> not an invitation to make statements>that my anti-virus software is better than your anti-virus>software.Perhaps we shoud recognize that this is a forum and all sort of "statements" are allowed provided they meet Avsim policy. Thanks to those "off-subject" posts I replaced my AVG with Avast and couldn't be happier. Trojan horses are now intercepted on the 'fly' and I feel like I got a new computer. Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Happy To help and glad it fits your needs.Folks that know me, know I was a long time supporter of AVG. Avast just meets my needs now, whereas AVG no longer does.YMMV.Regards,Joe

I switched to Avast some months ago, after seeing a recommendation for it here, and have been very happy with it. It too is very 'lightweight', in that it won't impact on game playing, and it couldn't be simpler to use; automatically updating itself almost daily, and I haven't had a problem yet apart from when I stupidly opened a file that I'd downloaded whilst for whatever reason, (defragging I think) I'd left Avast 'off'. As soon as I switched it back on, it alerted me to two viruses that that file had brought in, and then got rid of them without too much hassle!

Once again, I repeat that my original post was merely an alert for those of us using AVG. Somehow this has been misinterpreted by several of you who have preferred to hijack the thread for the explicit purpose of the promotion of your preferred anti-viral software. I've no doubt your preferred choice does what you need it to do just as mine does for me. I did my homework before deciding on AVG some 6 months ago, doubtless you did the same.I have yet to see how AVG Free Edition Version 7.0 performs, but if it does as well as version 6.0 then I will remain content. Please let's just leave it at that!Mike

With all the rumble, I just moved from AVG 6 to Avast. AVG Free at least had a scheduler to update every day. Avast doesn't have this in their free version. I haven't heard from XP SP2 yet if the Avast definitions are old, while I did hear from it for AVG6. Also, Avast has some new terms (technology) that AVG doesn't seem to have like the VRDB. How much overhead does it (the full free product) use while using FS compared to AVG?

The plain and simple truth is that for the average user/browser of the Internet most of the available anti-viral packages will do the job for which they are intended. Were that not in fact the case then their success, or the lack of it, would certainly be reflected in market figures. Very few of the big names have been pushed to the sidelines and most, quite evidently, continue to enjoy good sales figures. Each package has its own loyal band of followers/converts who will defend their choice vigorously. This is perfectly understandable as we all wish to believe that we have made the best selection for our protection and peace of mind. All the packages, without exception, are evolving products and doubless will continue to improve. Some may appear better than others now, but this situation can easily change. In time it probably won't really matter as they will all achieve that desirable level of sophistication necessary to satisfy us all.It all boils down to what each one of us feels he or she needs for acceptable protection. I imagine this depends on many factors and this suggests that there must be valid reasons why people like my wife and myself have not fallen foul of a serious viral attack despite having been enthusiastic users of the Internet for many years.My wife still relies on Norton whereas I decided to switch to a free package when my sub ran out earlier this year. Fortunately this coincided with the FS-GS experience and learning about the pervasive nature of Norton and the likely side-effects on the performance of FS9. I have since confirmed this to be true and, as with all things FS, this turned out to be a no brainer :)Both my wife and I continue to exercise caution while browsing the Internet, downloading files and accepting e-mails. The fact that we have escaped serious infiltration would seem to suggest that this is the overriding factor rather than simply attributing this extended trouble-free period to pure luck.I think we can draw a parallel with what motivates us to choose a particular Internet Browser. I imagine I am amongst the majority of the Internet users of the world in preferring to stick with Microsoft Internet Explorer. Why? When we read some of the vehement and, at times, vitriolic condemnations of IE, why are we not persuaded to change en masse to a browser perceived as being more secure. The answer again is quite simple. Clearly my experience, in common with many others, is not shared by those who have opted to make that change. I remain very happy with IE and any security holes which may or may not exist have, so far, failed to manifest to spoil that experience. Again, I have to assume that this must be attributed to our respective browsing habits rather than just good fortune. I am not persuaded, therefore, of any good reason to change.In summary, all I am saying is that our experiences, quite clearly, are different. Those who have made changes were motivated to do so for what seems to be very good reasons. All I ask is that you should respect the choices made by the rest of us who have not shared your unfortunate experiences and consequently don't share your motivation for change. I have noted a tendency for some posters to condemn software, hitherto held in high regard by the silent majority, without a fair trial. This can be very damaging, as well as being unsettling, as it serves to threaten to undermine our confidence in the software in question. Even FS9 has fallen victim to unfair attack when most of us know, again from experience, that this has to qualify as being one of the most stable examples of software around today. The developers cannot be blamed for not anticipating every daft thing the end-user can throw at it. In the same way anti-viral software developers sometimes struggle to keep ahead of the game as we Internet users are nothing if not creative in the way we often use this fantastic global facility. Mike

> Avast>doesn't have this in their free version. I actually prefer manual update. The last thing I want that my PC would do something on its own. And what I didn't like about AVG that it would refuse to run the virus check when it determined that somehow my database was too old. So what .. run against the old databse - I thought it was a dumb feature.>Also, Avast has some new terms (technology) that AVG doesn't>seem to have like the VRDB. I started using Avast but haven't explored VRDB yet. I don't think there is any overhead related to this function. My primary reason to switch from AVG to Avast was that now I can see viruses being intercepted on the "fly" without me having to manually initiate virus check.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2