Freeware Antivirus Compared to Paid Antivirus

[jo2995]

I currently use Avast! Free Antivirus as my antivirus. I decided against using McAfee Security Suite 2007 on a new computer when it slowed down the computer too much. Now, I'm worried that freeware antivirus might be insecure compared to paid ones. I do have other freeware antispyware programs and a firewall installed. What is freeware antivirus compared to paid antivirus? Is freeware worse than paid? If so, how so: Are there slower breakout response times? Are there less definition updates? Is there worse proactive protection? Now I'm thinking of possibly buying a version of Kaspersky Antivirus 6 on ebay after it was rated the Best Buy in a PCWORLD article. So, what do you think I should do? Should I go buy a paid antivirus, or should I stick with Avast? Or, should I reinstall McAfee Security Suite 2007? The PCWorld Article is: "http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129883/article.html" I am considering buying Kaspersky because I trust them. Note: I have never needed technical support for an antivirus product. PCWorld also rated Avast as the best free antivirus.

[jbennet]

I have used AVG free on all my pcs since about 2000. It has caught every virus they have ever had and managed to heal them just as well as any commercial offering.

[pty]

'Costs more money' does not automatically mean better.

[jbennet]

Yes, in most cases the onyl differences between the pro and free versions are features such as Network Scanning (as is the case with avg)

[DimaYasny]

I use AntiVir by Avira. free, light and a good catcher. Haven't updated my XP since SP1 and still no problems

[jbennet]

not getting sp2 is a bad idea

[DimaYasny]

not getting sp2 is a bad idea

even behind a router?

[jbennet]

yes, there are way to many exploits

[DimaYasny]

nothing a firewall can't handle

[jo2995]

=) Thnks everyone! I guess i'll be sticking with Avast for now. =)