Community poll forum: Which antivirus utility protects your computer?

bitdefender is like the best antivirus and it is the last one on the list????? thats why virus makers are still successful!!!!!!!!

I use Kaspersky for protection.ever since i had it i have not came down with any viruses.i do a lot of downloading and everytime i download it catches every virus. its the safest one i had .

I've tried them all! After bad (and expensive) experiences with Norton, McA and Panda I loaded AVG a year ago and have never looked back. It is simple, fast, automatic and FREE! AVG Free Edition now protects all my equipment and has rapidly spread to my colleagues and friends. Try it!
Alyster Upton

My Emachines computer came with McAfee and it was as demanding as a high maintenence woman. It was so anal I decided to wipe it from my computer and got Norton to replace it. I would'nt go back to McAfee if it was FREE!

All were encountered on C/net, compared and purchased. So far the other two haven't found anything not already handled by ZoneAlarm.

I use AVG because it's free and has regular updates and has always picked up nasties when ever they have appeared, with no conflicts with other programs.

After more than a decade of using Norton AntiVirus, I finally gave up with the 2006 version -- another buggy version where the Live Update failed to install updates to the antivirus engine on all of our computers. The final straw was how slow all of our computers had become with Norton installed. Once we switched to a trial of PC-Cillin, all 4 computers returned to full speed. But after 8 months with PC-Cillin, all the computers slowed down again, painfully. Some update to PC-Cillin did it -- and I found out online that we were no alone. PC-Cillin's tech support was pretty bad - almost as dismal as Norton's.

So we tried a trial of Kapsersky Internet Security 6.0 -- wow! What a difference. All of our computers returned to full speed and have stayed there 5 months later. Updating is a seamless breeze. Kaspersky has a very small footprint. It works nearly flawlessly -- the anti-spam filter continues to be a bit awkward to use. What really surprised me is that tech support is based in Masschusetts and they actually listen to you. One of my suggestions was recently implemented in the latest update, which, by the way, made Kaspersky compatible with Vista. All in all, Kaspersky seems to stand head and shoulders above Norton, PC-Cillin, and the sad McAfee.

I use Windows one care. Seems to fit well with VIsta (as it should) No problems so far. i do run adaware and spybot weekly.

I've used a number of antivirus programs through the years and was disappointed in one way or another by most all of them. I also believe that PC World must play favorites in a lot of their reviews. As often as they point out the problems with Norton (and there are a lot of them), they still rate it as one of the best, while at the same time, rating BitDefender near the bottom of the list, also state that it did the best job of keeping a system clean. With my experience I wouldn't consider using anything that didn't update hourly, which BitDefender does and most others don't. And this year they are selling their security suite for 2 computers for 2 years. And still PC World tells you that Norton and others, many that only update WEEKLY!, while others only every few days. Prompt updates are most important and most of the big companies don't have hourly updates. BD also has never conflicted with any of the 160 some programs on my computer. Once when I forgot to turn it on I picked up a non dangerous virus and the program had a problem disinfecting, but an email to tech support brought a reply in a day with a simple workable solution that removed the problem. It has no effect on the speed of my computer (unlike Spysweepers new updated 5.0) and lets me decide just how it deals with everything. I like to be asked for permissions, so BDs firewall asks me anytime any program wants to call out or in, but if you like it will decide for you and you'll never see a nag screen. I prefer to be nagged. And all the other parts of the suite have never given me reason to complain. It is rated at the top, or very near the top, depending on which publication you're reading, and that's what's important. Does your antivirus update hourly? If not then you don't have the best. I also don't understand people that just refuse to pay money for security. The best things in life (or at least computer security) are NOT free. Slightly off the subject of antivirus, people that rely on Spybot for antimalware protection are penny wise and pound foolish. Not having an active program running, and depending on scans only, is asking for trouble. And again, this year BitDefender is protecting two machines for two years for the price of one machine for one year. The best software bargain I've run into for a long time. I've used Norton and I wouldn't wish it on my enemies, I've used Panda and my only complaint with it is the update frequency. BD updates hourly, though you would never notice it unless you were watching your task bar. It's quick, quiet and doesn't interfer with any program that might be running. A deep scan can take quite a bit of time, but I don't see that as a problem, and I don't know how it compares to others. But how Norton stays in business confounds me. It took me a couple of days just to get the whole thing off of my drives. Very intrusive. It will take some kind of wonder program to get me to even think of trying anything else after three years now of BD.

Not listed but realy a good protection is NORMAN antivirus.
In the past I have used Mcafee and Norton.
But this product from Norman gives a more reliable protection than the one's I used in the past.

P.S. I compare with online Bitdefender and Trendmicro housecall services. Also With Photoshop previous utils caused problems.

Regards to all,
Paul Kuijper
The Netherlands

I've been a great fan of Symantec's NIS suites over the last 12 years. As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", I have been well-satisfied with their systems, whether (allegedly) they slow down the machines or not!

It is true too that they have just too many programs running in the background, and one's system should have sufficient RAM to counter that. Possibly they could look into managing their programs' memories better.

The whole point of an anti-viral system is to prevent ingress of virii ... cleaning it out AFTER it has stepped in is a bit of a lame duck. In this, Symantec's NAV (which is bundled with their NIS) does a great job.

If one doesn't want to pay, then the next best (IMHO) is AVG's Free AVS. However, other big names like McAfee et al have fallen waaay behind. I've seen multiple-systems getting completely knocked out after being protected with Panda, Trend, Penicillin, etc. ... that too after being regularly updated with their definitions. I've read reports that Kaspersky's AV is good (there exists contrary opinions too) but I haven't yet had the opportunity to try it out yet.

Also, as everyone knows, just any Anti-Virus won't do alone. One would also require a good Firewall, and at least one (if not more) anti-malware/anti-spyware agents too.

I started out with Norton AV years ago, then switched to McAfee, then went to Windows Live OneCare, then back to McAfee. Then one day I noticed my system was running slow so I ran an on-demand AV check...nothing. Then I ran HouseCall from TrendMicro and it found a virus but couldn't delete it. That's when a friend told me about AVAST. Not only did it find the virus but it was also able to delete it. I have been a satisfied AVAST user ever since.

It's what i use. I mean sure, it's primarily a firewall, but it also has topnotch anti-virus/anti-spyware support, plus all the usual stuff, like popup/ad-blocker/cookie manager. I prefer having one program on my computer to do it all instead of lots of little bits of programs here and there.


just my two and a half cents worth

I am using AVG Anti-Virus because it is one of the few programs that supports the new Vista operating system. I had used it for several years on my XP machine. Easy to install, easy to use, and it is free.

My ISP provides F-secure. I used to use Norton. F-secure works just as well, as far as I can see. It's better on system resources - unsurprisingly, since it has fewer bells and whistles. Updates are relatively unobtrusive though they do slow things up on a slow machine.