Norton Antivirus 2005 or AVG Free?

[aphex]

I have the norton disc in my hand, but should i use AVG instead?

 

[Nohr]

I used AVG for a while and I got the impression that it wasn't very thorough, but that may just be me. I hear that AntiVir is good and it's free. I'd suggest giving it a shot before installing Norton.

 

[clickynext]

AVG once let a virus through that Norton caught once I installed it. Norton certainly is a bigger hog than most programs, though, at least 2004 was. Personally I've found Panda Antivirus to be a good one as far as virus catching abilities go.

 

[mechBgon]

Norton 2005 will probably cover you better against adware, spyware and Trojans. Make sure to enable scanning within compressed files, and max out the Heuristics. You can password-protect the options, which can be nice for a family PC so your teenager can't switch it into Nerf mode or disable the protection altogether when it keeps deleting... mmm, that one file, the one he/she's trying to download

By default, it seems Norton Antivirus 2005 will disarm the Windows Firewall (!) and use its wormstopper feature in place of it. You can override that behavior if you want.

I used AVG Free 7 for a while with no complaints, although my web surfing doesn't take me anywhere dangerous. I just tried a Norton 2005 15-day trial and am now trying McAfee VirusScan 9.0. Cannot... decide!

 

[Malak]

Someone recently posted they installed AVG and it detected 4 virii that Norton hadn't detected. But that can be different for everyone. Personally I know AVG is a lot less intrusive and not nearly the resource hog.

 

[Zugzwang152]

if you have a beefy system, and the $$$ to spend, i would definitely recommend a commercial product, since there will at least be some accountability should some catastrophe happen. mcafee may be a better option than norton if you arent running a very powerful sytem.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
if you have a beefy system, and the $$$ to spend, i would definitely recommend a commercial product, since there will at least be some accountability should some catastrophe happen. mcafee may be a better option than norton if you arent running a very powerful sytem.

So what would McAfee or Symantec do when a Virus(which they didn't detect), deletes all your data? Not much of an accountability there.

 

[Schadenfroh]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=best

 

[aafuss]

I have tried NAV before, but didn't like it-AVG 7 was quite easy to use and does suit me well.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
if you have a beefy system, and the $$$ to spend, i would definitely recommend a commercial product, since there will at least be some accountability should some catastrophe happen. mcafee may be a better option than norton if you arent running a very powerful sytem.

Athlon 64 3200+ and 1gb of ram....

I also already own Norton 2k5 as i got it free from work..... So should i use it instead of a free AVG or Antivir?

 

[BW86]

I've been using AVG for the longest time and never got a virus. Does it's job great and uses very little ram in the process

 

[Bucksnort]

Originally posted by: BW86
I've been using AVG for the longest time and never got a virus. Does it's job great and uses very little ram in the process

 

[timswim78]

AVG has a pretty terrible detection rate. Norton's is much better, but it can be a resources hog. A good free solution is http://free-av.com

 

[Cvolt]

On my desktop I use ZoneAlarm with Anti-virus. It was a 19.95 download. It seems to work just fine for me. I'm running Norton Internet Security 2004 on my notebook.

 

[XBoxLPU]

AVG. Norton is a resource hog

If you are really worried about viruses, then I would suggest kaspersky.