A suitable AntiVirus suite is essential on a modern PC – particularly with the end of life date of Windows XP having now passed. If you are going to continue using XP after the 8th of April 2014, then is is absolutely imperative that a robust AntiVirus suite is installed. The big question that needs to be asked then is which one? There are so many choices of Security suites available these days that all purport to do the same thing – but are all Antivirus products created equal? This article aims to point you in the direction of a suitable solution for your computer.
Of the many Antivirus products on the market these days, there are two which stand out above all the others: Bit-Defender and Kaspersky. These are premium products and both do the job well.
Bit Defender scored very well in the latest (March – April 2014) tests conducted by AV Comparatives.
See the full March results here.
See the full April results here
Kaspersky also scored well and to be honest there isn’t much between them.
Reading the AV Comparatives results, there seems to be, on the face of it, a glaring omission – Symantec / Norton.
This article from CNET sheds a bit of light on it. It seems that Norton wanted to be excused from one of the main tests that AV Comparatives conduct. The key phrase – at least as I read it – is: “Symantec Norton have the option of officially returning to the tests, but only in accordance with the standard conditions, namely that results of all compulsory tests will be published.” In other words, you participate upon the same rules as everyone else or you don’t participate at all. People can draw their own conclusions from that but, in my experience, people (and companies) don’t take part in tests for one reason: they know that they will show up badly. Although the CNET article is now a couple of years old, it is clear that Symantec / Norton still don’t wish to take part in the tests.
That tells me all I need to know about Norton. At least Mcafee had the guts to take part.