I have a fresh installation of WinXP Home.  I have yet to install an anti-virus. Based on all your experience, which should I go with?

FYI: I have a dial-up connection.  I am looking for the best bang for the buck short of unplugging the modem .

What say you all?

And for a solid, reliable for-fee product, I recommend Symantec Norton Antivirus 2006

"Symantec has ...over 20,000 sensors monitoring network activity in over 180 countries. Symantec also gathers malicious code data along with spyware and adware reports from over 120 million client, server, and gateway systems that have deployed Symantec's antivirus products. In addition, Symantec maintains one of the world's most comprehensive databases of security vulnerabilities, covering over 11,000 vulnerabilities affecting more than 20,000 technologies from over 2,000 vendors. Furthermore, Symantec operates BugTraq, one of the most popular forums for the disclosure and discussion of vulnerabilities on the Internet ... The Symantec Internet Security Threat Report is grounded principally on the expert analysis of this data. Based on Symantec's expertise and experience, this analysis yields a highly informed commentary on current Internet threat activity...."

Norton.


It's .mil approved, and the only antivirus we use. And free to most .gov employees.

nod32

commandondemand

f-prot

panda

ewido  antitrojan  

I have no comment on NAV products at this time    nor mcafee    

Already talked anbout here


www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=416829

Quoted: Already talked anbout here www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=416829

i haven't talked about it so it hasn't been discussed  

Anti-Vir  It's free and it works very well.

Here

Trend Micro is good also.

Norton is a resource hog that likes to tie up processing time.

Quoted: Norton is a resource hog that likes to tie up processing time.

That is an often quoted line that appears to have the ring of truth but is not true.
Previous versions of the Norton Antivirus were not the resource hogs they were alleged to be.

If people don't like Norton products for some reason, it would be better to just not mention them than to spread malicious rumour.

And the new version of Norton Antivirus 2006 is better than ever.  No less of an authority than MazimumPC magazine has rated the Norton Antivirus 2006 the highest in the group of commercial AV software. They back up their endorsements with the hard numbers, so anyone can rest assured that the installation of the Norton AV 2006 will not adversely affect their machines, while providing the highest level of protection.

Quoted: Quoted: Norton is a resource hog that likes to tie up processing time. That is an often quoted line that appears to have the ring of truth but is not true. Previous versions of the Norton Antivirus were not the resource hogs they were alleged to be. If people don't like Norton products for some reason, it would be better to just not mention them than to spread malicious rumour. And the new version of Norton Antivirus 2006 is better than ever.  No less of an authority than MazimumPC magazine has rated the Norton Antivirus 2006 the highest in the group of commercial AV software. They back up their endorsements with the hard numbers, so anyone can rest assured that the installation of the Norton AV 2006 will not adversely affect their machines, while providing the highest level of protection.

The Norton products I have used (Enterprise Security and Home user) have all been resource hogs.  I've noted significant drops in performance in applications.

That being said, it is also a pain in the ass to uninstall.

I use Trend SMB right now and have found it to be robust and easily manageable.  While the Symantec deployed nicely, it was a PITA with all the shit it installed.

YMMV.