I voted for McAfee. It's been tested and proven to be the best for home PCs. It's been more faithful to me than Norton.

Norton falied me too many times. In one instance I got a virus less than ten hours after new virus .dat files were released while I was online. I downloaded them, logged off, and scanned my system. I logged back on and went back to web surfing. Seven hours later my scheduled scan found a new virus on my comp.

I finally switched to McAfee when I got a virus that was so bad that I had to use a boot disk to start windows and scan my 'puter because my rescue disks wouldn't work. The virus had uninstalled Norton before it damaged my windows files.

We use Norton at home.

McAfee managed to do strange things to our hard drive, as well as making it forget that it had a CD drive. Now while I learned a Great Deal in the process of undoing the damage caused, I still wouldn't use McAfee again as a virus software if you paid me.

We do use McAfee as a firewall, however and thus far it hasn't done anything untoward...but I'm keeping an eye on it.

I have Norton. It's been good to me in the years after I dumped McAfee when it let a virus into my system.

Of course, I don't really need AntiVirus software very much anymore since I've begun migrating to Linux. Linux is just too hostile for any virus so far to take root and spread.

A nice combination of non-standard software and intelligence around suspect files/emails has lasted me for ummm... almost 10 years?

I'm yet to find AV software that doesn't cause me more problems than it "solves", although I still do recommend it for less computer savvy people..

Better to have some kind of anti-viral security than to have none... :\

I use Symantec's Norton Antivirus 2003. In the 8 months I've been using it, I have not had a virus even once. I configured a full system test every week, and a random 100-file test every time I turn my comp on... I'm happy.

For firewall, I use Zone Alarm Pro - the choice recommended by Steve Gibson of grc.com. I really cannot speak any higher of a technological product that has something to do with internet security than to say that Steve recommended it.

grc.com is an excellent site for testing your firewalls and for a lot of other things too - mucho information about internet security, things you can do to make your computer safer while on the internet, tests you can run to see how your firewall behaves under all kinds of stresses, and mucho mucho mucho more. Visit it today!

NOCCY!!!!!!!

---

Anywho.. I did the same as Spear, cept for the Linux part

AVG since my Norton update subscription ran out several years ago...

grisoft.com I think it is. And it's free!

I agree with Brassy, AVG is free and gets the job done, besides I've never really have had any trouble with Viruses.

Yes I do know that the &%¤## that makes them tries to hit anyone, but I have just never been infected with any (or at least not any that has sent my computer into a downward plunge), in fact, I haven't even gotten some of the more famous virus e-mails (e.g. "I love you" etc. etc.).

I think it was the Klez B <sp?> that wiped mine out...

I've never gotten any of those either Mikkel. Of course, the fact that I check attachments before I download them helps tons.

Linux is immune to virus threats because it's kernel is completely different when compared to Microsoft Windows. And all (except 1) viruses are written for windows.

Out of curiosity, those of you who had problems with McAfee, can you tell me what version you were using and did you configure the V-shield? Because McAfee products are very anal so I could understand why they could cause problems.

Noccy, my family went the same way for years. However, my younger sister did not understand the concepts of "not opening unknown emails" and "do not open IM links from strangers." And that's how the first virus my family ever had infected our computer.

Now we don't have to worry about emails because AOL now scans all emails & their attachments that pass through the AOL network. AOL also uses all proxy connections. So their network is very secure.

IIRC, PW, I last used McAfee a loooooooong, looooooong time ago... back when I was working with DOS. Early-to-mid-1990s, if I remember. I do remember that McAfee back then let in some kind of Monkey virus into my computer. Nasty business. Infected my boot sector. I had to reformat and reinstall from disks - only, of course, since I was working from DOS, I didn't have that much to re-install.

But I still wasn't impressed with McAfee... nor am I now, to be quite honest.

Seems Norton's taking the lead... Got half the total votes

I'm not sure, PW. We purchased McAffee sometime in late 2000. I'm not sure what version. We were running Win 95 and the computer was/is a 486 (IBM Aptiva).

I used Mcafee and it wouldn't let me sign on to the internet after I got it, I didn't like it at all, so I dumped it, downloaded Norton Antivirus 2003 Pro for free and have had no problems since, although viruses don't seem to be a problem w/ me, spyware is a bigger threat to me than viruses. But, Spybot does a nice job of keeping most of it off my system.

Actually PW, Linux isn't totally immune to viruses. There have been reported security loopholes that can allow a hacker access to a box in the past. It's just that Linux isn't quite as widespread as Windows ( not enough of a base for hackers to extend from, especially the DoS hackers ), plus Linux protects all of the system files so that only the root (power) user can change them or, in most cases, even see them. So, provided that one isn't dumb enough to use the root user as an ordinary user account, Linux is a fortress.

As I said there is 1 actual Linux virus that is recognised. But it has already been patched in the newer versions. Besides, most Hackers use Linux and wouldn't dream of damageing it as it's the only real PC alternative to Windows.

As for McAffe, I currently use the 7.x version on my home computer until I buy the new McAffe Quick Clean. 8.x product versions of McAffe products use a different interface than previous versions. McAffe Virus Scan 8.x is much more user friendly & now is just as easy to use as Norton (meaning it's not so anal with needing to be customized for every single computer). I greatly dislike Norton because it has failed me so many time unlike McAffe, which hasn't failed me once. I'm going to look for some Virus software reports to see which program is really the best.

It will be interesting to find out if you manage to find such a report. From what I understand, they are equal. It comes down to personal choice, experience, and taste. :shrug: Kind of like Coke and Pepsi. You'll have people swear that McAffee is the best and then find an equal number of people to swear the Norton is the way to go. You dislike Norton because it failed you. I dislike McAffee because it did horrid things to my computer.

However, I could be wrong. I've never looked for such a report. I'd be interested in learning what you find out.

Actually, there are more than 1 recognized Linux virus out there. Last time I looked I counted about 5 or 6. :shrug:

The thing about most of those viruses is that they are rather simple, nothing too horribly complex or dangerous. The main way these "lesser viruses" get in is through people not knowing enough about Linux. Setting poor root passwords, logging in as root just to check their e-mail, improperly setting user privileges, etc.

And not just hackers prefer Linux either, also many Netadmins, programmers, security professionals, etc. Not only do hackers not want to compromise their preferred ( for many of them ) OS, but also if they do they get flack from all the rest of the expansive Linux community. Other hackers, both black and white hat, all the netadmins, security professionals etc. will be on their trail faster than you can get ugly on a Goon.

Another reason for so few Linux viruses is that aren't as many systems running it as there are Windows. If someone wants to run a DoS attack, which would they choose? The Linux system, with its many experienced users and less spread usage; or Windows with its many security vulnerabilities, often with the user not even aware that they are present ( for example, the Windows Messenger Service or Universal PnP ) and wide spread userbase.

But since Linux is becoming more widespread recently as a more cost-effective server software alternative than Sun or Microsoft, there will be more and more viruses written for Linux as more people use it, and the allure of all those unprotected computers becomes too great for any hackers' fear.

Ok, I've read a few reports from various places on these programs. First, Panda Antivirus Platinum is better than McAffe & Norton when it comes to catching a virus. But it costs a lot of $.

Unknown viruses - McAffe missed 2 while Norton missed 3. However McAffe was the only one of the two that found the Homepage virus that was not included in their virus .dat files at the time.

Scan Speed - Both are very quick but 7.x & 8.x versions of McAffe are faster than Norton.

In my cousin's case McAffe 7.x was 2 hours faster than Norton 2003.

E-Mail - Both cought files attached to emails.

Cons:
*Norton is heavy on system resource use.
*McAffe should be used with a firewall, if it does not have one.
*Norton does not properly uninstall.
*McAffe can be a bit of a hassel with updating.

So they are neck & neck.

Norton is heavy on system resources, when? If you're just running the Protect feature and not actually scanning the computer it uses next to nothing as far as using your RAM. As a matter of fact my AIM is using 5x more RAM right now than the Norton Auto-Protect. I dunno if you meant that it uses a lot of resouces when scanning or not, wehich it does. But, IMO you shouldn't be running a full system scan if you are doing much of anything on your computer.

Yes I am talking about during the system scan.