Security Suite vs Standalone [ Edited ]

[MrPeter1985 Guru]

I think I found a question not asked!

Ok question, is there a difference between a Security Suite vs Stand alones. Example ESET, NORTON, MCAFEE, KASPERSKY, GDATA Suite (av/antispam/firewall ALL IN ONES) vs COMODO (firewall) , ZONEALARM (firewall), AVAST (av/antispam), MSE (av/antispam), AVIRA (av/antispam), SPYBOT (av/antispam), MALWAREBYTES (av/antispam), SUPERANTISPYWARE (av/antispam) etc... Just to name a few.

1. Is it better to have 1 Suite or multiple programs or doesn't matter? i.e. as they all use around the same amount of ram when you add them up.
2. Is there a noticable speed difference? i.e. as there not the same program and will not crash the same.
3. Possible advantages with multiple vendors? i.e. ZA/Comodo maybe be a better firewall choice.
4. Free vs Paid was already discussed, but would like to mention that even though the paid versions have more features, they still use the same deffinitions.

-Pete

-- like to note, I've used Avast and ZA for years and never had isses. I've had ESET suite now for about a year and also had no issues. I can't make this call as ZA/AVAST was used on XP and ESET Suite on a better Win7 PC. Unable to prove it myself. So I'm here to ask the PROS --

[Bugbatter]

Some folks appreciate the convenience of suites. My preference has always been to use individual/standalone products. Not all suites are good at everything. On my systems I like to be able to pick and choose different products. It may take some experimenting on the part of the user to see what combination works well, but as long as there are no conflicts, I feel that by doing so we get the best of all worlds.

[CyrusR]

Hello,

Yes security suites are more of to bring "convenience" to the users.  They just need to run one package and, voila, AV, firewall, antispam, etc. are all installed.  They will just need to configure and manage one product as well after the installation.  One drawback of this is if the suite fails (crashed, corrupted, etc.), all of the features might fail as well.

Using standalones is more of the user's "preference".  As what Bugbatter mentioned, not all suites are good at everything.  Another thing is that I find most of the standalones more flexible in terms of configuration compared to the features that are included on a security suite.  More available configurations are what some advanced users prefer.

Regards,
Cyrus

[Corrine]

That is a loaded question, Pete!  I am a contributor of a large Windows 7 community forum (Posts: 1,634,668, Members: 173,992).  Inevitably, at least on a weekly -- if not daily -- basis, someone will ask about the "best" program or combination to use.  Just as inevitably, the person will get as many different answers as the people who respond!

Where one person finds their computer has problems (BSOD's, slowness, etc.) with one product, another person will reply that they have used that product for years with complete success.

Personally, I use both combinations successfully, not finding any slow-down or system problems with either method.  On one system, I have a well-known licensed security suite.  On the other, I use MSE and the Windows Firewall.

[Aiscer · Accepted solution]

It's really up to the user and how he wants his system to be "scratch" free. As examples:

1. I have a gaming rig and I wouldn't want any of those alert messages, notifications and any resource hogging to disturb my gaming experience so I'll use a stand-alone AV on that.

2. On my laptop that I use and bring for work and public places, I use a well-rounded AV suite that will notify me if there was anything awry.

3. On my Virtual Machines in another system which I use most often for browsing, streaming, and research, I use different combinations of AV/AM products which can provide me a comprehensive look at any statistic, notice or alert that I would need.

So we leave everything to the preference and lifestyle of the consumer. Then there's of course the system's adequacy to support either a suite or standalone AV/AM.