[perfect_rovian_storm]

What is the best software?

Linux.

[Gomez]

ping

[ShadowAce]

[discostu]

This must have been paid for by Symantec since the article completely avoided where Norton really loses: resources used, stability, and ability to uninstall cleanly.

[Vendome]

There is no such thing as the
“best” antivirus software.

You have to use a combination of tools such as Admin rights, firewalls(router/computer) and a couple of prophylactic tools such as Spybot, F-Prot and malware programs.

[Notary Sojac]

Thought that "Norman" was a misprint for "Norton" and was ready to take a potshot at the study until I saw Symantec listed.

We have always used Avira, Spybot, and ZoneAlarm in our WinXP boxes and are totally satisfied with the protection we get.

I tend to recommend separate products set to do separate things (virus scan, spyware scan, and firewall) rather than an all-in-one package - which unfortunately seems to be the way the vendors are going.

[papasmurf]

I installed MS Security Essentials on my Win7 box and, so far, it plays nice, with very little resource usage.

So, if it’s as good as, or better than, AVG and NOD32, I guess I’ll keep using it on my Windows machines.

[Skooz]

bfl

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Good read:

[techcor]

Bump to read later.

[Billthedrill]

Yep. Done a little testing myself although nowhere on that scale. What they're not telling you is (1) how intrusive the software package is, and (2) how bloated it is. Used to be a big Symantec fan but their product has, like McAfee and, alas, AVG, become a swollen, one-product-does all monster that chews up more than its share of drive space (not to mention memory - more on that in a moment) for features you really don't want. At one point in my testing I found I had, due to incomplete installs, the Windows firewall, the McAfee firewall, and the Symantec firewall all running simultaneously. I was protected all right - nothing got through and nothing ran.

Speaking strictly server-side now, when we switched away from Symantec we noticed nearly a 100-mb drop in non-page pool RAM, which, inasmuch as we were running Server2003 with the 3GB switch and an app for which NPP was critical, was a real load. Switching to Sophos on those boxes reclaimed the memory. It just works differently, not necessarily better (in fact, it didn't do as well catching viruses).

None of them were perfect. Kaspersky was pretty good, although it ain't cheap. AVG - the commercial version, not the old free one (that's still out there) was a little disappointing and has become bloatware, and McAfee takes over your machine when it needs to do a signature or engine update. Jury's still out on the "new" Microsoft Security Essentials but so far I really like what I see. Seems like somebody's gone for a slightly smaller footprint for a change. I suspect all of them will probably follow.

Personally and at the moment I'm running McAfee on one laptop, AVG and Symantec on workstations, and Microsoft Security Essentials on another laptop. Sophos on our servers but that wasn't really my choice. None of them is so bad at what it does that I'd toss it out of hand. YMMV.

[n2dubes]

I use avast-works very well for me. However, I agree w/ a previous post that one should use a combination of things (firewall, malware programs etc) to protect specific problems that may occur. I would never depend on an antivirus program to protect my computer against all types of threats.

[ßuddaßudd]

bookmark-o-rama

[bigheadfred]

I’m using Bitdefender and it seems to work ok. I seem to have a long startup and maybe it is because of that. But I don’t know enough about it. Running XP. Maybe someone out there knows for sure?

[mysterio]

Malwarebytes anti-malware.

[palmerizedCaddis]

/You should see Peter Norton’s house at the beach. All you suckas made him a gazillionaire.
Caddis the Younger

[Matchett-PI]

bttt