Both are good. If you had a Mac you'd need neither. What OS are you running?

Better to ask this on a computer site: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=80398

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I haven't recommended Symantec or McAfee for years. They have become bloated and a liability.

The one I currently use is Eset NOD32.

NOD32 Antivirus Protection for Your PC: Antivirus for Windows XP and more

IMO, you don't need the suite just the AV/AS part. I use Microsoft's Forefront security too although I don't recommend it for home users and I don't recommend MSFT's bloated OneCare solution (which they're withdrawing anyway).

And I'm sure the clueless Mactards will come in saying their system is more secure. I'm not putting all Mac users in this category. Just the ones that are blindly ignorant on security.

Macs Aren’t Safer, Just a Smaller Target - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com

Mac Security Part II: It’s a Numbers Game - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com

And they'll probably have comprehension issues with these articles like the Macbois in the comments section do. So to summarize:

- Vista had about the same number of serious vulnerabilities as OS X last year (28 vs 27).

- It is true that the Mac is not yet a big target for malware. Some experts say it will be when its marketshare reaches 17% to 20% . So you won't see Mac malware headlines in the news like the recent ones about Conficker (which wasn't an issue if you patched your system with free Windows updates which were first available last October).

- If you have a Mac and visit questionable site (porn, warez, codec pack and generally "too good to be true" offers), you are vulnerable to malware.

- If you don't have AV/AS software, you don't know if you have malware on your system. Most modern malware tries to hide itself and use your system for the malware writers profit rather than damage your system to make it not boot, etc.

- Even with malware detection, you aren't safe from phishing and some other types of online scams on either platform.

There's differences depending on whether your focus is antivirus, antispyware, antispam, parental control, online backup, etc. I'm currently using Webroot on Vista x64 but when that annual subscription expires, I'm going back to Norton.

Currently, the best overall is Norton Internet Security -- its impact on performance is really minimal. Antivirus and antispyware capabilities are excellent.

Other choices to consider are Trend Micro Internet Security and ZoneAlarm Internet Security.

McAfee is one of the worst in terms of impact on system performance and is slow. I consider all other commercial products to be better.

Cool - thanks for the good info! I'm just a casual user on that machine for things like facebook and keeping track of my investment accounts and bank recs. It runs on XP professional - I haven't "upgraded" the OS yet as I haven't really seen the need to. I'll check out the links and read up - thanks for the help. I'll look at that notebook review forum as well - looks like there will be tons of useful info there!

__________________
2001 X5 4.4i
2002 Honda S2000

I have heard that AVG is good and Kaspersky is excellent. I use AVG (free version) on one PC along with Malwarebytes on one PC and Kaspersky on another. No particular reason why I run the PCs differently except the one with Kaspersky is running a 64-bit OS and the 64-bit version of Kaspersky.

__________________

I have used AVG, PC Tools brand, (forget the name), and several years worth of Norton.
My Norton 2009 is the cleanest running, lowest impact Norton I've seen in 10 years of
using their versions.

Strictly & Fwiw, PC Mag gives it rave reviews; see link below.

I want no part in a Norton Sucks debate, similar to Macs are the best, etc...
It is just my 2Cts from a very paranoid 'net user. And, imo, the AdAware Anniversary Edition is
very, very good for nailing adware/spyware. And, CC Cleaner for really cleaning out the crap...
GL,mD

The Best Security Suites for 2009 - Reviews by PC Magazine

__________________
Ol'UncleMotor
From the Home Base of Pro Bono Punditry
and 50 Cent Opins...

Our Mtn Scenes, Car Pics, and Road Trip Pics on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627297418250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627332480833/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45275375@N00/

My X Page

I'm not sure where you get this. Norton was pathetic for years. More recent versions are better but I have not seen ANY data backed report where it came ahead of Eset and several others in terms of AV/AS.

Unfortunately, I think this one, which is among the leading sites for AV rating, is only available now by subscription.

April Virus Bulletin Report

For me it falls into onced burned (confirmed by a number of friends) that leads me to say avoid Norton.

So they may be better than they were a few years ago, but they're at it again:

Virus Bulletin : News - Symantec slip sparks suspicion, spam

Typical comment:

" note that Symantec's products come bundled with most every out of the box pc and note book. It is the first thing I remove and replace with something much less resource intensive and yet far more effective. *cough avg *cough

Regards,

Snoogs "

Well, you could read the PC Mag review posted by motordavid above. I'm not going to argue about this.

I've been developing on and working with PC's for over 20 years so I think I'm entitled to an opinion. Actually, what does that matter?? I AM entitled to an opinion and I gave my best advice...

You didn't state an opinion, you made a statement (without any back up or qualification).

If you think PC Mag is a good source of AV/AS reviews and recommendations, then we disagree. I prefer looking at real data from sites that do thorough analysis.

BTW, mD's post was written concurrently to mine.