[PCWorld]

Post your comments for All-in-One Security Suites: Tried and Tested here

[chowyunpat]

I was expecting a longer article and a quick comparsion chart so I wouldn't have to click on each individual link.

[melvinslane]

This piece meal review makes it really hard to compare the ratings, good points & bad points, etc of all the suites. With a little more work this might have been useful. As is, it's nearly useless because you have to click on each suite individually !
MBS

[CrimsonFox]

I agree with the previous posters. A quick reference chart would have gone a long way in making this article a little more useful.

[melvinslane]

The other thing that was not covered by this review is probably the most important thing for a lot of users who don't have the newest computers, and that's the degree to which these programs hog your computer's resources. Nortom/Symantec is probably the absolute worst case for that.

[Car54]

I do agree that a comparison chart of some kind would've been nice. I did like the user review tab to check out peoples feed back on these Suites. I would like to see more security software reviews here at PCWorld than they do, as vendors, on some of the products, put out updates and revisions a couple times a year.

[zhorgon]

More boat-anchor-ware. See this article to see why these suites make your PC perform like a 3 year old system. http://www.thepcspy.com/read/whatreallyslowswindowsdown/5. You are better off with a simple virus checker.

[AlanStafford]

For a comparison chart, please click on the link in the article that says "Check out our ranked chart of all eight security suites tested for this article," then click on each product's test report, or click the boxes next to each product and then click the "Compare" button.

[SpiritWind]

:D Hi all :



Best to AVOID ALL Security "Suite(s)" and use the "Layered" Approach to Security, which is finding

a very good program in EACH Malware-fighting category . For fighting rootkits, definitely need a

program that SPECIALIZES in that "category" . Would encourage all to READ the "Document" I

created in this Forum's "Security" Section at forums.pcworld.com/docs/DOC-1141|d-1141 .

[ChuckEtheridge]

I was disappointed to not see Windows Live OneCare represented. I have been using that and Defender for six months on an XPsp2 system, and with my current Vista Ultimate since April of this year. Both seem to be quite competent and I have had no trouble with viruses or malware while using them. I previously had McAfee on the XP machine and found that it slowed the overall operation very unacceptably. WLOC and Defender do not seem to slow either the XP machine which was an HP in its dotage, or the FX530XV Gateway which is admittedly well equipped and has 4gb RAM, with vista Ultimate. Both programs run very quietly in the background and so far are doing a very good job of protection as they are supposed to do.

[dave404]

I like the ZoneAlarm Firewall but when I needed anti-virus I chose McAfee suite. When you try to install McAfee it complains about the ZoneAlarm product and will not install, you have to remove ZoneAlarm and use their firewall - which defaults to all programs have internet access. Sure enough I had some nice installed programs sharing my computer. I miss ZoneAlarm asking me if its allowed - not for Firefox warnings (duh of course allow), but to stop these bots from taking over. McAfee seems to deliberately want you to remove ZoneAlarm and use their crappy firewall. I am looking for alternatives to McAfee since I am at the renewal period.

[Car54]

AlanStafford said:

For a comparison chart, please click on the link in the article that says "Check out our ranked chart of all eight security suites tested for this article," then click on each product's test report, or click the boxes next to each product and then click the "Compare" button.

Oops, I just realized that tonight, thanks for that heads up. Comparison link.

[sophyra]

I have been using Avast, a security suite that is free to those nwho are not employed. It serves all of my needs for security

[Holmes7]

GREAT ARTICLE! When I read your article "Virus Stoppers" in your June 2007 magazine, I was very disappointed not to have found an article reviewing full security suites. This article fills that gap. My computer came pre-loaded with Trend Micro full version and am pleased with it. There was one incident of a false positive a few months ago. They offer tech support by E mail which is a plus even though I had to ask my question a couple different ways to be understood. The bottom line, in 11 months of use have had no malware infections of any sort on the computer and in today's high risk environment this seems like as much as one could hope for. When my trial period is up I think I may just keep Trend Micro.

[nevertooamazed]

I agree with Holmes7 about Trend Micro's PC-Cillin. I've tried practically all the security suites out there, with dismal results...until I loaded PC-Cillin. It doesn't slow my Vista system down signifcantly (certainly not like Norton and Kaspersky did). Norton drove me nuts with the slowness factor and occasional queries on what I would allow onto the 'net. Kaspersky was awful, crashing my Vista system and occasionally freezing my XP system, much less constant queries on allowing programs (even Window's update inquiries) online...I got rid of this PC-World-highly-rated albatross ASAP, you can bet. I've used McAfee for years but the latest editions slowed my computers down tremendously. Even though PC World doesn't care much for Trend Micro's PC-Cillin, I think it's the best of the security suite bunch...so far. I am disappointed in PC World lately because I tried two security products highly recommended by PC World, only to have to dump both (Kaspersky Security Suite and Spyware Doctor) because they were incompatible with Vista (even though they were the latest versions that were advertised to work with Vista) and didn't "gell well" with XP, either.

[confideinme]

What about Nod 32 and Online Armor. These are very good security suites. I have tried the others and these are less hungry on the computers resources unlike the some of the other suites out there.

[emperordarius]

You're results here are totally corrupted? You think anyone here believes than SYMANTEC is better than KASPERSKY? ARE YOU TOTALLY CRAZY? SYMANTEC, the most SUCKING Anti virus company nowadays?

[CrimsonFox]

With all due respect...everyone is entitled to their opinion. Is such hostility towards another's opinion absolutely necessary? :(

[emperordarius]

Opinion? We're talking about REAL results!! Pc World shouldn't be corrupted by Symantec, but should give REAL reviews so that people don't buy Crappy programs only because their company gave money tom PC World. Anyone knows that Symantec is a stupid advertised and corrupting company!!!

do you think it is vitually possible that Symantec finds more threats than KASPERSKY???!??!!! Than BITDEFENDER!!! THAT AVIRA!!!!!

[CrimsonFox]

In the world of malware, anything is possible. Malware is constantly changing is it is not unusual for a product to be better than another at a given time. Personally, I did not like Symatec's products when I was using them a few years ago because I found them to be system hogs. These days, I prefer to use different programs to do different jobs. I use Avira AntiVir for my antivirus (used to use Avast), Comodo firewall (used to use Zone Alarm), and Spy Doctor / Spyware Terminator to prevent / eliminate spyware (used windows before). That's today. If something comes along tomorrow that's better, I may switch again.

In any case, I am not looking for an argument here. At this time of year, I would rather shake your hand and wish you Happy Holidays! All the best to you and your family. :8}