I am using Microsoft Security Essentials. Free if you are using a genuine Windows version. No resource problems anymore since I switched from McAfee to Security Essentials. Haven't had any positive detections so I am not sure if it will automatically remove infections without user intervention.

I have never has a problem with Grisoft AVG, and frequently encounter hacked sites (on request of the client victims.) Opponents say it has a low detection rate, I've never found this to be true. On it 8+ years and have seen it nix many items in email, direct attempts to access, and sites. It also has "AVG Search Shield," a link scanner that inserts threat/safe icons by links in all web pages you visit including SERPS, I have disabled that only because I find it annoying. :-)

I'm still on the free edition, I think they eliminated that but it's only $29 or so, been meaning to buy it. Free updates, you schedule daily scans at 3 AM (or whatever) and it does a database update before scanning. What I like best about it is it doesn't totally worm its way into your system like Norton and MacAfee.

It puts threats in a "virus vault". Though it's not an official remove, they cannot be accessed by anything but AVG, and for the purpose of deletion. You can clear the vault from time to time which does the delete.

A lot claim Avast is better, but a recent thread here is from someone who's got some serious infection problems, they were using Avast. Don't know.

I second AVG, I've used the free version for many years without any problems.

AVG is still free [free.avg.com] but it went to hell IMO when they launched AVG 8 as it got bigger, more bloated and slower.

I'm more fond of Avast [avast.com], which doesn't hide the FREE version, and it's best feature is the "Intelligent Stream Scan" which identifies threats in the data stream during download from the web before they've ever been saved and executed.

So what happened here [webmasterworld.com]? (Last post)

When you don't have "web protection" you get what you get.

Most of the other free postmortem AV protection products may have suffered the same fate.

It's the risk you run being CHEAP and not buying full protection.

File scanning by itself is a day late and a dollar short, and note that I said the best feature is the "Intelligent Stream Scan" which isn't FREE.

Running FREE AV is kind of like driving the safest car on the planet with ABS brakes, traction control, but you didn't buy the airbags and don't wear the seat belts.

Hard to complain when you get in an accident and get ejected through the windshield.

I am another happy user of AVG

Other than the few times I've bought new computers preinstalled with something else whos trial periods eventually expire, I've used AVG. Haven't been thrown through a windshield yet but I'm working on it.

Moving to Avast, AVG has been dropping the ball...
But, I always throw out there malwarebytes.

There's no real correlation between the price of an anti-virus program and its effectiveness. One issue with paid apps is their constant bleating which serves mostly as a attempt to justify their cost rather than an effective tool against malware.

The best, effective, unobtrusive and free anti-virus program that I have found is Microsoft Security Essentials. It works, it keeps out of my way, it uses Windows Update for obtaining virus signatures, and it uses few resources.

One issue with paid apps is their constant bleating which serves mostly as a attempt to justify their cost rather than an effective tool against malware.

That's a thought process headed for a hacked computer.

Not all malware require that the file is physically saved, which is where most AV (especially the FREE AV) focus their attention, the scanning of files.

If you encounter malware that causes a memory fault, stack overflow or browser exploit or any other kind of escalation that doesn't require the file being saved you're already infected before the freeware gets a chance to check the file because your live system is hacked.

RE: Microsoft Security Essentials, why would anyone trust the same company that can't secure the OS in the first place to secure it after the fact? If they know how to make "Security Essentials" it should be in the OS itself, and it isn't, so I'm not trusting them whatsoever in that regard, it's foolhardy.

It's a situation where being penny wise and pound foolish could end up causing a TON of trouble.

YMMV

Can anyone recommend me paid protection that scans and removes viruses in real-time in the background on auto rather than having to remove them manually after they stored? The software must also be intelligent enough to recognise new and complex viruses and remove them too.

There are so many available from different vendors that I am not sure which is best.

Thanks

RE: Microsoft Security Essentials, why would anyone trust the same company that can't secure the OS in the first place to secure it after the fact? If they know how to make "Security Essentials" it should be in the OS itself

If they did this the EU would be all over them with antitrust cases like white on rice. I'm sure other entities would quickly follow suit.

Regardless of what you think of MS, Microsoft Security Essentials is one of the best free AV packages available these days. It's all I use on most of my PCs these days. It is unobtrusive and light on system resources. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because you pay for McAfee or Symantec (or some other brand) products that you're getting something of more value.