I see that you recommend Microsoft Security Essentials and Avast. Is there any reason that you omitted AVG? I believe that it is receiving great ratings right now. Thanks.
'Great ratings' in editorial reviews maybe, not so much from the users. Editorial reviews tend to concentrate mainly on protection elements, general users have a much wider criteria.... such as; resource usage, simplicity and ease of use, low FP rates.
AVG Free remains heavy on resources, retains bundling (toolbar, etc.), continues to nag users to upgrade, and is still complicated (for many) to configure.
It's likely that the more advanced users, with modern, high-end machines, may rate AVG quite highly... but for the average home user, IMO, MSE and Avast in particular are better alternatives.
Cheers... Jim
I prefer the paid alternatives of either Kaspersky Internet Security or ESET Smart Security myself.
AVG was, at one point, the big kid on the block when it came to free AV. Over time they got lazy and the program became bloated, buggy, and ineffective. If I recall they even bundled a toolbar at one point. People notice these things. People remember these things, which is why I continue to shy away from Norton and AVG.
In the grand scheme of things there are too many companies (and more entering the sector daily) making good quality security software to stick with one that can't/won't/doesn't care about their software and/or customers enough to maintain quality. If the company loses focus over a period of time then it's time to move on. If the company tries to improve, well good for them and I wish them success but I'm not going to trust them.
1 Guest(s)
