G
Gareth Tuckwell
Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
Which uses least system resources / processor power?
Which uses least system resources / processor power?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
V
Vanguardx
Gareth Tuckwell said:Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
McAfee? Which uses least system resources / processor power?
Both provide free trial versions. Only you know what platforms on which
you will run the AV software, your use of that system, the mix of
applications, and which product is easier for you to use. Just save a
disk image before installing them so you don't have to figure out how to
purge out all their remnant crap after their uninstalls and can instead
just restore from the disk image.
X
xfile
Hi:
My two cents for your reference.
I have been using Symantec Norton Internet Security for several years and
now using NIS 2004 on one desktop and one notebook, and the other notebook
is installed with McAfee online security suit bundled with MSN services. Of
course, both products are mainly for personal use and the company has
another set of firewall and anti-virus solutions.
I am not sure about the system resources or processor usage for the two, but
here are some of my thoughts on the usage and features side. It is my
knowledge that McAfee has changed its solution from client/local version to
online version a few years ago. It is the main reason that I switched from
McAfee to NIS a few years ago.
I am still more comfortable with software installed on the local and can
control when and how to access Internet for update. I found both are quite
good in terms of protecting viruses and intrusion, but NIS has more detailed
set up , features, and controls than McAfee.
Maybe it's also for me, I also dislike McAfee for it has a minor
compatibility problem with the notebook which is just like other systems
with NIS and all are XP Pro with the same patches and updates. I called its
technical support, and appeared to be less helpful than my experience with
Symantec. Until this day, this problem still exists and every single time I
logged into the system, it will have an error message, and I have to click
it to make it disappear.
I am using it, simply because it is free and paid by the bundled service
already, and I wish to see and monitor the differences between the two
products.
If I have to buy, I will choose Symantec not McAfee although I used it very
early about 12 years ago.
Hope this will help.
My two cents for your reference.
I have been using Symantec Norton Internet Security for several years and
now using NIS 2004 on one desktop and one notebook, and the other notebook
is installed with McAfee online security suit bundled with MSN services. Of
course, both products are mainly for personal use and the company has
another set of firewall and anti-virus solutions.
I am not sure about the system resources or processor usage for the two, but
here are some of my thoughts on the usage and features side. It is my
knowledge that McAfee has changed its solution from client/local version to
online version a few years ago. It is the main reason that I switched from
McAfee to NIS a few years ago.
I am still more comfortable with software installed on the local and can
control when and how to access Internet for update. I found both are quite
good in terms of protecting viruses and intrusion, but NIS has more detailed
set up , features, and controls than McAfee.
Maybe it's also for me, I also dislike McAfee for it has a minor
compatibility problem with the notebook which is just like other systems
with NIS and all are XP Pro with the same patches and updates. I called its
technical support, and appeared to be less helpful than my experience with
Symantec. Until this day, this problem still exists and every single time I
logged into the system, it will have an error message, and I have to click
it to make it disappear.
I am using it, simply because it is free and paid by the bundled service
already, and I wish to see and monitor the differences between the two
products.
If I have to buy, I will choose Symantec not McAfee although I used it very
early about 12 years ago.
Hope this will help.
N
NoNoBadDog!
Norton is your only choice.
McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.
Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
league.
Bobby
McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.
Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
league.
Bobby
P
Peter
Never any problems with McAfee here.
M
Mike H
No problems here either.. although I am not a fan of the interface..
R
Robert Armstrong Jr.
I am using McAfee Internet Security and find no issues whatsoever. Norton
caused problems with programs that required cookie information to run
properly, (weatherpulse) and did slow my system down. McAfee allows me the
freedom to choose what I want and how I want it. The privacy feature works
almost too well.
I have seen McAfee improve over the last 2 years and I don't have to deal
with product activation. Also seamlessly ties in with SP2.
caused problems with programs that required cookie information to run
properly, (weatherpulse) and did slow my system down. McAfee allows me the
freedom to choose what I want and how I want it. The privacy feature works
almost too well.
I have seen McAfee improve over the last 2 years and I don't have to deal
with product activation. Also seamlessly ties in with SP2.
G
Guest
neither AVG Pro 7.0,,,lol
N
NoNoBadDog!
AVG was tested by ZDnet (German Labs) along with 13 other AN apps, and AVG
missed 1 common virus and 1 common worm. Norton was the only one that had a
100% success rate.
Bobby
missed 1 common virus and 1 common worm. Norton was the only one that had a
100% success rate.
Bobby
S
Sharon F
Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
Which uses least system resources / processor power?
Personally, I choose not to use either of those products. Have had them
installed in the past and just didn't like how they ran on my systems.
That's just personal opinion, there's plenty of people that feel otherwise
about them.
Personally, I switched to Etrust's EZAntivirus on my systems when it was
still InnoculateIT and continue to use it.
M
me
neither AVG Pro 7.0,,,lol
LOL indeed.
My son used AVG.
Prior to installing SP2, he installed NORTON AV which found 4 files
containing viruses, that AVG had missed.
AVG came down near the bottom in a test conducted by Dresden
University for a Dutch PC magazine
N
NoNoBadDog!
Again, I refer you to recent tests conducted by ZDnet labs in Germany. 13
current AV offerings were tested. Guess which one was dead LAST? ETrust EZ
antivirus. It missed more than half of the known viruses tested.
Good Luck (I think you'll need it).
Bobby
current AV offerings were tested. Guess which one was dead LAST? ETrust EZ
antivirus. It missed more than half of the known viruses tested.
Good Luck (I think you'll need it).
Bobby
R
Ron Martell
Gareth Tuckwell said:Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
Which uses least system resources / processor power?
Both are equally lousy, but in somewhat different ways.
Norton, especially the 2004 version, appears to suffer from shoddy
programming and is the source of a vast number of errors and problems.
It is, for example, pretty much totally incompatible with Windows
Millennium Edition.
McAfee has a well-deserved reputation for making your computer perform
in a way that is comparable to driving your car with both feet on the
brake.
My personal preferences for Antivirus:
eTrust
AVG
Kaspersky
Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
N
NoNoBadDog!
In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.
I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.
FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
Bobby
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.
I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.
FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
Bobby
M
me
Both are equally lousy, but in somewhat different ways.
Norton, especially the 2004 version, appears to suffer from shoddy
programming and is the source of a vast number of errors and problems.
It is, for example, pretty much totally incompatible with Windows
Millennium Edition.
McAfee has a well-deserved reputation for making your computer perform
in a way that is comparable to driving your car with both feet on the
brake.
My personal preferences for Antivirus:
eTrust
AVG
Kaspersky
The first two don't trap known viruses and worms.
Norton AV works perfectly with Win XP. Magdeburg University rates
McAfee slightly better than NAV
In their view Sophos is best.
M
me
In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.
I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.
FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
That doesn't tie in with the recent Dutch PCMagazine report.
I am almost certain that both tests were conducted by Magdeburg
University.
PCMagazines results are summarised at
http://app2.pcmweb.nl/pcm/extra/nr5_virus.htm
M
Mike
Run AVG by Grisoft. Superb, free and far less intrusive than Norton.
mike
mike
A
Al
NoNoBadDog! said:In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.
I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.
FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
Bobby
Of course you didn't tell everyone here that all of your machines were built and bought from the now defunct "Toys 'R' Us" toy store chain!
V
Vanguardx
Gareth Tuckwell said:Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
McAfee? Which uses least system resources / processor power?
You can also see some testing of several AV products at:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
The last report was in August 2004. They tend to bounce as to who is
the then current leader in detection for each test, so you might want to
look at the older reports to see who was more consistently at the top.
However, these only rate their effectiveness at catching viruses. It
doesn't rate them regarding their stability, how they may affect
reliability of your system, scan speed, ease of use and documentation,
and feature sets.
N
NoNoBadDog!
Gee, Al, isn't that where you got your inflatable "wife"??? You know...the
one that always tells you she has a headache?
Bobby
Of course you didn't tell everyone here that all of your machines were built
and bought from the now defunct "Toys 'R' Us" toy store chain!
one that always tells you she has a headache?
Bobby
NoNoBadDog! said:In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at
home,
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite
possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had
the
misfortune of dealing with.
I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.
FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top
antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus.
Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
Bobby
Of course you didn't tell everyone here that all of your machines were built
and bought from the now defunct "Toys 'R' Us" toy store chain!
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.