McAfee subscription is running out LF antivirus that is actually good.

[I stand in fire]

I know, what you're thinking why the hell do I have McAfee? Well, it came with my computer and I was too lazy/cheap to do anything about it and I am looking to rectify it now. So what is a good antivirus for my windows 7 machine?

[Saithes]

Microsoft Security Essentials

[DistortionSleep]

Norton. 50$ for a 12 month subscription.

[dean771]

Norton. 50$ for a 12 month subscription.

Just no.

MSE for a simple set and forget solution

[jimlow]

Avast
or
AVG

both are free but if you feel like being nice you can buy the upgrade. Both free versions are better then McAfee

[Mukki]

Just no.

MSE for a simple set and forget solution

I like how people are recommending Microsoft Security Essentials when OP asked for something that is actually good.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/2...st-certificate

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft...st-certificate

BitDefender's supposed to be good, though I've always liked Nod32 for being good and lightweight.

Also, Norton (since the 2009 version) is actually far better than Microsoft Security Essentials (Again, MSSE is the WORST anti-malware you can get right now), though I wouldn't pay $50 for it.

[yurano]

If you're down to pay for it, Norton is a good choice. Otherwise, I'd go with Avast.

MSE is very lightweight and aimed at people who absolutely hate system resource consumption, maintenance and false positive detections. These traits come at the expense of detection capability.

[Saphyron]

Avast is good both in free and paid version so I would defiantly recommend it.
Currently I have a 2 year sub I paid 60$ for.

[Simca]

Norton is really not worth paying for. The problem with Norton is that it is incredibly unreliable in terms of how accurate it is over time. For example, the March tests on AV-Comparatives had Norton/Symantec products receiving the lowest score out of every single product tested. However, the test before that in December 2011, they received the highest award possible (Advanced+). Some guy on the forums 2 weeks ago lost his WoW account while having Norton up-to-date even though his keylogger was first found in 2005 by Symantec. If it can't detect 8 year-old trojans, that is really worrying.

If I had to recommend an AV that is consistently fast, has a ton of features, is constantly updated, and has an amazing level of protection, I'd recommend Kaspersky or F-Secure (both paid subscriptions in the same $50 range, but you can get them cheaper if you wait for mail-in rebate promotions).

I bought a year of Kaspersky last year and I was impressed with it. It found a 'virus' that was actually my screenshotting application (HyperDesktop), and I told it to send it in to them for analysis (I also sent in the URL to the author's website). A few hours later, I got an email stating that they checked out the application and have now reclassified it. They said it would be fixed in the next morning's definition updates.

The response time on fixing the (only) false positive I got was great.

[yurano]

Some guy on the forums 2 weeks ago lost his WoW account while having Norton up-to-date even though his keylogger was first found in 2005 by Symantec. If it can't detect 8 year-old trojans, that is really worrying.

A lot of people utilize white lists when they shouldn't.

I bought a year of Kaspersky last year and I was impressed with it. It found a 'virus' that was actually my screenshotting application (HyperDesktop), and I told it to send it in to them for analysis (I also sent in the URL to the author's website). A few hours later, I got an email stating that they checked out the application and have now reclassified it. They said it would be fixed in the next morning's definition updates.

The response time on fixing the (only) false positive I got was great.

So you're impressed because they fixed a false positive?

Shouldn't it be more impressive if the false positive had never existed in the first place?

[Simca]

So you're impressed because they fixed a false positive?

Shouldn't it be more impressive if the false positive had never existed in the first place?

No, I'm impressed on the response time to fix a false positive. I'm not surprised that it existed given that the program was apparently seen by Kaspersky less than 10 times (according to the 'popularity' indicator) and considering how it hooks into Windows.

[Nireyo]

I had Kaspersky for 2 years and it was great. I am using McAfee currently only because I am poor and I get mcAfee free.

[Twoddle]

For example, the March tests on AV-Comparatives had Norton/Symantec products receiving the lowest score out of every single product tested. However, the test before that in December 2011, they received the highest award possible (Advanced+).

Who tests the testers? They put any tests they want to in there to suit their own purposes. If the tests were that rock solid they would be writing their own perfect AV software.

You could even look at it in reverse and get the AV companies to do charts and statistics on the "testing authorities" to point out what they didn't test.

It's all one big game and you're all suckered in.

[theWocky]

ESET NOD 32 -Virus infections on our customer sites have virtually dropped to nothing since installing this on our customer base.

Microsoft Security Essentials is "so-so"

BitDefender is crap. Hate it.

[Masark]

Who tests the testers? They put any tests they want to in there to suit their own purposes.

What exactly do you suggest "their own purposes" are? The testing authority we're referring to (AV comparatives) is a non-profit primarily operated by the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

[Deleted]

MSE

or

Avast ...

simple as that

[DeltrusDisc]

I like how people are recommending Microsoft Security Essentials when OP asked for something that is actually good.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/2...st-certificate

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft...st-certificate

BitDefender's supposed to be good, though I've always liked Nod32 for being good and lightweight.

Also, Norton (since the 2009 version) is actually far better than Microsoft Security Essentials (Again, MSSE is the WORST anti-malware you can get right now), though I wouldn't pay $50 for it.

Such a shame then that Microsoft Security Essentials has helped me go virus/malware free for 3 years now.

Honestly, the best thing people can do is simply browse in a non-idiotic way. If they do that, there is no reason they should have to PAY for an antivirus.

[Saithes]

Such a shame then that Microsoft Security Essentials has helped me go virus/malware free for 3 years now.

Honestly, the best thing people can do is simply browse in a non-idiotic way. If they do that, there is no reason they should have to PAY for an antivirus.

I agree with this. Most all cases of anyone getting a virus is from people clicking links that are obviously leading to malicious sites or malicious downloads. It's not difficult to be cautious of what you do and use common sense in your browsing.

[superficial]

MSE is a great antivirus in that it's less intrusive and resource intensive.

the way you don't get viruses is don't open those emails or click on random links.

[DeltrusDisc]

I agree with this. Most all cases of anyone getting a virus is from people clicking links that are obviously leading to malicious sites or malicious downloads. It's not difficult to be cautious of what you do and use common sense in your browsing.

But Saithes!

www(dot)awesomeshit(dot)lolidiot is such a good website!!!

(Fake, completely made up URL for anyone wondering.)