Anti-virus programs/suites

[Boyiee]

I haven't tried threatfire yet, but I probably will if I don't end up with nod/kav. The AV's aren't too incredible of resource hogs its just ocd kicking in and it bugs me to see nod/kav in the process list at 70-80k right up there if not past winamp/itunes etc. Especially when its second to a game I have open even with other apps running. I feel like they should be that high during a scan, not while gaming/etc and running in the background.

[Caiyuo]

I'm really not that crazy about MSE personally as it seems fairly stripped down and more suited to installing on PCs for parents or friends you know who aren't going to touch it or change any settings in which case it's perfect. Using NOD AV5 atm, which in contrast seems so far in the opposite direction that it needs to be stripped down a bit. Running atm on my buttholes laptop from 2005, though, doing basically nothing, it's using 23K compared to firefox at 640K and the firefox plugin container at 92K. Not sure if those values have any real meaning given the hardware distinctions and difference of use, but there they are.

[Kryssan]

I currently run MSE and Immunet Protect (free version) side by side for protection (A list of other av programs that IP can run sidebyside with are here in table form), and FF with NS/AB. I also run PM and Chrome without any addons though. Haven't had any problems running them on the sites I frequent or the stuff I've stumbled upon during Google searches.

[Kerberoz]

I'm really not that crazy about MSE personally as it seems fairly stripped down and more suited to installing on PCs for parents or friends you know who aren't going to touch it or change any settings in which case it's perfect.

Ehh... that's the exact opposite of reality. Parents and other tech-illiterates are the ones who actually benefit from a heavy-duty program. For someone with half a clue, there is only "sufficient" and anything past that is worthless bloat. MSE is sufficient.

[Caiyuo]

After poking around checking out Immunet and looking for mentions of it, I found AV-Comparatives.org which actually has some seemingly valuable and legit tests in a variety of areas. Here's the performance test: http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/co...formance-tests - Until you get towards the bottom of the barrel it seems like the majority are actually pretty close in regards to resources, with actual "performance" as far as an anti-virus not taken into account.

Actually here's the PDF that summarizes every field they looked at for the most recent testing in Dec. 2011: http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...ummary2011.pdf

[Outlaw]

I'm really surprised to hear that about NOD32. I almost bought it a while back. I use Avast free version and have been for a long time. Avast 7 is really good I think. Some reviews say it's as good or better than some pay suites. It even has a sandbox mode that automaticly runs suspicious programs and keeps them separate from your system. Also Firefox of course with NoScript with the strictest settings possible (all Flash blocked, <IFRAMES>, etc) AdBlock Plus and Ghostery. That has worked out well for me.

[bungiefan]

I started with ESET in 2008, and I'm using version 5 Internet Security now. It seems to stay pretty low on resource usage on my system, and on my old XP systems it used less than 100 MB of RAM. The only time it hogs resources is when I have it scanning my 13 TB array of 10 hard drives, when I'm doing a deep dive system inspection. Just normal everyday use doesn't seem to be that bad. I'm running a 6-core Phenom II 1100T with 8 GB of RAM. Kaspersky IS came with my mobo, and it would lock up trying to scan my drives. Avast didn't detect some infected files from my GF's laptop backup, and ESET got them.

I haven't had to set up a gaming mode on mine, but I did have to turn off the parental controls (on by default, which doesn't make sense for my own system and no kids in the house).

[Shenrien]

Actually here's the PDF that summarizes every field they looked at for the most recent testing in Dec. 2011: http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...ummary2011.pdf

Very interesting, I use Kaspersky Pure and has been probably the best AV I have used since first looking into getting AV software.

[Sonomaa]

I have no idea why you guys are having preformance issues when you run nod32. Ive been running v3 then v4 for a few years now and havent had any issues whatsoever with it degrading my system running fast. Ive been running a quad core q6600 and then a corei7 2600k, which might offset any difference but I dont trust any of the free suites out there except MSE and I dont need to use MSE when I can use nod32 instead.

[Yugl]

Not even avast?

[Dominico]

Is Kaspersky any good? Got it free when I got my new laptop. Wondering if I should just use this or go ahead and continue using Nod32 (though I'd probably upgrade to v5).

[Niya]

Just Kaspersky AV or internet security? If it's the IS packages, screw it!

NOD32 is never a bad choice for commercial scanners, like i already said it has always scored one of the best detection results over the last few years.

[Dominico]

Just Kaspersky AV or internet security? If it's the IS packages, screw it!

NOD32 is never a bad choice for commercial scanners, like i already said it has always scored one of the best detection results over the last few years.

It's just the regular AV version. But eh, I said screw it and just bought a new 2 year sub for NOD32 yesterday.

[Rellikard]

Kaspersky software at times can use 40-80%+ of the CPU and has this weird problem w/ the blacklists going bad forcing you to re-install. I used to be a fan of Kaspersky but too many of my customers with the same problems.

[Kerberoz]

Protection performance is binary. Either it works or it doesn't. What matters is cost, intrusiveness, and resource use.