[Mike Betts]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

Eventually when the virus definitions reach, they are almost identical. But I have noticed that Norton and McAfee usually come up with the virus definitions before AVG. The one thing good about AVG though is it does not use as many system resources as other anti-virus programs, therefore it's good for slower computers. I'd still stay with norton or mcafee, but thats just a preference.

Actually, my experience is just the opposite. I had a friend's computer which was protected by NAV (updated to the latest definitions). When I scanned with AVG it found 3 infections not detected by NAV.

IMHO, Norton spends too much energy making sure that they take your money and not enough in protection... But that's just my opinion...

I have used AVG along with AdAware and SpyBot (all freeware versions) for the last 6 months or so and am very happy with the results.

I also keep current with all the Windows updates (I've been SP2 for over 3 months) and don't know where all the hysteria about SP2 comes from.

I also use Firefox as my primary browser, Crest Total as my toothpaste and I don't walk under ladders...