Full Norton, full mcafee, or free version of AVG

[Firestar1]

Hello, I just bought an ssd and a new hdd, so I'm going to do a clean install. For the past year I've used the free version of avg as my sole antivirus. Interestingly, I was sent 1 year of mcafee for free with my ssd, and I learned that I get unlimited Norton with Comcast. I've read countless (mostly outdated) reviews of these 3 antivirus's and I can't seem to get a straight answer.

Which of these antivirus's do you guys recommend? The free version of AVG, 1 year of paid mcafee (for free), or unlimited Norton (also for free).

PS: Is there anything I should know before installing my ssd? I'm planning on simply plugging it in, inserting my windows 10 boot drive (flash drive) and then I'm not exactly sure what to do after that

 

[Paul NZ]

I would avoid Mcafee its crap. Or Norton. Actually I wouldn't use AVG either. All 3 can cause probs inc crashing your PC

 

[Lodhi12]

I like Avast. I have used all 3, AVG is a little useful. Avast is much better than all 3.

And treat the ssd as your hdd. Just install windows on it like you do on a Hdd...

 

[USAFRet]

Which of those 3? Neither.
BitDefender. Free.

 

[RunLuke]

I'd just stick to MSE that's built into Windows and then common sense, the latter being the most important part. You can root kit yourself around any protection software.

 

[Firestar1]

I've heard quite a bit about bitDefender (No pun intended). That's an option as it is free I suppose. Do you guys think it outclasses the other 3? In what ways?

 

[USAFRet]

I've heard quite a bit about bitDefender (No pun intended). That's an option as it is free I suppose. Do you guys think it outclasses the other 3? In what ways?

Free, and less intrusive. Both resource and 'in your face' intrusive.

 

[Firestar1]

I've read a bit about bitDefender largely increasing boot time, and having a less than adequate method for scanning for malware. The free version at least. Is there any truth to these claims?

 

[RunLuke]

I've read a bit about bitDefender largely increasing boot time, and having a less than adequate method for scanning for malware. The free version at least. Is there any truth to these claims?

Regarding boot and performance, most likely. One of the reason I hate third party security stuff. As said I much prefer common sense, but if you spend a lot of times downloading dodgy stuff and not thinking well, you probably need it - but again, your software can be useless against attacks if you're unlucky or careless enough regardless of how much antimalware security crap you have installed.

 

[Paul NZ]

It can and will still crash windows, like the other 3 tho

 

[RunLuke]

It can and will still crash windows, like the other 3 tho

MSE? No, it won't.

Printspooler crashes my computer more and I've never noticed a slowdown even close to what those other bastards do.