Paid vs. Free security for PC

[rpbrowning]

In today's Atlanta Journal, there was a story about free software available to negate tracking and other information gathering organizations. I subscribe to Norton. My question is, Is it redundant to have a paid system such as Norton AND a free download? Do they interfere with each other? Is it advisable to have several such safeguards?

[deepsand]

The issue is not one of paid vs. free - very many free versions use the same core engine as do their paid for versions - but rather one of duplication of function and the risk of one security application mistaking the other for malware.

There are two basic options available.

• Use several applications that each perform a different function; or,
• Use a suite that incorporates many those functions.

Which is better for a particular case depends primarily on the platform & its resources, and the user's abilities & inclination to manage multiple applications.

[Talks_44]

I've used both paid (Norton) and free (several) and currently I'm using the free version of Avast! and I would recommend it WAY more than Norton. I've disliked Norton for such a long time. It's always annoyed me and no one I know likes it... they've all asked me to remove it for them and add one I would recommend and I always install Avast!.

I've had the experience of Norton mistaking most of the things I've downloaded and even some of my own files as malware and would prevent me from opening/running them. Even blocked Photoshop once. So since then I've never even given Norton a 2nd thought.

[LD]

I've had the experience of Norton mistaking most of the things I've downloaded and even some of my own files as malware and would prevent me from opening/running them. Even blocked Photoshop once. So since then I've never even given Norton a 2nd thought.

I use 360 without any issue - currently or in the past. No issue with downloads or opening and running any onboard apps whatsoever.

[deepsand]

There's a substantial difference between Symantec's enterprise grade and individual offerings. While the former are quite good, the latter have a bad habit of turning perfectly good machines into expensive door stops.

[dimples]

Its not like I don't want to spend money but I use the free version of Avast! too and I am contented. Norton, Mcafee just lags my system so I can't really make use of the protection of their daily scan. I tried using both paid and free securities before but I can't see any difference so I sticked with the free tool.

Dimples

[deepsand]

Again, the difference lies in the needs of individual users as compared to institutional users.

For the former, free is usually quite adequate; for the latter, where countless machines need to be centrally supported and maintained, paid is the generally the better.

[deepsand]

The AV creators want computers attacked and the internet client users to have their computers damaged that is good for their businesses, makes them alot of money so that is why the authorities do not crack down on the hackers and crackers.

Why stop there?

Don't you know that there's a global conspiracy involving all of the world's problem solvers to create a continuous flow of new problems so as to ensure an ongoing need for their services?

[LD]

Why stop there?

Don't you know that there's a global conspiracy involving all of the world's problem solvers to create a continuous flow of new problems so as to ensure an ongoing need for their services?

So even though the world is ending in 11 months, we still have to endure all these manufactured problems till then??

[LD]

then you have to pay for the updates between $20-30 every 4 months or so, Norton Anti Virus is a crappy Anti Virus Program that sucks upload upgrades like Borus Karloff when he thought he was a vampy for real

Subscription renewals for NAV are only once per year. It's not several times per year like you are alluding.