[JiggaD369]

Quote:

Comodo is good stuff, but it is not nearly as comprehensive as Norton Antivirus and Personal Firewall. It also lacks a backup utility found in Symantec Norton 360 version 4.

Norton is quite the worst I've used. It is a resource hog and lets in way too much. I've used Comodo for the past 2 years and have had about total of 4-5 detected infections, while most machines I've fixed were running some version of Norton. There even has been few instances where the machine wouldn't even respond since Norton was hogging the machine. 
 
Good read:
 
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/top-freeware-picks-category-editors.htm#Security

 

[Welly Wu]

Symantec Norton 360 version 4 is light on the resources. Just do a bunch of Google searches on the Internet for reviews. Symantec Norton Internet Security 2011 does not take up a lot of resources or slow down a computer by much either. I read your linked article. It is a nice go-to source for free security software. My copy of Symantec Norton 360 version 4 runs super fast on my ASUS N61JV-X2 and this is due to the fact that I have 8 GB of Crucial DDR3 SODIMM SDRAM and an Intel X25-M 160 GB Solid State Drive.

 

[Cdis99]

I have never paid for any type of virus/malware protection so I can not comment on the comparison of the effectiveness between the two. However, my point was that if you use these programs in unison they provide layers of protection. If one program doesn't catch something, the next one (or the one after that) will. My personal opinion is that if there are free programs out there which do more than an adequate job at protecting your PC, why not use them. I also feel, as a few others here do as well, that a lot of those paid programs are almost like malware themselves. Considering how deep they embed themselves into your system. But, as always, to each their own.
 
@MaverickMonk - CC Cleaner is AMAZING. If fixes any problems in your registry file and cleans up your PC very nicely. I highly recommend it.
 
@JiggaD - I feel as if Windows Firewall does a good job. Additionally, coupled with SpywareBlaster and the firewall from my router, there's no need for Comodo. Plus, doesn't it constantly monitor in the background like avast!? Therefore, you wouldn't want to use avast! and Comodo together.


Quote:

Quote:

Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 is a safe and secure web browser that is suitable for production usage. It is the most patched and updated web browser on the market with the largest share of users worldwide. I use it on occasion and I feel safe doing so. Disabling unnecessary ActiveX and toolbars along with add-ons helps to keep the web browser running smoothly.
 
I use Symantec Norton 360 version 4 along with paid versions of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and Super Anti-Spyware Professional. I also downloaded and installed EMET, Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer, FileHippo, and Secunia PSI. These essential utilities keep me very safe and secure even while running Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit as an Administrator.
 
The problem with free antivirus, anti-malware, and anti-spyware software is that they don't compete against their paid commercial versions for the very best protection possible. Then, there are the annoying reminders to buy them to receive the maximum level of protection available from each software vendor. Or, there are limitations that are imposed for trial software. These are the factors that motivated me to buy my security software. I very rarely run into viruses, spyware, or malware and when I do get an infection, my security software cleans it out quickly and effectively.
 
For those that don't want to pay for protection, I say that you may want to reconsider because your life is on your computer nowadays and you deserve the very best protection available. That costs money. Even being very careful is not enough with the number of hideous dangers available on the Internet or your local area connected network.
 
Of course, there are plenty of bad software applications that break computers or wind up bricking them. AVG Free 2011 did so which required its users to take complex steps to resolve the problem.

IMHO and all the other disclaimers apply, but I prefer Avast over both AVG (which became bloated and slowed performance) and Norton. I still feel that Norton affects system performance more than AVG, and isn't measurably better. Its also not free, which gives it that much more of an uphill battle so far as I'm concerned. I also use AdAware and Spybot, along with CCleaner on a monthly basis

 

[earerror]

I use Microsoft security essentials, and im happy with it. 
Its fast, reliable and free!! 

 

[Achmedisdead]

I use Microsoft Security Essentials version 2 and the free version of ThreatFire as my run all the time protectors(with Windows Firewall). Then for on-demand scanning I have SuperantiSpyware and Hitman Pro.Combined with Firefox and Adblock Plus and NoScript, and in over a years use, my Win 7 Ultimate x64 machine has gotten no viruses.....and I am online a ton!

 

[ramicio]

The best protection is to keep sensitive stuff on a separate partition or drive and to not run any antivirus.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

The best protection is to keep sensitive stuff on a separate partition or drive and to not run any antivirus.

The first part does make sense, but the highlighted portion makes no sense at all.

 

[ramicio]

Formatting a drive and installing an OS takes very little time anymore.  It's more worth it to me to not have antivirus CRAP slowing down my computer causing other problems and deal with the occasional format because I went to a porn site with bad popups or downloaded a file with malicious code.  Discretion is the key to protection, not more software.

 

[3602]

Windows giving you viruses, spyware, fears of infiltration?
Switch to Linux.

 

[ramicio]

Linux is good for having a server of any type, it is completely useless for someone who wants something to use graphically.  Until hardware manufacturers actually invest into making applications and not only simple drivers then Linux will remain crap for most everyone.  I've given a lot of attempt to Linux.  When my Windows machine lost a hard drive I gave my Linux box I use for a simple file server a try by installing a frontend and just getting anything to work is a complete nightmare.  I love Linux for what it is, but it was never meant to be anything useful for entertainment value.

 

[3602]

Well my friend, perhaps your particular hard ware suite is not very well adapted for Linux. My previous computer was a Gateway ID59c-04h: The support wasn't good out-of-the-box, I admit. I returned that computer and obtained this one (HP dv7-4104ca) purely because I wanted a bigger screen. This computer supported Linux (Ubuntu 10.10 AMD64) out-of-the-box. Linux isn't for everyone: you need to be somewhat gizmo-ish and tinkering to get everything up. Not everyone is used to DOS (come on, command lines are next to useless in Windows) but in Linux the Terminal is highly needed.
Granted Linux doesn't need a GUI to run, but all the distros out there all come with a GUI of some sort (Gnome, KDE, etc etc). I believe your statement of "completely useless for someone who wants something to use graphically" is quite extreme. Ubuntu has excellent support for drawing 3D software (3D molecules which I need a lot, and AutoCAD-ish stuff and GIMP if you mostly need arty or engineer uses).
I admit that Linux is not for gaming. WINE is a workaround. I am negatively biased towards the activity of video (computer) gaming so I shall refrain from make any statements on this particular subject. What I can right now is that if you are a gamer, don't switch to Linux. Or: Dual-boot Windows and Linux, the former for gaming and the latter for everything else.
To reply to your last phrase, MythTV and XBMC. I will not explain what I just said.
 
EDIT: Just not to digress too much, I used Avast! Free 5 with Windows XP. I can't speak of any results (never has a virus) but it doesn't bog down an old machine much. In terms on firewall, I know the COMODO one, but I never used any so i can't say.

 

[ramicio]

I don't buy hardware suites, I build them...so yeah, it is "up to the task."  Not like Linux has any hardware requirements, and actually uses less in resources than Windows.  With Windows I can install all I need to play back all of my media in a matter of minutes.  Support for GPU acceleration (CUDA, etc.) is absolute crap for Linux.  Sound support is crap.  I use Linux from a shell, nothing else.  There's more to an experience than players.  Windows = Multimedia, Linux = Server.  I spent hours looking for audio drivers for some onboard Intel audio, then compiling them , getting the libraries to compile, and just messing up my whole machine's functionality messing around with this graphical nonsense.  From what I see is most people don't know anything about computers.  They buy a pile of scrap from some Asian company and then they need software to do things hardware (a firewall is one example) should do and wonder why their computer is slow.  The only excuse to buy a computer already-built is buying a laptop.  If you want a desktop then there is a good chance that these days every person of the population knows someone who is capable of helping them get a nice desktop built from real parts.

 

[3602]

Well... Sorry about your experiences. I do have to say that homebrew computers do tend to be Linux-unfriendly, and that's why System76's computers are so expensive for the parts they have, because they have to RnD the "best" hardware suite for Ubuntu (100% compatible yet 100% exploitable, as in 16GB of RAM and such).
Cheers and enjoy Windows. Seems like Windows 7 is much better than the previous ones. But I'd never know.

 

[ramicio]

It's not a homebrew computer I'm running Linux on, it's just simply a Intel server board, a CPU, RAM, PSU, and a HD.  Why would homebrew computers not be good for Linux?  I can understand when you run stupid chipsets made by nVidia, but I run all Intel stuff.  It's not the running of the OS, it's stuff that matters, like video and sound cards that don't function correctly.  It's drivers.  Most of the software for Linux is not very friendly.  It's created by people who want their own software for their own purpose.  Until companies actually invest time and money into making software and drivers, Linux will be useless for anything but a server.  All these companies building these homebrew computers are a complete rip-off.  You don't need to do R&D to make parts work together anymore.  It's not the old days where there were DIP switches and manual IRQ craziness.  Plug and Play is here and true.

 

[3602]

OK, if you're running a server cluster then disregard what I said above. I know nothing about running servers.
Also, about the hardware drivers issue, please complain against the hardware makers and not Linux. If the makers aren't making correct drivers then what can Linux folks do? Example. nVidia Optimus cannot be used with Ubuntu because nVidia isn't making Optimus work on Linux in the first place! Is this Linux's fault?
I can't say the software being more or less "friendly", but I can understand how you say they seem "selfish". Well, it's the open source spirit. Face it, big companies won't make software for something that they cannot profit off of, except for some that can run on donations or other means.
Again, Linux requires much tinkering from the user, that's why there is a whole Ubuntu forum and you have a Terminal that can actually do something to correct problems. I do take offense, sir, as you say "Linux is useless on anything but a server". Allow me to say that Windows is for lazy people.