AVG AV vs McAfee AV

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder with security suite is better i get McAfee with my new laptop, but i used to AVG security.

I have AVG free trail and than i switched to free AVG, i was considering to buy it.

I know that best are Bitdefender, Kaspersky and Norton but i know that they are unworthy to buy because they consume to much of computer computing power

[megatiger78]

isn't McAfee a scam?

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

IT pro here.

AVG was a resource hog, last time I used it.

Avast AV free is lighter. (and also free)

Norton failed to ID a virus I had for 6 months once. That avast found. that's when I stopped recommending Norton.

[GigaG]

I have a grudge against Norton because of my experience with is slowing a netbook. I personally use Microsoft Security Essentials (or, in my case, Windows 8 Defender, which is a rebranded version.) Rather simple, but it works, especially when combined with smart browsing.

[LordFerret]

I've been using AVG since it first came out here in the US (1998), back when it was owned by Grisoft. Along with it, SpyBot S&D, and Malwarebytes, and a few other tools and goodies I keep handy. None of my Win machines has ever been (successfully) hit. True, AVG has gotten a bit hog'ish, but it's not intolerable..... as the old saying goes: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Linear]

My girlfriend and friends use/i've recommended Avast and Malwarebytes, a few also use Spybot S+D.

Personally, Windows Defender and Malwarebytes is completely adequate.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a grudge against Norton because of my experience with is slowing a netbook. I personally use Microsoft Security Essentials (or, in my case, Windows 8 Defender, which is a rebranded version.) Rather simple, but it works, especially when combined with smart browsing.

^This guy has it.

[Nuke]

the free scanners seem to work good enough for me. been using avg for a very long time now. it doesnt seem like much of a resource hog, though it does seem to instal a lot of services.

ive never liked norton. i used to be a system builder and decided that the practice of preinstalling the norton trial on oem machines caused more problems than it solved. it protects users till it expires and after that gives them a false sense of security. then on top of that norton is really hard to get rid of (especially for non-geeks). we got a number of support calls about viruses, i tell them to uninstall the norton trial and instal avg, and almost every time the machines came back because they didnt know how to do that. after that the preinstaller scripts gave the user the option of installing avg free when they started the computer for the first time. never had a virus call after that.

[Charzy]

Microsift Security Essentials for passive stuff, the latest version of Malware Bytes for when you think you have malware and want to check.

[Albert VDS]

Why not just switch to Linux, no need to have an anti virus.

But if you are keen on your Windows then I would suggest Avira, it has a small memory footprint and has a great detection rate.

[longbyte1]

I deeply dislike Norton and McAfee (they are resource hogs). I'm using Kaspersky, and it's okay for browsing and stuff. A recent update has installed a self-signed certificate for intercepting Google searches and making them "safer." I've gotten a couple of false alarms, though, mostly from GNU utilities. Trend Micro is decent; the backend isn't as exposed and there doesn't seem to be a lot of passive protection, but from statistics, the heuristic analysis is excellent.

Go with AVG, it should meet your needs

[Vanamonde]

Not science. Moved.

[Nuke]

Why not just switch to Linux, no need to have an anti virus.

this is a bad attitude to have. just because you run a linux does not mean you will never encounter malicious code. it is less likely that you will, but still one must keep their guard up.

[stupid_chris]

Norton is definitely a no go. McAffee never lived up to what it said to me. TBH, when comparing free AVs, Avasts comes clear first, and it offers a lot of tools that many AVs don't have at all. A friend of mine had a virus problem despite having AVG installed, scans would all report negative, but it was quite clear his PC was not clean. Installed Avast, after five minutes of scan it found red all over the place, a trojan iirc. AVG is also no go for me since then :/

[Toastedbuns]

My girlfriend and friends use/i've recommended Avast and Malwarebytes, a few also use Spybot S+D.

Personally, Windows Defender and Malwarebytes is completely adequate.

- - - Updated - - -

^This guy has it.

I roll with the same combo. Avast for the viruses and connection security, malwarebytes for the other baddies.

[Bilfr3d]

I only trust Avast... It's actually shown through some testing of an IT blog that Avast 1) the most highly ranked free antivirus 2) and that it is the #3 best paid antivirus. I can't remember what the best paid is though... but I choose (and have chosen) Avast for several years now.

[Janos1986]

Ditch McAfee, the only thing it does is cripple your performance. It can't find squat, and when it does, it finds its own components as malware. True story.

I'm actually using AVG.

I used to have Avast, but after many releases, and facelifts, and advertising, it spammed me one "informative" popup too much and I eventually snapped.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Janos1986

[Albert VDS]

this is a bad attitude to have. just because you run a linux does not mean you will never encounter malicious code. it is less likely that you will, but still one must keep their guard up.

This is true, most infections are due to the end user's way of handling software.

It's just nice to not have to spend computer resources on anti-virus software.

Edit: To add to the "end user's way of handling software". I know someone who has Windows and doesn't run anti virus software and hes virus free.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Albert VDS