Symantec AntiVirus 10.1 vs. AOL Active Virus Shield

[archcommus]

I can get Symantec AntiVirus 10.1 for free from my school, and of course AOL Active Virus Shield is free, as well. Which would you recommend? I'm sure Symantec uses a little more memory, however it's not anywhere near as bad as Norton, and it's reliable and used in businesses. I understand that AOL AVS is just a stripped down version of Kaspersky, which means memory usage is probably pretty good, but I'm not sure if it's as reliable as regular Kaspersky, or Symantec.

Which would you use?

 

[Kriz]

Active Virus Shield, of course.

can't wait for the vista version; that's the day I install my powertogether vista disc.

 

[Schadenfroh]

See the detection rate tests linked in the CST at the top of this forum.

 

[archcommus]

Thanks. Clearly, then, AVS is the best choice since it has the best detection rates, probably a similar or slightly less memory footprint than Kaspersky, and is free.

 

[Rottie]

I just installed AVS few days ago then it scanned fir virus to my surprise AVS found I have several virus in my outlook express folder that Norton 2006 and ZoneAlarm Pro suite failed to detect them. Same true with Kaspersky I tried it same result with AVS but I choose AVS because it is free and not much of system resources.