Which antivirus is best for win7

[Charles Kane]

DarkDavil: Did you scan the unrared file with MSE?

And before we have an avalanche - NO AV program is perfect - even the "best" will fail to catch something that another will find.
In this case MSE might catch the problems on executing/activating the file - try using Returnil (poor man's SteadyState)

 

[hitler517]

Mcafee Total Security
Bitdefender

 

[MSMVP]

Avast Home Edition

 

[hance]

i'm using Avira Premium Security Suite : the reason why ?

Because Avira can deal with some virus et troyjan, blogger from USB stick who can't be found with my ex-best antivirus security : Kaspersky KISS 2010....

 

[zteardrop]

If only the requirements were just that antivirus nukes all comers... however it also has to be light and fast. Include that and many behemoths fail, including Norton in my experience.

After all what's the point of an ultra secure laptop that you can't use because it's constantly being thrashed by anti virus?

Besides most rankings that I've seen place bitdefender at the top and Norton way down in like 5th or 6th. Mind you they don't tend to list freebie anti virus.

Xander,

Guess you haven't used NIS/NAV 2009, 2010. The performance is impeccable. NIS is top notch and in the top 2/3 in any test out there. NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS THAT LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY.

 

[Xander]

Xander,

Guess you haven't used NIS/NAV 2009, 2010. The performance is impeccable. NIS is top notch and in the top 2/3 in any test out there. NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS THAT LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY.

So what kind of resources does it use now?

Oh and just to be sure I wasn't thinking of old information I did a quick google search on top anti virus and norton got either a B grade or 9th place on two top lists I found. It seems that the testers think that Norton is better than before but the customer service is still rubbish. Now personally I've used Norton at work up until I think 2007.. and though I can't actually fault it as an anti virus it decided that it knew best, took over the computer to the point you could do anything without it's permission and then required a new tool to remove it. In fact my sister still has Norton on her laptop, the removal tool won't install and it ate Avast. My theory is, any company which charges more than it's competitors, habitually, should have the decency to produce a product of quality from day one. They failed. In my book they have ground to catch up and this "but we're as god as them" does nothing.

I mean there's little difference in between top anti virus in terms of what it will and won't catch. Most people will go a long while without getting viruses anyway... unless they're pirates or live in facebook or similar. So really with antivirus you should choose one of the top performers but which one depends on personal preference, cost and other such things. Now personally I'm not going to pay more to get Norton and I advise other's the same.

Should Norton produce a nice small, non intrusive package that allows ME to control MY computer (note my computers are there to serve me and never the other way around) and perhaps has side advantages like better firewall configuration or even automated stuff (I used to love systemworks) then I may change my mind but until then they're still the company which leaves registry entries all over the place cause they can.

Grade "Nice attempt but must work harder" C+

 

[yowanvista]

Norton Internet Security 2010
It's very light and doesn't use much memory
Very easy to use
Very effective

 

[Lucretius]

Xander,

Guess you haven't used NIS/NAV 2009, 2010. The performance is impeccable. NIS is top notch and in the top 2/3 in any test out there. NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS THAT LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY.

So what kind of resources does it use now?

Oh and just to be sure I wasn't thinking of old information I did a quick google search on top anti virus and norton got either a B grade or 9th place on two top lists I found. It seems that the testers think that Norton is better than before but the customer service is still rubbish. Now personally I've used Norton at work up until I think 2007.. and though I can't actually fault it as an anti virus it decided that it knew best, took over the computer to the point you could do anything without it's permission and then required a new tool to remove it. In fact my sister still has Norton on her laptop, the removal tool won't install and it ate Avast. My theory is, any company which charges more than it's competitors, habitually, should have the decency to produce a product of quality from day one. They failed. In my book they have ground to catch up and this "but we're as god as them" does nothing.

I mean there's little difference in between top anti virus in terms of what it will and won't catch. Most people will go a long while without getting viruses anyway... unless they're pirates or live in facebook or similar. So really with antivirus you should choose one of the top performers but which one depends on personal preference, cost and other such things. Now personally I'm not going to pay more to get Norton and I advise other's the same.

Should Norton produce a nice small, non intrusive package that allows ME to control MY computer (note my computers are there to serve me and never the other way around) and perhaps has side advantages like better firewall configuration or even automated stuff (I used to love systemworks) then I may change my mind but until then they're still the company which leaves registry entries all over the place cause they can.

Grade "Nice attempt but must work harder" C+

Have you used the program?

 

[x0wn4g33x]

Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
my teacher has been testing and i asked him, he mentioned that it was best soo far

 

[Dinesh]

Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
my teacher has been testing and i asked him, he mentioned that it was best soo far

The kaspersky 2010 version is much better than 2009.

 

[MSMVP]

AVAST is my choice

 

[SlackerITGuy]

Xander,

Guess you haven't used NIS/NAV 2009, 2010. The performance is impeccable. NIS is top notch and in the top 2/3 in any test out there. NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS THAT LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY.

So what kind of resources does it use now?

Oh and just to be sure I wasn't thinking of old information I did a quick google search on top anti virus and norton got either a B grade or 9th place on two top lists I found. It seems that the testers think that Norton is better than before but the customer service is still rubbish. Now personally I've used Norton at work up until I think 2007.. and though I can't actually fault it as an anti virus it decided that it knew best, took over the computer to the point you could do anything without it's permission and then required a new tool to remove it. In fact my sister still has Norton on her laptop, the removal tool won't install and it ate Avast. My theory is, any company which charges more than it's competitors, habitually, should have the decency to produce a product of quality from day one. They failed. In my book they have ground to catch up and this "but we're as god as them" does nothing.

I mean there's little difference in between top anti virus in terms of what it will and won't catch. Most people will go a long while without getting viruses anyway... unless they're pirates or live in facebook or similar. So really with antivirus you should choose one of the top performers but which one depends on personal preference, cost and other such things. Now personally I'm not going to pay more to get Norton and I advise other's the same.

Should Norton produce a nice small, non intrusive package that allows ME to control MY computer (note my computers are there to serve me and never the other way around) and perhaps has side advantages like better firewall configuration or even automated stuff (I used to love systemworks) then I may change my mind but until then they're still the company which leaves registry entries all over the place cause they can.

Grade "Nice attempt but must work harder" C+

It's one of the lightest, if not the lightest, Internet Security Suite around.

 

[darkydz]

Norton Internet Security 2010 uses the least resources...who cares about Customer services?

 

[Kencelot]

The kaspersky 2010 version is much better than 2009.

I concur.

 

[ULTIMATE2010]

Nod 32 is what I use.

 

[Mags101]

After googling this question for 3-4 days studying "which is the best AV" i found that most people are pointing towards Microsoft Security Essentials + IT'S FREE!!

 

[Dinesh]

No matter what antivirus you use, I strongly recommend malwarebytes alongwith it.
Look what it has for me today in a quick scan.

 

[Dinesh]

I found this fake anti spyware program which generates false alarms regarding infections and then tells you to buy their product.
Beware of Antispywarebot. It is NOT an anti malware product.

 

[Jacee]

It's listed here:
Malware Domain List

 

[Dinesh]

It's listed here:
Malware Domain List

I installed antispywarebot and scanned my pc with Vipre, NOD32 and MBAM. They all detected it. However, when I scanned it using MSE, it caught nothing. Does this prove that MSE is a bad antispyware program?