Firewall or Anti-Virus?

[Twayne]

But a quality NAT router is better than a SOFT firewall that you don't
understand how to use properly or where you run as a local Admin
account.

True. But in general it's easier to train and program a software
firewall than port-forward and so on in the router.
But: That said, the OP was asking about comparing a NAT to
antispyware, not a soft firewall. Once a router opens a port, it's open
and it doesn't care whether it's a virus or spyware passing through it
until something tells it to close like you abandon the connection or
whatever. Lately it seems like there are much greater chances of
picking up spyware than there are viruses; here at least.

Cheers,

Twayne`

 

[Richard]

That's like asking which is better, a steak dinner or a Cadillac car.
A firewall and an anti-virus program each do two different things and
should not be compared this way. You should have both.

I recommend using the Windows firewall and either NOD32 (if you are
willing to pay for it) or Avast (if you want freeware).

I agree with using Windows firewall, and I recommend Eset's NOD32(paid),
Kaspersky(paid), or Avast(free Home edition, or paid Pro.)

Also note that you have mentioned only two of the three kinds of
necessary security applications. The third type is anti-spyware, and
because none of these is near perfect, everybody should run at least
two of these (but not at the same time). I recommend MalwareBytes
Anti-Malware, and Super Anti-Spyware (both free).

I don't know for sure about Kaspersky, but both NOD32 and Avast are not only
antivirus, but antispyware. Here's the NOD32 list: "Viruses, Worms, Trojan
horses, Rootkits, Adware, Spyware, Potentially unsafe applications,
Potentially unwanted applications."

Still, better safe than sorry, I also recommend MalwareBytes and SAS. (What
we really need is better anti-UserStupidity brainware.

FWIW. --Richard