Exactly. No AV will ever be perfect, all of them could come up with a false positive once in a while. However, AVG and Norton are notorious for having more false positives than normal (and a lower detection rate). There's really no reason to use AVG when there are better free options available.

And i also recommend using Malware Bytes along with your AV (it's free).

I would disagree with this in general, there is no need to jump every time an av does anything like that and AVG is completely equal to any free av and better than some paid one at times.

Just as a relavent example a website both me and my gf use got infected a while ago, my AFG blocked it with ease while my gf laptop with Kaspersky (free year) missed it completely and caused problems.

There was no need to change though, it happens. If your av is causing you major problems during everyday use then it might be good to try another, otherwise just pick any (they are all completely equal in real usage including AVG) and stick with.

Well, the problem with Avast is that it requires annual registration + weird settings (sound effects, animations - at least when I used it) and Avira has ad pop ups every update. So most people would go to AVG due to its publicity scores and none of those. But depending on how computer savvy you are, Microsoft Security Essentials should be enough and takes care of everything just fine.

For any adware, tracking cookies or other things the free versions of Malwarebytes and SUPERAntispyware are great on demand scanners/removers. That's really all you need for average use. Your biggest offenders will be tracking cookies mostly, which MSE/AVG/Avast/Avira don't detect and remove.

If you are a gamer , you are better off removing avg and installing something like mse , avg is the worse anti virus after norton i have used specially for gaming , it just detects and blocks the most unwanted and safe things.

The best thing is when you are proven right , one of my friends used to have a norton 1 year free with his laptop, after it expired , the software went into mad mode and blocked every single service running on his laptop, after removing with the great difficulty the horror came back when he had to restore his laptop due to a driver issue.
the restore also installed norton back :D lol which again blocked off every windows service running on his laptop.

Just avoid Avg and norton if you are a gamer , they really pick up anything as virus specially the game files and cracks in particular.

there was actually a steam support article recommending not to use avg back then since it picked many games from steam as false positives and blocked the client many times too.

You mean Microsoft Security Essentials that with frightening reliablity gets the worst possible scores regarding protection? The Microsoft Security Essentials that missed 39% of malware in the Dennis test where other programme only missed 13% or less?

Yeah, good choice.

What I do is I set program files/ gog games (or whatever path you have installed your games) as exception in your AV, so that your AV doesn't scan the same files over and over again :p

ms has already said mse works well for real world protection the av test is just a simulation .
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/17/microsofts-antivirus-fails-major-protection-test
for home and gaming use thats more than enough

for a free antivirus its good enough and comes default i have been using it since the day it was released , have had no infections whatsoever , i have been using anti virus since 1998 , i can tell a good software from a bad. it catches a lot of stuff from the pen drives i use from college friends so it works .

Trust me if you go to any other stricter protection than mse/defender for simple home/gaming use it will start annoying you pretty soon.

if you are paranoid that something is getting past mse , you can also download malwarebytes , which is a free dedicated malware picker for second defense and it does not conflict with mse

http://www.malwarebytes.org/

Oh, well if Microsoft says that...

Judge: Well, we have 100% proof that the defendant is guilty, but since he says he didn't do it: Not Guilty. No, it's not. If every single free antivirus is so much better, it's really not. Why would you use a crappy free programme, when there's very good free programmes? Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. I have been using this rock since I found it and never had any infections, so clearly this rock provides 100% antivirus protection. Um, no? Just because you have been using the stuff doesn't make you (or me) an expert. That's why there's tests by experts and all of them clearly show that MSE is crap.

In fact it's even dangerous because it provides a false sense of security and will make unexperienced users more careless because "my computer is protected".

its upto the user to decide what protection he wants, i am sure not everyone wants the same security that a politician or a important vip gets.

practical experience is important than just some website conducting tests .
i have been using mse as a gamer and it does its job , it is light on the hardware and i am not constantly reminded that there is a pro version of xyz that i should buy to get better protection. Nor do i have to worry about excluding something etc.

Bottom line : according to the cutting edge latest test these website perform mse is declared to be the base line defense

practically for someone who uses their system for gaming , its more than enough and does not get in the way.

lmao i took a look at what you were saying into the performance and it confirms what i said mse scores perfect in usability and false detections.

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1%5Breport_no%5D=140671

i am sure i don't do any stuff to catch infections that 'day 0' releases

Personally, I'd never use MSE alone, without anything to cover up for its flaws. "Anything" being a strong firewall with good HIPS features, and some free on-demand scanners for suspicious files. And very good security habits.

Which is unrealistic for inexperienced users. When I recommend free AVs, my first recommendation is usually Avast. The registration is annoying, but it's got a good range of features for the average user, and isn't as annoying as Avira. The sounds are pretty easy to disable too.

No wonder MSE scores "perfect" in the false detection category, since it barely detects threats at all... i.e., it's rated the worst of all at actually protecting against threats (0.0/6.0). And that category doesn't just cover 0-day threats, it also includes the reference 4-week test. So, in this context what MSE being "base line" means is rather that it's, statistically, the nadir of current AV protection SW.

why dont you do the test yourself ? download something you think is infected and see , i am sure mse will catch it , i am sure the 4 week test stuff isn't something that everyday users get infected

No thanks, I'm not interested in putting my system at risk to prove an unnecessary point, especially since the av-test.org testing made use of nearly 20,000 samples... not exactly something a single individual can replicate.

You can be lucky and have MSE protect you from all malware you come across, sure, but the statistics show that it's an inferior tool compared to competing AV software - both freeware and commercial.

i am not sure how you conclude it is inferior based on a test that you say no single user can replicate or can have it happen , so in the real world freeware stuff are expected to be baseline security with least hassle which mse is as it comes with the windows you use. Most other freeware will require you to do stuff and have better protection only if you pay up.

mse used to have higher scores and ratings before , now it has started to take a tumble not sure why but it is something to worry about
http://www.howtogeek.com/173291/goodbye-microsoft-security-essentials-microsoft-now-recommends-you-use-a-third-party-antivirus/

you can run another freeware like malwarebytes which has more detailed scanning as a backup

My take on a simple non hassle protection aka runtime protection - mse/defender

on demand scanner for detailed scan: malwarebytes

Eh... that's not what I'm saying. Obviously a single user can do the same KIND of testing, but the results would be insignificant next to those of tests with tens of thousands of samples, like the AV-TEST ones. So what would be the point? And what's the point of using AV software that demonstrably doesn't detect/protect against threats as efficiently as competing software, especially when several of those suites are also freeware.

But, meh, it's not my business what AV software you or anyone else uses -- I mainly take issue with MSE being presented as one of the best AV packages when, since first introduced, it's consistently been ranked among the worst at threat protection (it's not a new phenomenon, I just checked that it was e.g. rated last in protection in the AV-TEST results for 2011 and 2012 as well).