Nortons Or McAfee Or ??????

[EmGee]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

TIA

M.

Ps. If this is the wrong group, where should I be posting it?

 

[nass]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

TIA

M.

Ps. If this is the wrong group, where should I be posting it?

You will get lots of replies on this subjects with different views and
recommendations!.
My Advise to you, go for either of these products, why?, it doesn't mean
other people having problem that you will have the same. They may have a
problems on their systems which effected either Macfee or Norton (I tired
both no problem whatsoever in running them on a machine with lots of
Applications running).

There are other AVs like:

Avast <- can provide free version but without a firewall keep in mind)
Avira the same
AVG the same
BitDefender the same
CA
Dr Web
F-Port
Kaspersky the same
McAfee
Norton
Panda
Sophos
Trend Micro

HTH.
nass

 

[bojimbo26one]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

TIA

M.

Ps. If this is the wrong group, where should I be posting it?

Avast free - audio and visual warning . Comodo firewall ; there is
version 3 , but I prefer version 2 .Free as well .

 

[philo]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

TIA

M.

Ps. If this is the wrong group, where should I be posting it?

Do not use either.

The free virus checkers : AVG & Avast are better

If you want to pay for a virus checker I think Kaspersky may be at or near
the top of the list

 

[Alan Biddle]

My advice is to go to some of the magazine sites, such as PC World and
PC Magazine, and look for reviews. You will find objective reviews on
all the majors, including such things as the percentage of malware
caught, time for the vendor to issue update definitions, resource
load, etc. Note that relative performance can change greatly from
year to year. Much better than the hearsay common on most discussions
groups. In some cases programs commonly recommended, just because
they are NOT Symantec or McAfee, test consistently poorly.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alan Biddle" <[email protected]>

| My advice is to go to some of the magazine sites, such as PC World and
| PC Magazine, and look for reviews. You will find objective reviews on
| all the majors, including such things as the percentage of malware
| caught, time for the vendor to issue update definitions, resource
| load, etc. Note that relative performance can change greatly from
| year to year. Much better than the hearsay common on most discussions
| groups. In some cases programs commonly recommended, just because
| they are NOT Symantec or McAfee, test consistently poorly.
|

PC Mag's. reviews are unreliable.

 

[philo]

From: "Alan Biddle" <[email protected]>

| My advice is to go to some of the magazine sites, such as PC World and
| PC Magazine, and look for reviews. You will find objective reviews on
| all the majors, including such things as the percentage of malware
| caught, time for the vendor to issue update definitions, resource
| load, etc. Note that relative performance can change greatly from
| year to year. Much better than the hearsay common on most discussions
| groups. In some cases programs commonly recommended, just because
| they are NOT Symantec or McAfee, test consistently poorly.
|

PC Mag's. reviews are unreliable.

I think that's often true as they tend to support the firms who advertise
and often skip over or under-rate the free software

 

[Alan Biddle]

Dave,

Could we have some verifiable, objective evidence of that? Something,
anything, which does not amount to the evaluations must be rigged or
incompetently done since they disagree with my preferences?

Proof by assertion does not count, no matter how loudly and often it
is done.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee
Internet Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the
complaints I see from people more experianced than I and also the
cost of purchasing these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

Get a decent antivirus software (and keep it updated), use the built in
Windows XP firewall, if you have high-speed Internet of some sort - put a
router device between you and the Internet and change the password on it and
turn off uPnP on it and use some good common sense. Your computer will run
faster and thus you will be happier for it.

In other words - stay away from the 'all-in-one' security software.

Good Comparison Page for AV software: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

AntiVir (Free and up)
http://www.free-av.com/

avast! (Free and up)
http://www.avast.com/

AVG Anti-Virus System (Free and up)
http://free.grisoft.com/

eset NOD32 (~$39.00 and up)
http://www.eset.com/products/

Kaspersky Anti-Virus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_anti-virus

McAfee VirusScan (~$39.99 and up)
http://www.mcafee.com/

Panda Antivirus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/antivirus/
(Free Online Scanner:
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/activescan/)

Symantec (Norton) AntiVirus (~$39.99 and up)
http://snipurl.com/13e12

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Alan Biddle" <[email protected]>

| Dave,
||
| Could we have some verifiable, objective evidence of that? Something,
| anything, which does not amount to the evaluations must be rigged or
| incompetently done since they disagree with my preferences?
|
| Proof by assertion does not count, no matter how loudly and often it
| is done.
|

Take the information or not. It is true.
Best AV information comes from the impartial AV-Comparatives.Org

This is from someone who had an article published in PC Mag in '88. It's reviews are no
longer trusted. They are tainted by advertising $$.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

TIA

M.

Ps. If this is the wrong group, where should I be posting it?

You'll get nearly as many differing opinions as you will responses.

I'll start by saying that I don't think any security "suite" is a
good choice. It'd be better to use smaller, less-resource-draining
stand-alone products. And, having had personal experience with
Verizon's business practices, I certainly wouldn't trust anything they
offer. Even if the product/service itself is fine, there'll be hidden
costs and "unadvertised" conditions and limitations associated with it.

I used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP, all without
any significant problems. I had used McAfee prior to that. But it's
been several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee products. Their
quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they were acquired by
Network Associates.

However, when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton
Internet Security 2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially
higher than the preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less
expensive solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of
GriSoft's AVG (http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ). It proved
to be easily installed, easy to use, and quite effective. Additionally,
I was pleasantly surprised to see a small but very noticeable
improvement in my PC's performance, once I'd replaced the Symantec
product. Another free (for personal use) anti-virus product is AVAST! 4
Home Edition (http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html), which is what
I'm currently using without problems on Vista Business.

For a recent comparison of anti-virus products:

Retrospective / ProActive Test
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Daave]

Dave,


Could we have some verifiable, objective evidence of that? Something,
anything, which does not amount to the evaluations must be rigged or
incompetently done since they disagree with my preferences?

Proof by assertion does not count, no matter how loudly and often it
is done.

Agreed. In this case, *you* are the one who made the assertion that one
could find "objective reviews" from PC Magazine. Do you have proof that
these reviews are objective, not tainted by advertising?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Sorry if this is posted into the wrong group.

In the past I've seen posted many complaints regarding McAfee Internet
Security and Nortons System Works.

I need to purchase a similar program but I'm worried about the complaints I
see from people more experianced than I and also the cost of purchasing
these programs.

Is there a better, more system friendly and less resource hungry
alternative?

You go to the sites and you only get the hype.

I'd put more trust in the replies to this post.

Unfortunately, you will probably get lots of replies, and many of them
will conflict with each other.

My view, and that of most of the others who I respect here, is that
Norton is the worst possible choice, and McAfee in next to the worst.
I recommend staying away from both and instead using the following:

1. For an anti-virus program, the freeware Avast! Or if you want a
paid product, both NOD32 or Kaspersky are highly regarded (although I
have no personal experience with either)

2. For anti-spyware, install two or more of the following, all
freeware:

Windows Defender
Adaware
Spyware Blaster
Spybot Search and Destroy.
Super Antispyware

Note that just using one is *not* good enough. Eric Howes, who has
done extensive testing on Anti-Spyware products, states:

"No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even the
best-performing anti-spyware scanner in these tests missed fully one
quarter of the "critical" files and Registry entries" See
http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm

3. Run the built-in Windows firewall.

 

[Corey]

My only addition to this discussion is that I used to swear by Trend Micro,
but since I installed 2008, I've had problems. For one, it will not turn on
it's firewall. It keeps telling me the firewall is not able to run (and it
seems to prevent the Windows firewall from running), and if I can't get it
to run be restarting (it's been 2 months now, so I've re-started many times)
to talk to their tech support.

Here's the most damning thing however, when I emailed their tech support two
times about the problem, I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE.

I'm going to uninstall it and find something new to install in it's stead.

c.

 

[bobmcaf]

You'll get nearly as many differing opinions as you will responses.

I'll start by saying that I don't think any security "suite" is a good
choice. It'd be better to use smaller, less-resource-draining stand-alone
products. And, having had personal experience with Verizon's business
practices, I certainly wouldn't trust anything they offer. Even if the
product/service itself is fine, there'll be hidden costs and
"unadvertised" conditions and limitations associated with it.

I used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP, all without
any significant problems. I had used McAfee prior to that. But it's been
several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee products. Their
quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they were acquired by
Network Associates.

However, when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton
Internet Security 2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially higher
than the preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less expensive
solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of GriSoft's AVG
(http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ). It proved to be easily
installed, easy to use, and quite effective. Additionally, I was
pleasantly surprised to see a small but very noticeable improvement in my
PC's performance, once I'd replaced the Symantec product. Another free
(for personal use) anti-virus product is AVAST! 4 Home Edition
(http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html), which is what I'm currently
using without problems on Vista Business.

For a recent comparison of anti-virus products:

Retrospective / ProActive Test
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Canon Guy]

Get a decent antivirus software (and keep it updated), use the built in
Windows XP firewall, if you have high-speed Internet of some sort - put a
router device between you and the Internet and change the password on it
and turn off uPnP on it and use some good common sense. Your computer
will run faster and thus you will be happier for it.

In other words - stay away from the 'all-in-one' security software.

Good Comparison Page for AV software: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

AntiVir (Free and up)
http://www.free-av.com/

avast! (Free and up)
http://www.avast.com/

AVG Anti-Virus System (Free and up)
http://free.grisoft.com/

eset NOD32 (~$39.00 and up)
http://www.eset.com/products/

Kaspersky Anti-Virus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_anti-virus

McAfee VirusScan (~$39.99 and up)
http://www.mcafee.com/

Panda Antivirus (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/antivirus/
(Free Online Scanner:
http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/activescan/)

Symantec (Norton) AntiVirus (~$39.99 and up)
http://snipurl.com/13e12

I've used several of the above over the past ten years, and I guess they all
'work'. I've been using the free version of avast! on five computers for
about two years now, and what impresses me most is the almost daily updates
it performs. (Sometimes twice or more in a day.) Many of the others only do
routine updates weekly unless there is a serious threat before the next
regular time. I'm not a newby, and not an expert either, but all of my
computers are online several hours every day, and have (gulp) never had a
problem. If you want to see a real nerdy setup take a look here. Feel free
to comment on the pics:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joearnold

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Canon Guy" <[email protected]>

|
| I've used several of the above over the past ten years, and I guess they all
| 'work'. I've been using the free version of avast! on five computers for
| about two years now, and what impresses me most is the almost daily updates
| it performs. (Sometimes twice or more in a day.) Many of the others only do
| routine updates weekly unless there is a serious threat before the next
| regular time. I'm not a newby, and not an expert either, but all of my
| computers are online several hours every day, and have (gulp) never had a
| problem. If you want to see a real nerdy setup take a look here. Feel free
| to comment on the pics:
|

You know what does not impress me about Avast...

When Avast was falsely declaring the VBS:Zulo on a Microsoft web page (starting 8/'06) and
even after it was reported (10/2/'06), it took approx. 60 days for Avast to fix that False
Positive declaration.

As for the assertion, "Many of the others only do routine updates weekly unless there is a
serious threat...". That's not true. The Rogues may have infrequent updates but that's
becuase they are not "real". The majority have updates at least once per day (weekdays)
with other like Kaspersy putting updated signatures on their download sites multiple times
per day.