McAfee Or Norton?? Which Is Better?

[Ms_Lamborghini]

Hi Ya!

I don't know much about anti virus protection for my PC so I thought I come here and ask the experts about the two protections..

Which is better and what are the cons and benefits of each

McAfee Or Norton (did I even spelled it right?)

I noticed that I can't have both as I tried to install one of of them but I got a mssg telling me to Un-install the other first ... auurggghhhh!!

Thank You,
ML
Surviving the heatwave of 115 degree for the past 8 days straight!!

[twcinpa]

Currently I'm using F-Prot. Why, because it's light - doesn't take a lot of resources. I'm very careful using Zone Alarm's firewall (free version of course), and various recommended Spy Bot software.

Norton seems to think when you buy their stuff they own your computer. Too much effort removing various stuff they leave behind, and way too resource intensive. Their days are done unless they do some coding.

Good luck. Don't limit yourself to the two products mentioned.

By the way, when my subscription to F-Prot runs out I'll probably go back to using AVG. It works, and it doesn't require credit cards or checks.

Best,

Tom

[Spathiphyllum]

I've used both McAfee, Norton, F-Prot, ClamAV, among others and all are better than nothing. twcinpa is right about Norton's bloat - it is a bit of an issue. McAfee is marginally better. F-Prot and ClamAV are lighter weight and more limited but do what they say they'll do well without a bunch of other "tools" affecting performance.

My preference on my network is Norton in spite of its issues. I've liked McAfee in the past but found it slightly less convenient. The other two mentioned I have running on my proxy firewall and pay almost no attention to them. They just do their thing in the background and I leave 'em alone. They self-update and I don't need to use them via CLI to scan anything locally since I have Norton on my most used client.

The upshot of all this is to get anything over nothing and make sure it has the capacity to autoupdate virus signature files without your intervention. Cheap is good but convenience and reliability is better. And run the scanner regularly and read the scanning logs.

Visit Norton's website for any virus info or purging questions you have. I've found their website databases to be supreme whether I use their products or not.

Hope this helps.

[twcinpa]

Spathiphyllum,

I just read your comments and am thinking that the original question was about anti-virus software. Does anyone see much difference between Norton, F-Prot, AVG or whatever? What Norton and others do now is provide a whole bunch of other functionality along with their anti-virus solutions.

Is the extra functionality really necessary? I used to like the version of Norton stuff I had. (I call it stuff because it include a defrag, and other stuff, I really don't remember what, but there already is MS 'stuff' that does this.) I just want to use the computer and not become an expert in computer 'stuff'.

So, I am now of the philosophy, when looking for anti-virus software, get anti-virus software and don't worry about the other 'stuff'.

Remember, KISS!

Tom

[Spathiphyllum]

I've lost track of all of the different versions and incarnations of anti-virus packages there are now. Invariably, they want to push a suite and not just antivirus. Call it firewall tools, NAT proxies, antivirus, defrag, unzip, process monitor, etc., the makers want to add-on extra stuff.

My point is that it doesn't much matter which one is used and whether or not other bonus material is incorporated. The key is convenience, reliability, and updatability. The singular most important issue is will the enduser use it. If it's cumbersome or requires effort to maintain, it usually gets turned off - either actively or passively. Clearly, that is the worst option, so just get convenient and, if possible, cheap.

Don't obsess too much about whose algorithm is better or the rate of detection. Much of the time the tests are a bit contrived and biased. Plus, no AV detector is impermeable and each has its relative strengths. AV is part of the overall layers of security implementation... so make it convenient.

KISS is good, unless one happens to like the extras, some of which are quite useful.

[Vin DSL]

Currently I'm using F-Prot...

Good man! You saved me some 'keyboarding'!

F-Prot is the best! However, it's commercial software, and some ppl are too cheap to spend 20 bones to protect themselves...

If you're a cheapskate, low-life, kind of person, go with Avast! software. It's the best freeware AV! I install that on my cheapskate, low-life, friend's computers, and it works great!

Having said that, IMHO, McAfee and Norton suck! That's what they use at work... and I think Tech Services does this on purpose for job security, if you know what I mean. Neither one is worth a damn...

[Vin DSL]

I'm very careful using Zone Alarm's firewall (free version of course), and various recommended Spy Bot software...

OMG! We're kindred spirits! Me too...

ZA freeware rules, and ZA Pro drools! Just upgraded it 10 minutes ago, BTW!

For spyware, #1 is TeaTimer, e.g. Spybot-SD Resident, so called. Back that up by running Spybot S&D, and Lavasoft Ad-aware SE occasionally, and you got it 'made in the shade'!

[Vin DSL]

By the way, when my subscription to F-Prot runs out I'll probably go back to using AVG...

Boo!!! I just lost all respect for you...

[Vin DSL]

Does anyone see much difference between Norton, F-Prot, AVG or whatever?

Are you kidding? Now you're pissing me off! I'm starting to think you don't even run F-Prot...

The difference is when you actually run across a virus. Any AV proggie will detect viruses -- so will you, when your computer quits working. That's NO big deal...

The 'difference' is when you try to get rid of them. Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, gets RID of viruses like F-Prot. If you don't believe me, stick a virus on your machine and try to get rid of it with one of those 'other' AV programs!

[mattsiegman]

I use AVG.

[sehh]

The best commercial AV software are these two:

NOD32 (www.eset.com)
Kaspersky (www.kaspersky.com)

everything else is just bloated and not good enough at detecting viruses. Those two are available for almost every major operating system out there (that means they support FreeBSD, Linux, etc) and their virus detection is beyond everyone elses.

AVG and Avast are also good free alternatives.

[AlexKall]

I've used many, but norton is defenetly the best i've used so far!

[sehh]

norton?? you must be crazy!! nuts!! bolts!!

you don't work for symantec do you?

1) norton is: slow, bloated, slow and bloated.
2) it takes over your desktop, installs it self everywhere
3) doesn't uninstall cleanly
4) doesn't play well with other software (conflicts, etc)
5) doesn't detect wild viruses, only the popular ones
6) the real time scanning engine is too slow
7) lots of other problems...

the only reason why norton still exists, is because they have good PR and managed to force themselfs as the preloaded antivirus for most integrators.

other than that, they'd have long ago disapeared.

[jason]

I use McAfee, mainly because our site license at work allows me to install it on my personal computers that I might use to connect to the work network. I have seen it get rid of some virus, but not all of them, so I would give it a marginal-plus rating. (I'm also running the enterprise version, not the consumer version that you'd get at Best Buy. The last time I used that one it was definitely bloated (trying to be my firewall, AV, and whatnot) and slow. The enterprise version is just a virus scanner and it, for the most part, does its job well for me.

I just started testing the Comodo (the same people who sell the InstantSSL certificates) personal firewall on one of my computers. It is completely free for as long as you want to use it. So far it seems to be working pretty well, although I've only been running it for about five days. They also have a AV program you can install under similar terms, but I haven't tried it out.

--Jason

[AlexKall]

norton?? you must be crazy!! nuts!! bolts!!

you don't work for symantec do you?

1) norton is: slow, bloated, slow and bloated.
2) it takes over your desktop, installs it self everywhere
3) doesn't uninstall cleanly
4) doesn't play well with other software (conflicts, etc)
5) doesn't detect wild viruses, only the popular ones
6) the real time scanning engine is too slow
7) lots of other problems...

the only reason why norton still exists, is because they have good PR and managed to force themselfs as the preloaded antivirus for most integrators.

other than that, they'd have long ago disapeared.

No I'm not nuts and I don't work for them.

1) I have experienced the opposite, one of the faster full protection suits. I don't consider it blooted, its got a firewall anti virus and anti spam. Thats it and I love it for that purpose. Sure I could get Zone Alarm, I've had both the free and profesionall version, both ware resourse hogs and generly buggy. I do however also have a hardware firewall but I still prefere to have two walls.

2) Taking over the desktop? There's nothing on my desktop that has anything to do with Norton. I have a picture of a tiger and the default windows icons.

3) Installs it self every where? Not following, so its actually taken over my hard drive? I have plenty of space and its installed in one place, however some files are put in the windows directory which most programs do.

4) Never had a conflict with any program.

5) Have searched hard drive several times with several brands of Antivirus programs, many of those that ware praised here and there has never been anything that has gone through.

6) In what way is it too slow? As somethings try to get entry it reacts instantly, say a site with a virus.

7) Like? Never had any problems with norton, I have had loads of problems with the other programs mentioned in this thread to the degree that many of those programs have been personly black listed