[Don_1 (OP)]

My old laptop has become sluggish. It is rather old and has a hard drive which, compared to newer models, is rather like a small plastic carrier bag compared to large wheely bin liner.

So I have delved deep into my pocket and found a few pennies (US = cents) and invested in a new laptop.

Now my new laptop will need some protection, the question is do I go for Norton, MacAfee, AVG or whatever?

In the past I have used Norton, but when I fancied a change, I found I couldn't uninstal Norton, well not all of it. There seemed to be fragments which would not bugger off and leave me alone. Right now, I am using Kaspersky and though it seems to be fine, I have noticed the Norton logo in places, so I wonder if the two are linked in some way.

A quick search on Google brings a mere 61 billion results!!! It is obvious that many of these results are eminating from the security companies themselves, blowing their own trumpets. Its hard to tell whether even some of the independant reviews are perhaps a tad on the biased side.

So before I get my new laptop online and subject to possible attack from a virus, worm, hi-jacker, hacker, phisher, trojan horse, beefburger (sorry, wrong horse), what do you think is the best all round protection?

My current Kaspersky is about to run out, do I renew it? Do I opt for MacAfee? AVG?

Obviously, I can use a free download, but these do not give the best protection, you gets what you pays for. But I am not into national security or some global commercial giant, I just want to protect my new laptop and be assured that when I buy something on line or go into my bank account, I can do so with at least some peace of mind and should someone send me an email, I can have some help in telling the prospective new client from dubious nerd trying to get my bank details.

[RD]

If it's a Windows computer, Microsoft's own antivirus works well and is free  ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/security-essentials-download

If you want optimum security (e.g. for banking) consider running a Live Linux CD, instead of your windows OS.
Then the operating system is on a read-only medium so cannot be modified by any malware you may encounter on t'internet ... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43086.msg380798#msg380798

[syhprum]

If you want to get rid of remnants of old programs I suggest advanced system care this seems to do a good job and the basic system is free.
some time bits that refuse to be deleted can be removed by starting up with a separate system Linux puppy is good for this and can be loaded memory resident from a 250 Mb USB dongle.
I agree the antivirus available from Microsoft in windows 7 works fine and is included automatically with windows 8 

[Mazurka]

On the basis fo getting fed up with large and memory/ process hungry freeware, when I recently upgraded a desktop I signed up with Eset - which seems to be great - and if you can be bothered to trawl around all of the reviews and comparison sites seems to get reasonbaly favourable reviews.  In addition they offer packages for covering multiple machines...


No bother with it over the last 5 months.

[syhprum]

I notice Advanced System Care (Free version) picks up the odd Trojan that the built in anti virus with Windows 8 misses.
It also checks out windows update for any security updates

[RD]

I notice Advanced System Care (Free version) picks up the odd Trojan that the built in anti virus with Windows 8 misses.

"Advanced System Care" is made by IObit which has a bad rep ...  http://forums.malwarebytes.org//index.php?showtopic=29681&st=0

Advanced System Care's dodgy database could contain false positives.

[graham.d]

The only problem with relying on Microsoft Anti-virus is that if any Anti-virus program is going to be circumvented by hackers it will be that one.

I have Sophos courtesy of their policy of letting companies who use it supply it free to employees and their families. It works well and is kept up-to-date regularly. However it does use a lot of CPU time on start up.

[David Cooper]

Microsoft's security essentials is weak - it's better than nothing by a very long way, but if you can afford it it's better to go for something like Kaspersky or Norton. The best way to buy it is to get the current year's version from Amazon just as it's being phased out to be replaced with the next version as that keeps the price right down and the protection is just as good.

[techmind]

I'll give another vote for eSET / NOD32  I've been using it for years - definitely less of a system-hog than Norton/Symantec!

[nicephotog]

Either Norton or AVG are good, Norton does that a little slow for my liking but not uneffective.

[chris]

Norton killed my computer to a snail's pace with boot-ups taking about 10 years.

I use McAfee, which the University give to staff; never had a problem with it.

Advanced System Care is not an anti-viral tool, it's a system optimisation tool. I used ASC 5 and 6 on my old laptop, which was taking forever to start up and it totally revitalised it. I'd recommend it for a quick spring clean and have been very pleased with the results. And at only a tenner it's possibly even worth buying the full version.

c

[graham.d]

I was told by our IT man at work to beware of system optimisation tools. Check out these truly independent remarks in Wikipedia on registry cleaners. You have to think there may be good reason why microsoft do not provide a registry cleaner; it is because there is always a risk and it makes next to no difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registry_cleaner

A lot of the selling is all Smoke and Mirrors. Independent reviews of Advanced System Care are also hard to find (though I would believe Chris when he claims an improvement in speed) as they are sometimes people spamming the review sites who are associated with the makers or their competition. I would take more note of the sceptical geeks though. Many of these tools have serious drawbacks that may make your machine less stable and may contain their own malware. Always read lots of reviews and seek out critical ones. The "reputable" magazines and websites are sometimes no better as they don't always like to criticise their advertisers too much.

[JP]

If one's looking to "optimize" windows performance, the best things I've found are to defragment the drives regularly and to turn off programs that automatically load at startup.  Such programs make the computer take a while to boot up and can potentially eat up RAM and processor cycles while running in the background.  To solve these, you can get something like Autoruns (freeware) to manually disable programs from loading at startup.  (Of course, you don't want to disable anything critical, so this requires a fair bit of computer competency to do...)

[RD]

... you can get something like Autoruns (freeware) to manually disable programs from loading at startup.

The latest version of CCleaner (also free) has a "tool" which allows you to manage which programs start up at boot.

[syhprum]

You don't need a special tool you can do it in system configuration with win system 8

[confusious says]

I swear by AVG free anti-virus, it gives moderate protection, but you can upgrade for higher end protection.

[SeanB]

Norton actually has a removal tool on the website (google it rather than trying to find it) and I will say that NOD32 is lightweight and not a hog. Myself I run windows without antivirus ( in a VMware box though, so I just have a copy that is run, next time it is a new one totally with no saved state) and Puppy Linux will fit and run off a 1G USB stick, and you can even remove it while running with no problems, as it all runs in 256M of RAM, including the browser, text editor and all the games.

[yor_on]

I use Avira and Commodo firewall pro on this one, both free. Avira because it's German, and they have a slight allergy against governmental back doors (for historic reasons I would say) which I don't expect American and other 'anti virus program' to be able to sustain (also according to some sources). Although there might be some other countries you can expect, possibly, to support such a far-fetched notion too?

The downside to that is it interrupting, wanting you to buy the paid version, but that one is possible to get around. It's also fast. Commodo because it's easy to configure and, although old, free ware and good enough for my purposes. I have never had any problems with virus spy *.* of any kind. Mostly, if you use Windows, finding it to be sluggish etc, or acting strange a 'system restore' (accessories) will take care of that. It can also be useful to make a 'system point' in system restore, as you first become satisfied with your system. At that same time you also might want to make a copy of your system registry to save, you can import it later.

Those two takes care of most.

The worst security hole you will have is your browser
(and put linux on your old one, it will be so much faster for the same graphic interface)

[Schema]

Suggesting a particular AV is unethical. They are all hit and miss. Someone could suggest one AV and you install it thinking you are ok. The very next day you get hit with a ring 0 infection and your AV did nothing to stop it.

To decide what is best for you, you should compile a checklist of functions that you desire. For instance, I opt to use AV that has real-time shields, as well as a real-time sandbox. Do some research and decide for yourself.

[JSparkle]

The free version of AVG is sufficient I find