin’ at my techno-strings but leaving a place I’ve been comfortable with for longer than some, if not many of you have been alive ain’t gonna be easy. Can someone please point me somewhere that scientifically substantiates these claims, or perhaps teach me how to substantiate them myself?

After all my awful experiences with Symantec and their remarkable need to generate revenue, I used antivir. But they ended support for Win98 and for those machines I switched to Grisoft’s AVG Free. Grisoft’s updating is much less intrusive than Antivir. Both seem capable products.

I can recall in the early days Norton antivir noted that virus updates were ‘forever’ free. Of course that policy eventually ended. Forever in the PC world means until next year.

I actually did extensive research on the topic a few months back and came to the conclusion that for homes and smb’s the most efficient and effective solution for pc security currently is the zone alarm internet security suite.

I am not affiliated to them in any way, nor do I earn a cent from them.

A few of the reasons they are good that I recall are:

- Uses less pc resources than McAfee and Symantic
- You CAN uninstall it easily, unlike the confounded competitors
- It uses Kaspersky for its antivirus
- It is a relatively complete solution covering IM security, email security, firewall, spyware and only missing a few things like a rootkit.

On the recommendation of my computer repair guy I am using Panda Internet Security 2007. It purports to be all-in-one AV/Firewall/antiSpam filter/antiMalware. It did recently suffer amnesia of the spam filter leading to a massive upsurge in offers of loans, watches and dick enlargements. Any insights on how effective/efficient it is compared with the ones you recommended?

I used to use Zonealarm up until here lately when it’s grown to a bloated, massive, almost 40gig download. Then it has to be updated every few weeks. I switched to Comodo and I must say I love it. I tried it a few versions back and wasn’t quite satisfied with it. The latest version is very simple and just great.
As far as antivirus goes I have been using AVG and it seems to work well. I have seen some tests were Antivir has tested must better on detection rates, but I dislike the free version because of the popup sell ad everytime you start windows. So each to their own on that one.

I used to use Zonealarm up until here lately when it’s grown to a bloated, massive, almost 40gig download. Then it has to be updated every few weeks. I switched to Comodo and I must say I love it. I tried it a few versions back and wasn’t quite satisfied with it. The latest version is very simple and just great.
As far as antivirus goes I have been using AVG and it seems to work well. I have seen some tests were Antivir has tested must better on detection rates, but I dislike the free version because of the popup sell ad everytime you start windows. So each to their own on that one.

I also just wanted to state one of the BIG reasons I feel that these “subscription” based services are wrong. I know there are a TOn of people out there that let them run out and think that it will protect them even though it doesn’t have the latest updates. These is of course a huge problem and a big reason virus’s continue to spread. Updates should always remain free.

I also just wanted to state one of the BIG reasons I feel that these “subscription” based services are wrong. I know there are a TOn of people out there that let them run out and think that it will protect them even though it doesn’t have the latest updates. These is of course a huge problem and a big reason virus’s continue to spread. Updates should always remain free.

ClamWin user here, on my sole remaining Windows computer (XP). The latest version of ClamWin has changed the way it updated its virus database, which used to be painfully slow. Now it’s quick. Scanning an entire 120 gig hard drive is still slower than Norton or McAfee, but I scan memory and my download directory routinely with occasional (weekly?) scans of the entire system. That takes an hour or so, maybe, so I do it at dinner time.

I use Avast! on an Ubuntu Linux system. Works well.

I’ve also used F-Prot, which may still have a free version for DOS only. It’s even better than ClamWin, IMHO, but Windows has divorced itself from DOS so the free version of F-Prot will only be useful for those running older versions of Windows (2k and earlier?).

What free choices are there for the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate?

Free Firewall choices I mean.

I use paid Panda Platinum 2007 and love it.