Does Stardock make customizing programs for linux? I don't think so.

How about Mac? Sorry,I'm afraid not.

This is WIN(short for Windows)Customize,or at least it is where I am posting from.

Discussion of other OS's has no bearing on anything in this thread imo.

Wizard 1956

Very well said , this is Wincustomize

Kaspersky is the clear winner.

Aren't you confusing viruses with trojans ? It is true that no good design or good code will make users safe from social engineering (only being smarter than a chair prevents that*). Unlike trojans, viruses and worms spread without user intervention, and I think good design and security processes deal with that effectively.

Migration of windows users and their mentality has already started - they typically choose Ubuntu linux. While some users are so stupid as to run everything with with administrator privileges (no kidding - I've seen someone saying in a forum he precedes all commands with sudo because he's not sure when to use it), I'm going to say open source, open standards etc make even clueless people safer. For example, vast majority of free/open source software in linux is installed from official repositories, rather than downloaded from some random website which may appear ok. Official repositories, especially in more mainstream distributions, are subject to rigorous quality control and review. Downloading software from a website is a frowned upon method of installation, and even less technical Linux users acquire these habits. For average linux user, using repositories is the easier method, and that's why he's going to stick with that.

* and some common sense. I think people can largely be taught that, just like you can teach people not to share their credit card number with anyone. Spam messages sometimes contain 'unsubscribe' links, but what would make you think they're going to honor your wish if they've sent you unsolicited mail in the first place ?

I have had problems with Norton in the past, being such a huge resource hog, then recently i guess they rewrote their code base, and released a good product, I use Norton Internet Security, and it is very very good, easy to use interface, not a resource hog at all, so my pitch is Norton Internet Security, plus when you purchase it it comes with 3 licenses, to use with 3 pcs in your household ifyou have them,

Cobra, you are on the right track. I am a writer and heavily surf the web in my research.. and I have been totally run over twice by very vicious malware; once running Kaspersky, S&D and Malwarebytes; once running AVG Internet Security. All except S&D were paid versions and the malware disabled my protections and blew right in and you know the rest.

Can't tell you how much money I have spent on anti-malware but the list also includes most of the others in this thread. I can share a little of what I have learned:

1) Be careful w/ programs that purport to catch malware by behavior (Webroot Viper, Comodo, Zone Alarm Extreme etc) as they often do more damage, to programs, than good.

2) Choosing the right registry cleaner is more important than the right anti-malware. You may think you have a virus when actually some registry entries have been erronously deleted.

3) Real-time disk defrag or Auto-defrag programs (Advanced System Care 3, Diskkeeper etc) can play havoc with your system if you have an unexpected shutdown. May cause you to think you have a virus.

4) Who's best in anti-malware is a game of leap-frog. First one, then another and so on. Pay attention not to what's there in a program but rather what's not there. Only one anti-malware program I know of that detects and catches ActiveX "webbugs" and that is K7. Download the trial and read your favorite news site. You will be appalled at how many "webbug" implantations are attempted. These little buggers track your every move and send the info to friend and foe alike.

i recommend Kaspersky and Avira.

With a non free AV you wouldn't suffer from a virus that survives a format. And I'm not worrying at all about malware that break my system. I worry about malware that actually work seamlessly with my OS, and free AV doesn't do anywhere near as good on protecting from that stuff as a commercial product does.

When did you try norton last time? It has used less resources than AVG the last 3 years...

Interesting. I've run commercial AV-suites the last 7 or so years, and have formatted 3 times, not a single one was because of a virus. I wonder what that could mean...

AVG is a false positive machine. It consistently alerts on things that's not viruses. It also slows down the machine way more than other available free software. Of all free AV-software AVG is the one I recommend the least. Avira or Avast is the way to go if you can't afford a real suite (Personally, I recommend Norton IS 2009, it's for AV-suites what Windows 7 is to Vista... Yes, REALLY).

You assume that all malware will cause a noticable degradation of your system, which is not true. With your software setup, and naive attitude, your computer could be part of a botnet without you knowing it.

Personally I use both Avast! and McAfee. Theyre both very good with frequent definition updates. The only complaint I have is McAfee adding almost 40 extra seconds to boot time. Whatever. I can deal.

I think it's obvious from b0rsuk's post that he's a clueless fanboi who didn't know that malware for Linux exists at all. So yeah.

No virus issue, maybe. Then again, the only virus i had on my home comp in 17 years was OneHalf which i brought from university on a floppy drive. So i may as well say i have no "virus issue" on Windows as well. Besides, you'll have issues running most games under a different operating system so that undermines all gains you can possibly get by reducing your virus issues. After all, the most efficient anti-virus solution is to throw your PC in the window, it's much easier to do and you'll be able to run about as many of your games as under Linux operating system anyway. Isn't it a nice solution? So i wish all Linux proponents on gaming forums to do exactly that. As a bonus, i'll not see any other of their stupid suggestions.

Just for fun, I downloaded Adaware, spybot and malwarebytes antimalware.

Currently my computer is protected by Norton IS 2009 and maintained by Advanced System Care pro (mentioned only because it has some malwareprotection integrated too).

Nothing bad was found on my computer. I take that as a indication that my software is at least equal in keeping my computer safe as all the above software. Any performance hit I get by my software is negligible, can't say that about AVG, Adaware, Spybot and Zonealarm (specially if they're all running on-demand scanning).

I ran a scan with AVG about a year ago on my system, and it found 3 "viruses" on my system. I'm 100% certain that none of them were a real threat, so I didn't bother with trying AVG again now.

Ok, let me see here....

ccSvcHost is the resident symantec software. CPU usage: 0-2%, it peaks at 4% on rare occasions. Memory use: ~1200kB-~3500kB - On rare occasions it goes up to ~5000kB.

That's resource use for both firewalling and malware protection on demand. I don't see how you define a resource hog, but I'm quite certain you can't mean this...

For system resources purposes, NOD32 and Norton 2009 are very good. I strongly recommend either one (I use NOD32, but thats just cause I haven't gotten around to buying the new norton for some of my systems yet)

(Note: previous versions of norton were super resource hogs, but 2009 was rewritten from the ground up and rocks)

You might have a good PC. Note: You aren't everyone that uses norton.

When i used it .. it did use alot more resources than i cared for a virus protection to use. But thats just me ... im a speed freak (i dropped $400 on a 80GB SSD hard-drive so i could have like instant load times) .