b said:
What virus protection, firewall systems are the hardest to penetrate/least
likely to be broken? McAfee or Nortons or perhaps someone elses product?
2) Is it better to use one product or turn off facets of one to run say
someon elses firewall (like zone alarm).
You'll get nearly as many differing opinions as you will responses.
I don't think any security "suite" is a good choice. Use smaller,
less-resource-draining stand-alone products.
I used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP, all without
any significant problems. I had used McAfee prior to that. But it's
been several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee products. Their
quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they were acquired by
Network Associates.
However, when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton
Internet Security 2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially
higher than the preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less
expensive solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of
GriSoft's AVG (
http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ) and the free
version of Sygate's Personal Firewall
(
http://smb.sygate.com/free/default.php ). Both have proven to be
easily installed, easy to use, and quite effective. Additionally, I was
pleasantly surprised to see a small but very noticeable improvement in
my PC's performance, once I'd replaced the Symantec product.
Of course, since then, Symantec has purchased Sygate and ended the
distribution of the free firewall. Fortunately, there's still
ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio, et al.
A recent comparison:
Retrospective / ProActive Test May 2006
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_05.php
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin