I am looking for an antivirus for Windows XP because I am tired of all that **** that tries to infect my PC. So far I looked into Kaspersky Anti Virus (http://www.deprice.com/kasperskyantiviruspersonal.htm) and McAfee VirusScan (http://us.mcafee.com/root/package.asp?pkgid=100). Which one is better or should I pick something entirely different?

AVG Free (http://free.grisoft.com/doc/Get+AVG+FREE/lng/us/tpl/v5)

Price is right and just as effective

McAfee is the indusrty leader. I've been using it for quite a few years now.
Do what ever you do, do not even look at Norton.

McAfee is the indusrty leader. I've been using it for quite a few years now.
Do what ever you do, do not even look at Norton.

Are you happy with it?

Why not? I've used Norton Internet Security/Antivirus for years. What's wrong with it?

do not even look at Norton.

I run Norton as well. The only thing I would trust! I have it on all my computers at home and every company I have worked for has always used it. Not sure why someone would say don't use Norton??

I have been in the corporate IT industry for over 10 years and I can tell you that if it were between McA$$fee and Symantec, it would be Symantec every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Symantec can be a bit slow compared to products like NOD32, but aside from Kaspersky, SAV(Symantec) is pretty much untouchable.

Read this: http://www.overclockers.com/articles1260/

and this: http://www.westcoastlabs.org/tech_list.asp?RCat_ID=1

then make your decision.

I run Norton as well. The only thing I would trust! I have it on all my computers at home and every company I have worked for has always used it. Not sure why someone would say don't use Norton??

I've used Norton as well without any noticable problems, but some complain that it's a resource hog.

AVG is supposed to be (A) good, (B) lightweight, and (C) free. (That last point I can vouch for.) My father uses it. He still gets the occasional trojan or whatnot, but they don't survive the system scan.

Personally I swear by Linux - the best way to avoid viruses is to run an OS that won't let them in, in the first place. ;)

The problem with Norton is the way it impacts the operation of a PC. The Norton Security suite is a resource hog, takes too much overhead, and affects the operation of the PC as a result.

A product worth considering is PC-Cillin from Trend Micro.

.... the best way to avoid viruses is to run an OS that won't let them in, in the first place. ;)
Not true..it's simply that Linux is not as much of a target. It is entirely feasible to write a Linux virus. Security (virus or otherwise) has as much to do with the user as it does the OS.

AVG

It is the best one I have ever used... and you download it off the net for free

Not true..it's simply that Linux is not as much of a target. It is entirely feasible to write a Linux virus. Security (virus or otherwise) has as much to do with the user as it does the OS.

The best way to word this is "Security through Obscurity".

If Linux was the predominant OS, I can guarantee you that there would be a myriad of viruses that would be written for it. Same thing can me said about Mac O/S. There is not enough impact for the anarchists to bother writing for Linux and Mac.

LukaBuka - of your two choices, I'd pick Kaspersky. IMO, they have one of the best detection rates and has daily updates...which is important. Personally, I'd go with the pro version of Kaspersky for more program options, but that's up to you. In my experience Kaspersky has detected viruses McAfee and Norton couldn't.

You can always go to Kaspersky's web site and download the 30 trial version. If you don't like it, it's easy to remove and won't leave anything bad behind.

My other choices would be AVG (free) or NOD32.

I woudln't be so quick to pass judgement on Linux not be used wildly as a reason for viruses not being specifically targetted to it. Unix is a very secure stable OS that uses much higher measures of security then any other OS on the market. This has been debated for a long time. Unix is used my many high level machines all around the world. Im sure they are targets just like any windows computer would be. I am not defending any OS just saying this way of thinking is a bit skewed.

Guys this is not a Linux discussion so please move along. This thread is about the merits of Anti-Virus software on a Windows machine.

Linux discussions on this thread will be deleted

I've used all that have been mentioned above, the free ones are good.

I've had alot of experience with them all since the early 80's and I've found Nortons slows down a PC to much, McAfee is much faster and found viruses Nortons missed. Nortons was once pretty good, but now it loads a pc too much.

If you update XP and IE, load MS Anti-spyware, and install McAfee Security you'll be fine.

If you buy Quicktax, you get Norton AV for free....a good deal......

BTW, Norton only works for one year then you either have to replace it of renew your subscription.

I have been using AVG Free for almost a year on 4 machines. I get daily updates automatically on all machines including my 7/24 server. I have yet to have an viruses.

I use to use Norton buy the annual lic fees for 4 machines was just tooo much.

I've been using Computer Associates eTrust anti-virus for several years.

It's very effective, lightweight, and has very little impact on the PC.

I used McAfee a few years ago on an older PC, and it was a resource hog.

kaspersky and norton have the best detection rates. i say this based on actual testing, not "i have run ___ product for __ years and it was great". i cant supply any evidence unfortunately, so its up to you whether or not you want to take my word for it ;)

que3jxp has a very accurate post and i can tell he works in the industry :)

i had to chuckle when someone said mcaffee was an industry leader :)