i used to use avg and just got a new rig. Should i get avira? I stopped with avg on my last rig because it was annoying. But i heard avira is good. I'm always skeptical and ocd about this type of stuff. Any ideas/advice would be much appreciated
Not used it so I don't have one mate in all honesty
Certainly looks very very light with no nags
You can look at reviews etc all day long but recommendations change from month to month.
AV programs live & die by their heuristic engines & virus definition updates at the end of the day.
As someone already said these are updated when a virus comes into the wild & someone reports it.
What may infect your PC one day even with an av program running would not the next day once the updates have been pushed.
They're pretty much all as good or bad as each other in that respect.
I am a professional IT guy, most of our smaller business clients chose not to pay for a "paid" antivirus against our recommendation. However they do take our advice when we can't convince them to pay for an AV to run windows defender and malwarebytes. As a free solution it's pretty good, doesn't nag you much, though you'll have to scan yourself from time to time with MWB.
As for other free solutions, Panda and Avast! are both pretty good. I would strongly advise you against Avira. I have worked with it a few times and I've found it to limit the end user control over the product far too much. In short if it ever returns a false positive and breaks something you'll never be able to "stop" it or "fix" it.
Avast & avg have both gone the route of all encompassing security, browser,password protection with a multitude of popups & nags nowadays.
They were my 2 favourites years back but for me just too intrusive now wheny you just want a straight active anti-virus program.
Panda I think is the least intrusive of the lot personally.
Opinion. Everyone has one, most argue against them. I've used Norton/Symantec for AV (and other things like Optimization for 25+ years, never had an issue, never had it fail me, yet some ppl can't stand it. Personally, I'm not a fan of AVG, I find it 'wishy-washy' in its abilities. So there's that.
Apart from Norton, probably the best AV I've found has been Kaspersky, it has a tendency to pick up on stuff that many AV don't. Just as I prefer to mix-up malwarebytes and Spybot: Search and Destroy.
Almost all AV/malware definitions/fixes that any AV type program uses are supplied by feedback from actual pc users, so if you do find a Trojan, it's only because someone else had it, heuristics found it, user sent it to malwarebytes, who made a fix and a definition for it. But, they might be the only ones to have a fix yet, and if you are using Windows defender and you get it, Defender will not see it. Nobody has yet sent it to Microsoft for review.
Actual virus's are pretty uncommon nowadays, too much of a pain to figure out how to get around in Windows code, and they don't pay. Trojans/malware are extremely common because they are non-destructive to the os/pc just your personal habits/info which is what many websites are after, so they'll pay ppl to write malware for their purposes.
Having AV is important, who, not so much, they are all pretty effective at catching the odd virus, but malware defense is extremely important. Is malwarebytes (free) enough? Imho, no it isn't, it's a very good checker, but there's always some disgruntled IT genius out there trying to make a buck and writing malware specifically designed not to be picked up by malwarebytes. Having 2x malware checkers is a better safety net.
Of course the best defense is a clean backup and the ability to wipe out everything and return your pc back to a clean state you had before the malware/virus got you in trouble.