Normally I would check what Consumer's Union has done in the way of testing a product before buying it (or obtaining it if it is freeware). They did test a number of AV/security packages/suites and have published a couple of reports in their magazine "Consumer Reports". In the first report, a little over a year ago, they rated Trend Micro's PCCillan as a best buy, and more recently have published a report on the free security suites.

However, when I took their advice and switched to PCCillan, I learned the hard way that the testing CU did was incomplete, although the procedures untested were unexpected.

1). Some (and I would think all) AV/Security suites put hooks into the OS to obtain the access it needs to provide the protection it gives.

2). Use of the uninstall wizard for removing those hooks might not remove these hooks. I found out for certain that the Trend Micro products do not (I got that one directly from the horse's mouth). It also appears the same is true of Norton, although I can't be certain. If you have a pre-installed AV package, you would be advised to check with the manufacturer about how to do a complete removal. Trend Micro has extra procedures that MUST be run if you are uninstalling a Trend Micro security suite and installing someone elses.

3). If a pre-installed AV package or one you installed yourself is not removed completely (see 2 above), installing a new package will run into conflicts with the old package's hooks, and this will create a drastic performance degredation. I can well imagine it could cause other problems as well, such as the one mentioned earlier in this thread about interfering with net access.

I reported my problems to Consumer's Union and recommended some additional test procedures they should use in rating PC security packages.

I have to ask how many of the people reporting problems on this thread with any AV product had attempted to replace either another manufacturer's pre-installed package or another manufacturer's  package they had themselves put on earlier.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Kaspersky in my post last page.  That's what I used to clean up after the only NOD32 failure I have ever seen.  Still an AMAZING track record for NOD32, but that's why it slipped to #2 on my list.

Agreed 100%.  A hardware firewall prevents those scanning the Internet for computers with holes from even detecting that you are there.  Everyone I have ever seen who was infected from the OUTSIDE was NOT running a hardware firewall.

Nice post.  Good points. 

-Teal

That's like saying house doors are useless because a determined criminal might get through anyways.

Jonnan001's metaphor works as well .

Nothing's 100%, not even a router. That's why security experts generally recommend several layers of security. Putting all of your eggs into one type of security solution is generally not a good idea.

I personally have antivirus, a hardware router, a software firewall, DEP, and even UAC active on my system. Each protects against certain classes of attacks, and together they provide a pretty good security solution. In case of failure, I have backups and am moving towards having offsite backups as well.

And the best common practice is to use multiple layers of security .

They're both good in different ways. A router does a good job at filtering a lot of internet "junk" so your computer doesn't have to waste a lot of its own resources cleaning the junk. A software firewall can tell which connections are connected to which applications and can detect when a new (possibly rogue) application is trying to send packets.

I actually use my computer for real work and store actual information of value on my system. I'd have to restore it from a backup as well. In addition, reinstalling the OS takes time, and I'd rather not get infected in the first place.

You mean you've never encountered a person who got a virus in an email?

These days they're bypassing hardware firewalls by hitching a ride onto something that is normally let through the firewall, such as web pages and emails.

I have uninstalled and replaced Norton, AVG, and Avast. The only one I have really had trouble with is Norton. It's simply ridiculous to have to download and run a "removal" program after running the uninstaller. I never had a problem uninstalling and replacing AVG or Avast. Norton actually left processes running after an uninstall.

I'm skeptical...but it would be great if Norton got back into the competition once again. Competition always makes products better.

Don't apologize... That would make me a troll too!

I think I will.. when my year is up with Eset I may do the free month of a few of them consecutively so I can give all of them a real try again... maybe I can get a good 6 months free protection before I actually have to buy one too... lol...

True. However, the Trend Micro package includes the "removal" program as part of the package (no separate download needed). But do they tell you about it? Not unless you ask exactly the right question, and in exactly the right way.

amzing how this thread kept on going on and on aftear I left.

Use firefox, and turn off java script.  For me that's cut down on 99% of the bugs.

Avast almost destroyed me, so it's AVG for me

I installed it a while back, and it was just crazy, apart from the creepy alien voice that comes out of it, it gave me a zillion popups, asking me questions every few seconds, very insane UI, I didn't know wtf was going on, and then it wouldn't shut down, so I turned off the pc, before it had a chance to send Daath Vader after me

Oh, and it said that basically every game I owned was a virus

Norton Internet Security 2009 is a slick lean antimalware machine. The 2008 version worked really well too.

It would be a great world if people stuck to RECENT facts when trying to help out, rather than express their opinion on the several years old version of some software they used and hated.

Read some reviews on the latest norton suite, and you'll quickly see a trend of really impressed people.

As for ESET, I think it's a mature and good suite. But it's lagging behind on malware detection. ESET is a good 4.3% behind Norton 2009 in detecting existing malware (http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02). And like ESET, Norton 2009 scores 0 false positives...