Peter wrote:
>They rated McAfee towards the top, and AVG and Avast were
>at the bottom.>>


I too have read various reports and tests, most of which seem to vary quite 
a bit. It really depends what exactly they are testing for, and in what 
sort of environment.

Norton and McAfee are arguably more suitable for high-risk, multi-user 
commercial use, using computers in new or pristine lab condition. That is 
what most of these tests are designed for.  Fair enough.

But that's not where most of us are coming from. For single-user low-risk 
everyday use on a computer which is usually far from perfect, where 
performance hits are really going to show up, and where a good ISP has its 
own a-v protection (as all good ISP's should have) then AVG, Avast, and 
similar are perfectly adequate as far as real-world performance is concerned.

Don Penlington


 From the Beach at Surfers Paradise in sunny Queensland.
Computer tutorials, local scenery,  and other things at my website:
http://users.tpg.com.au/deepend/index1.html 

      "Hold No Punches.." Rode brings you great shareware/freeware
        programs with his honest opinions in this weekly column.
                       http://freepctech.com/rode