As a be all and end all to this thread here (as it is quickly devolving into uselessness):
There is no "silver bullet" security solution. Not any one application will detect 100% of viruses/malware/whatever else is on your system.
With things like antimalware and antivirus, there are two main ways of performing detection: heuristics and signature based.
Signature based is good in that it always correctly identifies known viruses/malware. It is bad in that in never identifies unknown viruses/malware (yet to be documented and added to the database, that is).
Heuristics is good in that it can identify previously unknown viruses/malware based on their behavior. It is bad in that it is not perfect, and some legitimate files/applications can look/function similarly to a virus/malware (like Skype), causing the heuristics to label them as a virus/malware/threat.
Signature based schemes suffer from false negatives (not seeing a virus/malware when there is one). Heuristics suffers from false positives (identifying something is a virus when it is not).
Good antivirus and antimalware solutions utilize a mixture of the two methods above. Finding the "zen" between the two is effectively what determines the accuracy of a solution.
------------------------------------------------
What choosing a antivirus/antimalware system comes down to is: how do you use your computer, and how often to you encounter threats?
If you are similar to one of the users who posted in this thread, and download/install/execute/whatever a lot of extremely questionable material from questionable sources, you might be alright with the decent amount of extra daily system overhead incurred by using a very powerful antivirus/antimalware solution with crazy heuristic algorithms and tons of system monitoring. This would also be okay if you were in some sort of enterprise or high-security (government) organization. In such cases, you are also probably okay with false positives from time to time, as you will take the time to research them, determine if it is okay, and then take the appropriate action.
For the average user, who wants things to "just work" and answers every dialog box with "OK" without reading because he/she has better things to do than debug and research his/her OS and system applications, and who doesn't really encounter threats very often, it may be a better idea to use a simpler, lighter antivirus/antimalware so that the system works better in the general case, and just take proactive steps to minimize threats.
The OP sounds like they fall into the latter case (consider how he performed his install and lack of Google-age), and that's just fine. Not everyone is a techno-mancer. All I'm saying is that, in his/her case, having a potentially confusing and file destroying (things like cracks, keygens, system files, etc.) antivirus and antimalware solution may not be the best idea.
Using the one that comes bundled with Windows, and using an ad-blocker in the browser of choice, is probably the most user-friendly and lowest overhead solution in this case, will function just fine to protect them in the majority of cases.
