Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have some questions regarding anti-virus softwares.

  • Is there any difference between Symantec Antivirus software and Norton Antivirus software? I saw on our school's website they are referred to as SAV and NAV. They are both freely available to the students. Which one is better for Windows 7 and which one is better for Windows XP?
  • Under Ubuntu, is it necessary to have antivirus software installed? Our school also offers SAV for Linux v1.0.7-14. Just wondering if I need to get one installed on my Ubuntu 8.10 machine?
share|improve this question
"Better" is a very subjective term... – Sasha Chedygov Nov 18 '09 at 6:22
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you have to choose between those two, I would go for the Symantec branded product - it is basically (almost) the same anti virus engine but with a more serious user interface and in my experience it is a little bit faster and less of a resource hog. That being said, I personally wouldn't advise either.

If you are taking it because it is free, I would highly recommend you take a look at Microsoft Security Essentials. It is free and a brilliant piece of software - much better than may pay-for solutions that I have tested.

With your second question - Malware is not common under *nix environments at the moment. Just don't download scripts and files from places you do not trust and run them as root! I have seen so many people get their Linux boxes attacked / taken over because they run random software under the assumption it is free.

IF you are the sort of person who downloads random stuff, then maybe you should - if you are careful... Don't!

However, the majority of AV for *nix is usually just to stop malware on Windows boxes, so I am not sure how helpful against scripts and hacks it would really be anyway.

share|improve this answer
I like how you rewrote my answer and it's the accepted one. – Marcin Nov 18 '09 at 22:22
Don't blame me - it is 9 minutes between our answers - it took me time to write that and I was on the phone - I didn't see what you wrote - and looking through it, you just said don't use symantec - I compared both and gave my opinion from using them both (you just said don't... his question actually asks what are the differences - so you did not answer his question). Again, with the second, you just said no - I explained why.... as for my history - take a look, I have been recommending Microsoft Security Essentials in pretty much any question that has come out asking about AV. – William Hilsum Nov 18 '09 at 22:56

They are both resource hogs. Just because something is free does not mean you have to use it. I would suggest looking into other alternatives. Microsoft Security Essentials is what I saw recommended on superuser before.

As for your second question, you can run Ubuntu without an anti-virus.

share|improve this answer
I'll agree -- I went through McAfee, Norton, and Kaspersky, and they were all resource hogs. Much as I hate to admit it, MS Security Essentials is much better behaved. – Daniel R Hicks Oct 1 '12 at 19:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.