General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2180270

    Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

    Locked

    by brad mankoff ·

    We were having a discussion the other day on which virus software is better Symantec (Norton) which signed an agreement with IBM to create virus definitions so you have the two best in the business or McAfee which just so happen to fail on my desktop today.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3095581

      Based on my experience…

      by azul ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I would say McAfee.

      I have been supporting home users and students at a large university for the better part of the past three years.

      The first year and a half was home users, 9 times out of 10 they were running Symantec.

      The past year and a half has been students, end users in a university/hospital. Everyone has access and is encouraged to download and use an enterprise version of McAffee on any computer they use, home or work.

      Now, 8 times out of 10 when I have a pc that has a virus, it is because the virus definitions and Windows updates have not been kept current. There are more than 48K systems connected to our network at any given time.

      However, when I have somthing that McAffee cant fix, Symantec Stinger usually does.

      I hope that helps, good luck.

      • #3098005

        McAffee

        by beads ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        McAffee is definitely better than that resource hog Symantec load.

        If your looking farther out then I would also suggest TrendMicro. Sure they’re number three but I like the management better than anything else I have seen or used.

        – beads

        • #3102377

          McAffee

          by paguda ·

          In reply to McAffee

          ive been fixing some home user pc, and everytime theres a problem, i noticed nortong is one of them, its hogging all the resources and this is one of the reason it cant connect to the internet to update….manytimes the user will say that they have uninstalled it an re-installed it but the problem is still there….

        • #3273830

          What about F-Prot?

          by genecarl ·

          In reply to McAffee

          I am very pleased with F-Prot. Also use AVG as a backup.

        • #3155860

          Benefits of F-Prot (Fp-win)

          by michael_orton9 ·

          In reply to What about F-Prot?

          I have been using the above since about 1992, when it was a DOs/Win 3.1 program.
          Now I use the Fp-Win and the Linux versions.
          Adavantages.
          1/ Cheap, effective, daily updates sometimes two or three a day. They get the new definition files out very quickly, even on Christmas and New Year’s Day.
          2/ Doesn’t hog memory or slow down a PC (550mhz to 3 GhZ is the range that I use at present).
          3/ Setting heuristics and Neural Network as ON and actions RENAME rather then disinfect allows you to adopt a cavilleer “shoot to kill on suspicion” attitude as it is then easy to 1/ Scan the pC from a floppy disk set to further investigate with Windows shutdown.
          If it has cocked up and renamed a vital Windows file, again no problem.
          Boot with Knoppix CD,(latest version of NTFS)find .vxe, vll and .vom files and rename them back.
          The scan from floppy set is ideal for heavily infected PCs, the disks are write ptotected so you can “ethnically cleanse” the pC, When I give talks on IT security, I liken it to tying the enemy to a chain-link fence and then machine gunning them!
          Of course you can also burn all the latest files onto a cd and boot from this to “Ethnically Cleanse” a PC.
          On a Dual boot PC FP-win actually finds compressed Linux keyloggers and other “naughty” software when downloaded to a FAT32 partition.
          When F-prot is run in Linux it finds compressed “naughty” programs in any partition.
          Nortons and MacAfee don’t do this.
          The only downside to the programs is that you have to download them. They don’t come on flashy CDs in pretty boxes from PC World.
          The automatic update system is excellent, it checks for udates at start up and every hour or less if you want to.
          But when the main program needs updating you do have to download something like fp-win_xxxx_yyy.exe save it to your download folder.Then double click on it to install and set itself up.
          It works very well with Windows defender, ZoneAlarm, VisualZone Report Utility.
          Another snag.
          Monthly backups to DVD/Tape.
          It stops my compressed “naughty software” from being backed up, so I had to put it all in a “Naughty” folder and not back this up!
          FP-win costs 25 Euros/year for up to 5 PCs.
          Bulk rates for many Pcs are even better, and its nice to have virtually the same product for both 98se, XP, and SuSe Linux.
          You can download the Zip File to create the 3 Floppy command line F-prot for free.
          This is only to find and then “bake and shread” virus infections.
          Of course you have to be able to Unzip and read the help file as to which files you want on each disk.
          Disk#1 (bootable format A: /s)
          F-prot.exe English Tx0
          Disk #2 Sign.def & Sign2.def
          Disk#3 Macro.def
          Write protect all, stick #1 in PC and reboot, set BIOS to boot from floppy.
          A:>
          F-prot loaddef
          Feed in the disks as required and follow orders!
          Then the “Cyber KGB” exterminate the terrorists!
          Its very good at disinfection files, I once “ethnically cleansed” a PC with over 250 infected files.

        • #3088046

          There are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.

          by mwradio ·

          In reply to McAffee

          Just for your note, and any one else running into these problems. Sorry I don’t have the specifics on hand right now but there are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.
          They are also Different problems. Win2000 and, I believe XP, you can check it out, had a problem with using up resources over time when coupled with certain Symantec programs.

          Several versions of Norton internet Security tended to break Windows Update in one of two fashions. The one I ran into had to do with OLEAUT32.dll being changed to an incompatible version. This caused windows update to freeze at “Downloading Updates”. There is a different problem yet that causes windows update to freeze during the detection process and cause XP to report no new updates available, when there actually are!

          Get on Google, with a little digging you can find solutions to all these problems. Good luck! And good hunting.

        • #3087871

          three fixes

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to There are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.

          I have three fixes:

          1. AVG

          2. ClamAV (and the Windows version, ClamWin)

          3. use a different OS

        • #3089837

          different OS?…

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to three fixes

          do you mean like Mac OS X or a previous version of Windows?
          (just kidding, I know you mean linux – trying to add some humor to his discussion)

        • #3087635

          Good fixes all, but remember….

          by mwradio ·

          In reply to three fixes

          Good fixes all! lol But seriously IF you need to, these fixes are available. If you decide to use apotheon’s fixes one and two, remember to use the removal tool from Symantec for your product, ’cause Norton can and might break your system. I suspect this is what caused the problem I experienced. Someone (not me) had removed Norton Internet Security 2004 from the machine!

          If you already have the problem removing Norton might not fix it! So be prepared.
          Thank you.

        • #3143113

          I don’t like either

          by danlm ·

          In reply to Good fixes all, but remember….

          I have found that both are resource hogs. Norton is good, and I like its protection. But, its the trade off with regard to overhead.
          McAfee and my current configuration just don’t get along. That could be because it was a hacked version that my isp was offering. God, was that terrible.
          I’ve been using stand alone products. AFG for anti-virus and I Sygate for the firewall. Yes, I know Sygate was bought out by Norton in 2003 and is no longer supported. But, I just like it.
          When my subscriptions are up on what I have just mentioned, I am going to look around. Because, as I said. I really am not a fan of either.
          And Panda. Good god, that dropped my system to its knees with regard to sucking up processing power.
          Shoot, I know this machine is only a 1.4. But, it’s sitting with a gig of memory. For one application to do that to this machine definitely got my whine and cheese vote.

          Dan

        • #3086980

          Finally someone with sense!

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to three fixes

          Apotheon is right, and with that here is my short list of recommendations to bypass both of those pieces of garbage (symantec or McAPieceOShit or whatever its name is):

          #1: Move to Linux
          #2: Move to Linux
          #3: Move to Linux
          #4: Move to Linux

          If stuck in windows…
          #5: AVG
          #6: Avast
          #7: F-Prot
          #8: Panda
          #9: PC-cillin

          If ignorant, stupid, or have boss that is ignorant, stupid, or has arm twisting contracts from the mafia…
          #10: Symantec

          Never: McAShit

          And for you fools that call Norton resource heavy compared to McAfee, you are ignorant fools, I have done a very exhaustive performance reviews for a number of AV products and McAfee came out with half again more resources consumed during latent monitoring mode, than even the worst in the list. Active scan mode resource usage is stupid to compare, because those are nearly always run at inconsequential hours. If not, the user is fully aware of not farting around with thier machine while its scanning.

          And for the fool, I forget the name, who said that the users were having trouble connecting to the internet…blah blah blah. You’re a retard, this thread is for AV products, not internet security, firewalls, or such. And in any case, I have ALWAYS had complaints from peolpe after they installed Norton Internet Security, or that other load of rubbish from McAfee. Just use a seperate AV, and a seperate firewall, or again, move over to Linux. Still need an AV scanner at times, but much less, and the exploits are lesser known and lesser in general, and can be minimized to zero if you go download the NSA’s Secure Linux.
          Thats about it…

        • #3086917

          Customer-focused, much?

          by understaffed ·

          In reply to Finally someone with sense!

          Not to go slinging around personal stuff in here (but I am, and you started it…) but I bet you are real popular with your end users. Tell ya what- how about you keep it civil and contribute something useful, or stfu.

        • #3076803

          Shame you’re so shy…

          by dennis_london ·

          In reply to Finally someone with sense!

          You really ought to cut back on the coffee.

          Oh yeah, moving to Linux won’t solve all the problems. Linux may be the hacker’s playground but it is also a target. There are plenty of vulnerabilities and exploits to be wary of. Why else do you think there are so many kernel updates released so frequently?

          The way I see it, Linux is releasing updates about as frequently as Microsoft. Granted there aren’t as many but still…it ain’t perfect.

          As for resource utilization, fine tuning any AV solution to work in any environment is always an option. Just remember the goal is protection. If your goal is performance than you truly need to do your own evaluations and not listen to the rantings of everyone here. You will only get differing opinions and some with attitude.

          Best of luck to you.

          And by the way…I use McAfee without performance issues and I haven’t had an outbreak in my networks (yes multiple networks at different companies) for many years.

        • #3145002

          A Load Of Crap

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to Finally someone with sense!

          Man;
          Where did you get your information?.On what do you base the vitriolic name calling that you have just accomplished. OR is it just that you’re that arrogant and ignorant.
          If I bought a system and you put in AVG or anything Else that I didn’t want,you find out real quick just how fast it can be Pulled.
          You must be one hell of salesman “At least to yourself”
          And for your information;
          This post in NOT repeat NOT about AVG , it’s about which Anti Virus is prefer, and that Includes all of them.
          So before I showing off just how much I don’t know and flame the hell out of everybody, I’d go back to the drawing board and have another look.
          This type of garbage is not needed in what is supposed to be an intelligent conversation.
          So hit the books, or hit the road, either way, get over yourself and then maybe,just maybe you’ll see things a little differently.
          Or maybe the other man was right.
          If you can’t be Civil, Please S_T_F_U.
          Aaron

        • #3100376

          different OS

          by gryphonphyre ·

          In reply to three fixes

          If you write your own OS then you can be in control
          of every thing that goes in computer.

          –chris
          http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/nxdos/

        • #3076025

          Reply To: Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

          by eswearengin ·

          In reply to There are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.

          This is true, I’m glad I seen this post becouse I’ve experienced a computer that had the same problem with Windows update notifications that are already were updated.

        • #3264164

          when xp is put onto computer with 2000

          by reciter ·

          In reply to There are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.

          You sound very knowledgeable. My husband had 2000 pro and his buddy put xp onto the same machine without removing the 2000.
          I get to do the maintenance but am getting lots of nis errors, unable to update and some parts missing………I am unsuccessful trying to reload the symantec systemworks. on settings, add remove it says there are no programs on the comuter (weird),is there any way to correct this or should he just be running one system (he is not very informed and usually looks for quick fixes which cause more problems instead of solutions.

        • #3263943

          REMOVE the SYMANTEC !

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to when xp is put onto computer with 2000

          The Nortons stuff is screwing it up, remove it completley ! ! ! ! ! And go get a anti virus which works right like AVG a ga zillion times better than Nortons ! ( go to a search engine and type AVG it will take you to their site )
          ( Symantec – A Thorn by any other name is still a thorn in the side ) I am suprised you have not gotten lots of worms or virus’s as they update weeks later than normal and your subject to getting them

        • #3165877

          Kaspersky

          by russellw3 ·

          In reply to REMOVE the SYMANTEC !

          Has no one heard of KasperSky what do you think of kaspersky what is its place aginst the odds

        • #3113504

          Anti-Virus Updating

          by bouy™ ·

          In reply to REMOVE the SYMANTEC !

          I thought Symantec updated daily…You can access those updates by using their “Intelligent Updater”…I am happy there are alternatives to Norton/Symantec…”I love tha smell of a good AVP in the morning”…:D

        • #3089839

          are you referring to Symantec Antivirus client or Norton Antivirus

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to McAffee

          same company but different apps,
          I’ve never seen Symantec Antivirus client software succumb to the problems your mentioning concerning Norton Antivirus, I can assume they’re similar but at work we only use the Symantec Antivirus client software, we don’t use Norton Antivirus. Please be specific in which software you’re referring to.

        • #3085251

          virus

          by computab ·

          In reply to McAffee

          This frequently happens because of a virus present.

        • #3074347

          All are good: The essential is ….

          by wanjahaloys ·

          In reply to McAffee

          NO anti virus software would be efficient, meaning that, it really guards and secure our data from virus attacks if it is not updated on a regular schedule. If the virus definition files among others, are not up to date, it would be the same as no anti virus at all on the machine.Yes, I agree that Norton is very resource intensive to the pc and that is why any one who enjoys working on a fast pc might prefer McAfee.
          To me, what matters first is the security of my data. I am presently facing a situation in which a home user had anti virus software installed on the pc but had never cared to download the updates. Her pc was caught by the so call Blackmal.e (I-Worm/VB.bi, WORM_GREW.A, Email-Worm.Win32.VB.bi, W32/Nyxem-D, Kama Sutra, Blackworm, Nyxem and MyWife), infecting more than 30GB of valuable business data, that no backup exist anywhere. How do I recover this data? Which data recovery software is more effecient in recoverying the deleted files?

      • #3087905

        McAfee

        by wellsd ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        I would have to agree that McAfee would have to be the better of the Two. We use Symantec on our network at work and I have never had more viruses in my life! I use McAfee @ home and I think in the 4 Years that I have been using their products that I have had maybe a total of 3 Viruses. That compared to the 9 that I got last week Using Symantec @ work. Both Software?s have current updates applied with in a day of being released.

        Mind you the only piece of software that McAfee made that works it their anti-Virus products, the rest of their utilities are better left uninstalled.

        • #3089836

          is the problem with pc viruses at work…

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to McAfee

          …more an issue with your users not being informed enough to know not to open emails from unfamiliar sources, surfing questionable websites, downloading & installing software or using P2P filesharing apps?

          – Just thought I would ask the question. We have strict policies regarding pc hardware, internet & email usage and don’t allow any of the above mentioned and we tend to operate virus free and we do use Symantec’s Antivirus server & client software. I can’t remember the last time we had a virus problem, and very little spyware either.

        • #3085394

          I hear

          by demonx ·

          In reply to McAfee

          everyone relating different experiences. Mine with mcafee was bad. Their tech support was of no help. Every machine I put mcafee on went in to super slow motion. All this going on at the time their license was up for renewal. I gave mcafee the boot and never looked back. Been using norton corp edition and then symantec corp edition. Never had a perfomance problem. I did have a problem with users turning off auto protect but now the newer version turns itself back on after 30 min.

        • #3086922

          Symantec Corporate Edition note

          by reconlabtech ·

          In reply to I hear

          If you are using the Corporate Edition, you should be using the Management Console and an Antivirus Server as well – its included with the package. The Antivirus Primary server will keep all the clients up-to-date and the console will allow you to lockdown whether anyone can disable the client at all. You can also set the client to re-enable in any number of minutes, not just 30.

        • #3086913

          McAfee Corporate (AVD or better)

          by understaffed ·

          In reply to I hear

          If you have the enterprise editions of McAfee, you get ePolicy Orchestrator, which allows central config of all details, updates, rights, actions, etc… I have it set so regular users can’t disable on-access scanning at all, or change any scan settings.

          That said, the ePO interface does leave alot to be desired- maybe it’s just me, but there seem to be many places to make the same setting adjustments, and sometimes I get a little lost. It also wants to keep trying to install the ePO client on our copier, even though I have excluded the IP addy from the range (probably missed it somewhere else though) 🙂

      • #3088454

        McAfee

        by blackcurrant ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        I have been using Norton’s products for years. Lately, they have, IMO, gone down the pan. I got fed up with the uninstalling/reinstalling merry-go-round, I got fed up with viruses getting through, I got fed up with the firewall repeatedly preventing Outlook from connecting to the Internet, I got fed up with the programs inability to remove spyware – even in Safe Mode, I got fed up with having to download dedicated program uninstall tools because the upgrade did not remove all traces of earlier (and, therefore, incompatible), files. Finally, I was astonished after uninstalling these programs – because my PC’s performance improved dramatically, and has remained so even after installing McAfee.

        It is a shame because Symantec used to be industry leaders – now their products are quite simply not cutting the mustard. Not only have switched my home PC from Symantec to McAfee – I will also be moving my entire company network over to McAfee mainly because I can no longer tolerate to crippling effect Symantec Client Security 3 has on those systems that meet the system requirements. Note: If anyone installs SCS3 the clients require 512MB to run with little performance impact, and not the 256MB quoted.

      • #3085898

        McAfee

        by claudette ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        Stinger is a McAfee product, not a Symantec product.

      • #3085182

        Stinger?

        by barklessdog ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        Stinger is a NAI (McAfee) product. Give AVAST a try.
        I run it on our email server and it catches viruses that my Web Shield appliance and desktop AV miss.

      • #3143366

        Symantec stinger?

        by lynne’s honey ·

        In reply to Based on my experience…

        I always download the latest version of Stinger fromteh McAfee site. Is it true that it is really a Symantec product?

    • #3109809

      Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      by krazykyngekorny ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      NO!

      The BEST anti-virus is AVG! Next to it is antivir.

    • #3108482

      I use McAfee but complement it with SafeSystem

      by van morris ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I’ve used McAfee for more than 7 years and I’m happy with it. However, since I knew about SafeSystem (which highly recommend) I’ve used this tool for complementing my other security programs because it protects my system regardless the kind of (known or unknown) virus, spyware or malicious code is trying to infect my computer. In fact, it simply doesn’t allow any program to be installed or copied to my system while I’m surfing the Web, reading my emails or working with my computer. Sincerely, this gives me a lot of piece of mind because my system is always protected no matter if my anti-virus and anti-spyware are updated or not. Don’t forget that perhaps they are updated but they just don’t recognize the virus or spyware which is trying to get into my computer.

      I found SafeSystem at: http://www.gemiscorp.com/english/safesystem/info.html
      Also, you can see a good PR about this program at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb339444.htm

      IMPORTANT: I want to clarify that I don’t have any direct or indirect relation with the company that owns the product I’m suggesting, so my posts shouldn’t be considered SPAM.

      • #3273247

        SafeSystem

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to I use McAfee but complement it with SafeSystem

        I’m interested in your experiences with SafeSystem. I discovered it and downloaded it this past weekend. I’m going to begin trials, after my usual back-up cycle, this week.

        Thanks.

      • #3273189

        McAfee Enterprise Version

        by cdixon ·

        In reply to I use McAfee but complement it with SafeSystem

        I use the McAfee Enterprise version in a corporate enviroment. I have been VERY satisfied with its detection and performance. With the explosion of the adware/spyware of the last couple of years, it has done its job of keeping my region free of a lot of that junk. I do have some home users that I support that do use Symantec. What I have seen fail with those users is that McAfee almost always has virus definitions in place long before Symantec. With Code Red and Blaster McAfee had definitions almost a whole day before Symantec had them.

        What I see lacking in both products retail/OEM versions (home users) is the expiration. Both products come with a trial period, but do not nag enough when the trial expires. I have found home users loaded with viruses, that comment “But I have anti-virus”. You check the virus defs and they are over a year old because the product has expired.

    • #3090622

      I like Symantec.

      by baketown83 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have used both McAfee and Symantec and I find that I like Symantec more. I have no real problems with McAfee. It protected my PC very well but I recently had gotten a laptop that came with Symantec so I decided to stick with it. It did its job, and it was really easy to keep up to date with the latest definitions.

      Also at my job we use Symantec and that was very convenient. When updates come out at work I know to go home and update my computer or vice versa. Since then I have gotten rid of McAfee totally on any PC that I own and install Symantec. I also recommend Symantec to anyone who may ask.

    • #3090621

      I like Symantec.

      by baketown83 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have used both McAfee and Symantec and I find that I like Symantec more. I have no real problems with McAfee. It protected my PC very well but I recently had gotten a laptop that came with Symantec so I decided to stick with it. It did its job, and it was really easy to keep up to date with the latest definitions.

      Also at my job we use Symantec and that was very convenient. When updates come out at work I know to go home and update my computer or vice versa. Since then I have gotten rid of McAfee totally on any PC that I own and install Symantec. I also recommend Symantec to anyone who may ask.

    • #3090620

      Sorry for the Double post.

      by baketown83 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Excuse the double post. It was by mistake.

    • #3252900

      I USED to like Symantec

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      but with their recent decision to drop support for anything older than win2k and not CLEARLY state so, is going to have me looking for a new AV vendor in June when this runs out.

      No, I will NEVER go back to McAfee. Systems crashing and failing to boot up were only the symtoms. The failing to clean the viruses that were contracted WHILE being covered by the updated McAfee is what made it so I will NEVER use their product again.

      Even though it isn’t spending advertising on this site, I will probably end up with the comercial product from AVG.

      Besides the dropping of old systems without proper notice, it has worked well and their web site is always very helpful.

      • #3252783

        never use/go back again

        by rob mekel ·

        In reply to I USED to like Symantec

        Can see and understand why you say this. I don’t like it either when support fails or is dropped without proper notice, let alone when the product corrupts your systems. Then I sure will not return to software like that.

        On the other hand (was to be expected wasn’t it :)), if a certain product is the best in its field it becomes more a management issue then a likings one.
        The emotional or intuitive: I don’t like this so I won’t use it, not bases on any functionality or use facility, so just based on the likings, is not a good basis to select a product.

        As a manager I can understand that if products are equal as in quality/price/service/use/continuity/strategy, that the liking or dis-liking of a brand/product/manufacturer/sales-person or any other emotional argument can be the deciding point on ordering a product from someone or a company.
        But never ever based only on pure intuitive liking or dis-liking.

        And in this I even will evaluate manufacturers and products that I don’t like but maybe are the best in their field, line of work and, being this, the best for me or my company.

        Rob

        • #3132681

          Isn’t a matter of “liking”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to never use/go back again

          I still have a few dozen Win98 systems I am STUCK with until they die. Do I go tell my boss I need to buy 24 computers because we can’t run the AV software?

          The way I discovered that Symantec dropped support for everything under win2k? When I went to install it. Real nice time to find that out. It then took a bit to FIND ANY mention of this on their web site.

          That is NOT a matter of “like or dislike”.

          That is poor business practices, and they have made the choice to not support my network anymore. I will find a product that will work.

          Note: Old systems are pIII 500’s through 800’s. Do I dump $150 EACH for WinXP upgrade just so I can continue to stay with the same AV vendor?

          So no, was NOT to be expected and was purely a LOGICAL decision, not an emotional decisions based on likes and dislikes.

          As for evaluating products I don’t “like”. If a product PROVES to be a poor product, it has nothing to do with “liking” it.

          Just like we will never do business with AT&T again because of VERY poor service and even worse treatment over that very poor service. That is another bridge that has been burned to the ground. X-(

        • #3132611

          STUCK with old computers

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Isn’t a matter of “liking”

          You may be stuck with the older computers, or, like me, choose not to upgrade, but, you are not stuck with the “big names.”

          MacAfee was the first big AV, and has built a reputation. Now they choose to live on reputation, rather than live up to it.

          For years, I have been using AVG on my ME system.

          If you have 2K or XP, AVG may not work. In that case, use Antivir.

          Freeware is NOT malware, as some believe. I use a lot of freeware, and it performs better than the commercial grades. If I find a freeware that doesn’t work well, I find something else. Only thing I haven’t found, yet, is a good font editor and creator.

        • #3101224

          Any stock

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to STUCK with old computers

          on wall-street?

          But do agree AVG isn’t a bad idea, nor is Antivir.

          Rob

        • #3102977

          I like what works

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Any stock

          as cheaply as possible. I hate to spend money when
          there is a freeware product that work for my
          purpose.

          I got my DeltaCAD in a house design package that
          was being closed out at Staples- $5US. The house
          program sucks, but Delta does what I want, so I
          use it, I also use Irfanview- freeware, for photo
          manipulation, and PDFredirect V1, freeware for PDF
          creation. Get the needed value for the least cost-
          it’s good business.

        • #3103415

          who

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to I like what works

          doesn’t.

          But y’re right if it does the job for you it’s the right solution.

          Rob

        • #3101490

          Who cares?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Any stock

          Question: What does stock market presence have to do with quality of software?

          Answer: Nothing.

        • #3101465

          As is

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to Who cares?

          but why is it that when someone is promoting something very hard that there often is an interest in selling something, whether that be a product or stock.

          But if y’re not sure if KrazyKyngeKorny took it the right way then read his answer. As my post was meant to take.

          Rob

        • #3101172

          Not being one of the big dogs

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to STUCK with old computers

          means they hopefully will be trying harder to get a piece of the pie.

          The big two in AV today are like IBM of the 80’s. Dead in the water.

        • #3088395

          AVG works fine with W2K and XP

          by servicetech ·

          In reply to STUCK with old computers

          AVG works fine with W2K and XP. Have never had a problem with it. And it’s free!!!!

        • #3101226

          likes, dis-likes

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to Isn’t a matter of “liking”

          Don’t think we dis-agree JD. Matter of fact I think we do agree on this all the way.

          If products are known to be poor on service or quality, I sure won’t select them to deliver.

          But that doesn’t mean that I won’t let them in on an evaluation-project. Even if their service was/is bad. It just means that they will get extra attention on that issue, whether this will be a clause in the contract, penalty if not delivering, or refund plus costs of installing a product that does work. It will be something that will keep them in track upon the agreed deliverables.

          Sorry to hear y’re stuck with a few dozen Win98 systems. But ain’t it time to replace them by new ones? They must be 6 – 7 years old. But if they’re working fine there is no reason to replace them. Then of course what will it cost you to select/install an overall new AV program to your entire installed base. Or are you planning to do it just on the Win98 systems? And move over from there slowly.

          Don?t know if this is of any help but if you wanna discus more? feel free.

          Rob

        • #3101161

          discuss

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to likes, dis-likes

          The users do e-mail, spreadsheets, and run a terminal emulator.

          I literally could have 90% of the company running on PIII 500’s just fine. Of course, when a system dies we replace it with something cheap, but current.

          Why a cheap computer? Manufacturing. VERY dirty,dusty conditions. Most systems burn up in a few years, and the newer the more sensitive they are. The old systems could take this a lot better.

          When there is something like this software update, I get together with a co-worker and we hit every system. We will look at ALL software issues and make a check list to do all scans and updated. This once a year “hands on” has really cut down on the daily calls, so has been shown to be worth the time.

          It will be a system wide change. AVG and Kaspersky are two of the systems I will be testing out in about two months. Need to make the change in June.

          As for giving everyone a fair chance, if a product that I recommend fails, it makes ME look bad. It is a “one strike and your out” for me. I don’t take kindly to failure…..

          Symantec, your out.
          McAfee has BEEN out.
          AT&T is way out.
          Win95/ME is history!
          Win98 is getting phased out.
          Outlook,gone!
          Internet Exploiter, GONE!

          still looking at SuSE for a corporate solution on the desktop!

          Still don’t like the Foo fighters. :p

        • #3103428

          users and their soft/hardware

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to discuss

          Users do use their email, spreadsheets, word-processor, emulation, etc. But what, or how much, of these programs do they actually use?
          History: WP 4.2, yes an oldie, still covers up 70% of today’s word-processing desires and yes I do like the new features in modern word-processors but do I need them?

          Ever thought of industrial systems in this dirty and dusty environment. I once had soft covers for the keyboards and special foils for the touch screens so dirt and dust was kept out and they could easily be cleaned. It did work great but in the end it was more costly cleaning, time => money, wise then replacing them every 5 or 6 years or sooner if the machinery was replaced.

          This “hands on” once a year looks like y’re in need of a CMDB and some(maybe all) processes of ITIL. Looks like your doing some of the ITIL processes like problem management (look at ALL software issues and knowing you issues seems like you have incident management in place) and change management (check list to do all scans and updated) once a year.
          You will get more benefit out of ITIL processes as your installed base is large/growing.
          I for sure don’t like to check every year all 1500+ systems, even not(better, special not) on a one time basis.
          Y’re right, addressing/tackling software issues on a regular basis is saving on daily time consumers.

          Any planning on the selection/implementation yet?

          Yeb, don’t like it either when looking bad due to mal practice/someone else?s doing. That’s why I make the effort at contract stage to keep them on track all the way so I won’t have to worry about me looking bad.

          I like the exploiter twist. Seems y’re going to look for the Novell-thingies then.

          Rob

        • #3103394

          Most remote management

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to users and their soft/hardware

          is out of our price range. We have four locations, with a total of about 80 pc’s. Hard to justify the cost of the management software.

          Linux servers, win98/xp pc’s, so no AD either.

        • #3101487

          jdclyde: remote management

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to users and their soft/hardware

          Luckily for you, as you look into SuSE, remote management comes easily (and free) in the Linux world.

        • #3272925

          AV Flavors & Cost of Upgrading OS & Office

          by daversf ·

          In reply to Isn’t a matter of “liking”

          Your geographic location isn’t mentioned, but here in the USA this past weekend there were ads for retail XP Home Upgrade Version (not OEM) for $69 or $79, depending on retail store, which is the lowest I’ve ever seen it advertised.

          Even though Vista is looming on the horizon, it will be several more years before the Evil Empire forces upgrades (and no doubt it won’t work on your vintage boxen anyway! 8^/ ), and my own experience with XP convinces me that it is a worthwhile investment simply because of the reduction in system support and down time. XP is remarkably “self-healing”, incredibly superior to Win98, SE or ME. Of course it is hardly bulletproof, so it is wise to run ERUNT (http://tinyurl.com/qtbux for complete info) on each system for a better insurance than System Restore.

          On McAfee/Symantec: I got disgusted with McAfee’s deteriorated support some years back and switched to Norton when it was still good, but I must agree with all the negative reports in the thread, as it got so bloated and intrusive that it requires three to four hours to extract. One major gripe about NAV was that its default updates only occurred once per week! Only on rare occasions would an auto-update happen beyond that schedule, when a particularly virulent critter was on the loose. The decisive glitch was when I’d use one or more free online scans from other companies, such as Trend or Grisoft, and they would find viruses that didn’t even appear in the supposedly omnipotent Symantec’s virus library. Symantec’s system overhead is absurd, and uninstalling it is daunting to say the least!

          That said, I’d highly recommend switching to NOD32, which has been extremely thorough protection, (http://www.eset.com/products/products.htm), or one of the fine packages from TRENDMicro (http://www.trendmicro.com/home/default.asp). I’m using NOD32 at home and have seen it update as many as three times in one day! Many of my associates use PC-cillin Internet Security with no complaints, and actually I think it is more “user-friendly”, i.e., a more intuitive interface, than NOD32, which seems to have a bit higher geek factor.

          Lastly, as far as office software goes, one should download the FREE suite from http://www.openoffice.org/, and get all the bells and whistles almost anyone could need without paying Gates & Company many many $hundreds! It is a remarkable package.

        • #3087947

          Did you read

          by tom chase ·

          In reply to Isn’t a matter of “liking”

          the documentation that came with Norton? I was in a hurry one day and didn’t read where it clearly states on the box that it is only compatible with WinXP and newer versions of Windows. It is not Norton’s fault if I fail to read the directions.

        • #3101491

          repetitive conditioning

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to never use/go back again

          You seem to have been conditioned by the constant, chronic instabilities and failures of software in the Windows world to simply expect that sort of thing as the cost of using computers. That’s the only explanation that comes to mind for what just happened: jdclyde laid out for you technical issues with AV software from Symantec and McAfee, and you discarded it, saying that they’re the “best” AV solutions on the market and that his decision was based solely on personal knee-jerk biases.

          It looks to me like you’re the one with the bias: you seem to equate popularity with quality. Since they’re at the top of the market, you assume their offerings are the best, and dismiss any dissenting opinions as being nothing but personal bias. I could be wrong, but that really seems to be the case here. Ultimately, what you should realize is that when something repeatedly fails due to technical flaws in a way that damages business productivity or endangers your financial security, that is simply unacceptable. Under such circumstances, it’s entirely reasonable to write off the product in question and refuse to entrust anything important to it ever again.

          Have you even tried anything other than Symantec and McAfee for enterprise antivirus software?

        • #3100706

          repetitive conditioning?

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to repetitive conditioning

          Y’re right about the Windows world being a pain in the a$$. I sure don’t like how Windows, and I assume you mean by Windows the whole lot of the MS-bundle (meaning all of Microsoft?s software), works as it is repair after failure by failure. This does not mean that, as for 95% to 98% of the time it works fine, I am discontent with the MS-bundle. But those 5% to 2% it doesn’t work fine, its hell break lose on my department. And as long as there is neither production loss nor other disruptment in the service my department delivers to the company (being a governmental one) nobody, outside my department, complains. This doesn’t mean that whenever evaluating new software we will not be very critical towards our installed base. Better even, we will be very critical towards our installed base, special when it fails to deliver 100% off what it should deliver.

          What do you mean with my bias?
          As I don’t see anywhere in my previous post that I mentioned any product or brand name. There for I can’t make out where I stated “that they’re the “best” AV solutions”.

          What you (seem to) call (at least to me) as being my “bias”, is that I will be and am open minded to any solution whatsoever, even the ones that have proven being a not so good solution. This with one exception, that being the product/brand/manufacturer that just failed doing what it was suppose to do, or suppose to deliver and did cause production or service-delivery loss to my company.

          On the why of this objectivity or, as I prefer to put it, getting the best deal; As I am spending tax money I have to make sure that it is spend the best way possible.
          Further more it is my task that there is continuity as regarding to products used. As changing products is getting to know the new product with all its ins and outs which will take time and there for money. That is, for my employees as they can’t switch every year or so to new soft/hardware systems. This is about protecting invested money in knowledge/education and assets invested by my employer this not only in my department but the other departments as well.

          I don’t know how this works outside of the Netherlands, where I am located, but over here we can’t dismiss employees just because the employer wants/likes to switch over to new soft/hardware.

          Rob

        • #3272673

          Windows Defender (New Kid on the Block)

          by lazerous200 ·

          In reply to never use/go back again

          Has anyone tried Windows Defender from Microsoft? It seems to be a pretty reliable program so far. I put it on my machine about a month and a half ago and it is starting to look good. I know it is only in it’s Beta stage but it could be the new kid on the block.

        • #3272562

          scary

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Windows Defender (New Kid on the Block)

          The concept of Microsoft selling antivirus support for Windows just screams “conflict of interest”. It has protection racket written all over it — if not now, then within a few years.

          Thanks, but no thanks. Besides, I like security software that allows me to double-check to make sure it’s not carrying a malware payload all its own.

        • #3088066

          Aww. You’re just paranoid…

          by mwradio ·

          In reply to scary

          Aww. You’re just paranoid. Micro$oft would never do anything like that… Would they? (BWA HA HA HA HA)

        • #3144940

          Hear Hear ,couldn’t agree with you more

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to scary

          It is to Laugh, They are the ones that make it possible for all the riff raff to get into our systems in the first place, now they have the gall to start playing Anti Virus?
          Regardless of what I’m using now, count on this, I will NEVER use anything put out by Microsoft.
          If it wasn’t for the way the Great MS Systems are put together and shipped full of holes we wouldn’t have half the problems that we do.
          I’ll give them this, it takes guts to create the problems and then have the nerve to pretend to offer a solution.
          Yes Sir, Temerity of the fist Water.
          But hey, It’s Microsoft isn’t, we should be used to it by now. Yes?? 😉
          Regards
          Aaron 🙂

      • #3100610

        you may want to look at Mcafee’s new products

        by wojnar ·

        In reply to I USED to like Symantec

        They have learned from their past problems. They have a managed antivirus that has caught everything from phishing scams in email to the latest worms. I don’t like their policy of not adding to existing volume agreements. (if you purchase 27 licenses for 2 years and need to add a new PC, you can’t purchase a single add-on at the volume price. The Mcafee rep called that ‘rogue’ pricing !) Still, can’t beat the protection. With up to hourly updates when new viruses are encountered, we are not having any fears.

      • #3272966

        AVG or the expensive CA over here

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to I USED to like Symantec

        To date, hasn’t been able to be shut off by the script kiddies. Also, I’ve been known to run it on a system where NAV or McAfee was shut off just toclean out the viral activity that caused the shutoff. Then the commercial giant can be restarted and updated.

    • #3252866

      McAfee & Symantec are targeted by virus writers and they are slow……….

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      with updates. I use AVG (commercial version) which updates automatically on a daily basis. I used to use Avast which was also good but the speed with which AVG updates (sometimes twice in a day) won me over. I know of several instances where Symantec and McAfee were late with critical updates that resulted in infected systems; while our systems remained secure because AVG had beaten the other two to the punch with a necessary update. Somebody above mentioned SafeSystem and we are looking at it as an adjunct to AVG but to date haven’t made any decision on it. Considering cost factors, both Symantec and McAfee are expensive in comparison to AVG and definitely not as effective and the Symantec firewall is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine. There are some excellent antivirus products out there but Symantec and McAfee just aren’t amongst them.

      [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3252814

        AVG and antivir…

        by krazykyngekorny ·

        In reply to McAfee & Symantec are targeted by virus writers and they are slow……….

        both do the job an AV is supposed to, and both have freeware versions. MacAfee and Symantec quit doing their job long ago.

      • #3144806

        AVG & eTrust

        by info ·

        In reply to McAfee & Symantec are targeted by virus writers and they are slow……….

        Bravo Dawg:::

        My experience is similar. Give me AVG or eTrust anyday. McAfee, Norton and PC-cillin kill systems and frankly my clients deserve better.
        Sidebar: Why do McAfee and Norton continue to release deplorable products? Thank you for the job security! You have OEM and Retail versions installed faster than I can warn the public. When I remove these anti-virus apps from client computers we get 1000% increase in speed and user satisfaction. Thats 10 times the speed with no hardware augmentation.

        Go AVG. Go E-trust.

        Users beware!

    • #3103337

      Trendmicro

      by hfanelli ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I’m surprised I’m not hearing more noise about the #3 choice – Trendmicro. I’ve got the enterprise version implemented at one of our sites, and on an individual basis at another and it’s been fantastic here. We haven’t had one single system conflict, boot issue, virus outbreak or other software interfernece with this product on any machine since we installed it.

      Highly recommended.

      • #3103194

        Very anti Norton/Symantic

        by mtn.brk9 ·

        In reply to Trendmicro

        I haven’t used Mcafee for many years, but I recommend staying away from Symantic like the plague. I had Webroot and Symantic plus TUT and one other that I can’t remembe the name of on one of my systems and it seemed like I was using much of my time just keeping up with system software maintanence so I decided to go whole hog with Symantic.

        DON’T MAKE THAT MISTAKE!!!!

        Before I knew it they were even protecting my (garbage pail) – recycle bin. I was using TUT to shut down start-up items I did not want and then something from Symantic would pop-up and I would have to read through their help( I call it no-help ) files to find out what they were complaining about. It was as though something else had taken control of my system. Well, things got worse and worse until I had to backup my entire system, all 2 160GB hard disks, reformat the disks and reinstall Windows XP Prof SP2. I spent almost 4 days getting back to where I had started. Symantics was no help at all with the problems. Try to find where you can communicate with them on their site. It turns out that( and I hate to say this ) Microsoft was much more responsive.

        What I have now is Webroot, the Beta of Microsoft OneCare Live and the XP firewall. So far, this is working out very well.

        Dave

        • #3101766

          Need more details for credibility

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Very anti Norton/Symantic

          your professional description was a little lacking.

          Were you using the Norton brand for home, or Symantec for corporate?

          Exactly what happened as a direct result of this version being loaded on your system?

          How did you identify this as a norton/symantec problem?

          How did you come to the point of needing to format and reload your system?

          Why would it take any IT professional four days to load ANY system?

          Just checking the Symantec site, it takes five clicks to get to a phone number or email for support. Did you have a support contract?

          sounds like your talking about Symantecs home security package? Has what to do with their corporate AV?

        • #3101566

          Norton or MacAfee

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Very anti Norton/Symantic

          When Macafee first came out they were the best. That was for Win3. With 95 they started to go downhill, living in the limelight of their former product. Soon, they were coming out with a series of “new” releases, which were nothing more than enabling the software to use protected new virus databases- for an excessive fee.

          I put Norton utilities on a 98 system and ended up reformatting the HD and starting over from scratch. I won’t use any software designed by a company which is worse than a virus- nothing Norton (period).

          So, I went AV shopping and found AVG (Anti Virus Grisoft). It’s free, and it works! Why buy second or third rate, when the best is free? Why?

        • #3101480

          AVG

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Norton or MacAfee

          The enterprise version of AVG isn’t free: the free version cannot legally be used in enterprise distribution.

          That’s not any reason to use Symatec or McAfee (or MS) antivirus in the enterprise, though. AVG kicks Symantec’s and McAfee’s butts all over the place, and I won’t ever trust MS for security products because of the clear conflict of interest that situation presents. The commercial AV software I’d recommend for enterprise use on Windows would be either AVG or Trend Micro.

        • #3087889

          For the enterprise Mcafee is the way to go

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to AVG

          (I’m puking again.) Actually Trend Micro is as good as the Big Boys and AVG is very good also. Symantec for the Enterprise wasn’t successful here.

          Trend works well at many of my clients. I also use
          Trend For my home now that most of my client base went to it…

        • #3073998

          I’ve removed NAV off of 30+ machines and installed AVG

          by kcrea ·

          In reply to AVG

          I’ve had nothing but problems with Symantec AV; and their removal process is utterly painful at best. After removing NAV and then installing AVG, a bunch of viruses Symantec missed (btw NAV’s definitions were up-to-date) were detected and dealt with properly by AVG.

          Since gutting these PCs of Symantec and installing AVG, the systems are running smoother (less bloatware services running) and I have had “0” complaints thus far.

          It seems Symantec may have gotten caught up in pleasing the “big” contract companies and forgotten the little guys.

          You reap what you sow…

        • #3075065

          I do the same

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to I’ve removed NAV off of 30+ machines and installed AVG

          And I know what you mean about Nortons being a pain
          I also use a little free tool I found for removing Nortons called jv16 Power Tools . . And when thats over I do a search in the registry “Find” for either Nortons or Symatec and delete the entire key you might have to spend a few minutes as they spread their ahummmm “Stuff” all over the place . .
          And I use the Same Anti virus on Peoples computers that I fix, AVG is the greatest and up dates its self daily with out fail

        • #3273041

          Not completely true

          by jdgretz ·

          In reply to Norton or MacAfee

          When I first started working with anti-virus vendors and the whole anti-virus community back in 1985, independent testing by the University of Hamburg Virus Research Center(I believe) showed Norton and MacAfee to be very poor in both false positives and catching all or most of the standard virus suite.

          At that time, the two most reliable products were f-prot and AVP (Anti-Virus Pro). Unfortunately, neither product was available in the US as a packaged product, only as a download. At 2400bps, that was not something you really looked forward to doing.

          Here, the top dog was Doctor Solomons Anti-Virus Toolkit. That’s the way it remained until Dr. Solomon was purchased by MacAfee, then they went downhill.

          Norton/Symantec and MacAfee have always had great advertising – and the original Norton Utilities were certainly useful and well written pieces of work. Thank you very much, Peter.

          Shame these two giants do not produce the best of breed.

          jdg

        • #3086009

          i recommend symantec/norton

          by biskenya ·

          In reply to Not completely true

          Norton (Personal editions or Corp) to me is the best in terms of ease of use features. company support is great too and for those viruses that are not removed by the main product, they are quick to post their “Removal Tools” My support experience also goes back to Dr Solomon’s days. Have yet to get a virus that I can’t tackle.
          Probably the only draw back is its dependence on MSI technology for installation beause when that gets messed up within the system, you’re in trouble.
          My greatest problem was with msi and All-in-One Norton Internet Security! Had to send a feedback to them about the need for a tool to just clean up ALL settings to do with msi. Next time I checked, they had a tool… though you have to re-install everything else that uses msi (maybe we should blame Microsoft that old favorite) All the same keep away from NIS.

        • #3085964

          You mean anti Symantec , right ? lol

          by pcfreakske2000 ·

          In reply to Very anti Norton/Symantic

          Hi all ,

          You mean Symantec instead of Symantic , right ?

          I don’t like both Mcafee or Norton either. LOL

          I’m also an anti Computer Associates and Symantec person.

          That’s why I use PandaSoftware’s Panda Platinum Internet Security 2005 and before that I used the Panda Antivirus Titanium 2004 and Panda Antivirus Titanium series.

          I totally agree with you when you say that Symantec isn’t good.

          As far as you using Windows Firewall , I would recommend disabling it and replacing it with ZoneAlarm ( free version ) instead.

          Because Windows Firewall doesn’t scan outgoing traffic , just the incoming traffic.

          You can download ZoneAlarm ( Free version ) at http://www.zonelabs.com or through http://www.zonealarm.com

          Greetings ,

          Pcfreakske2000

      • #3273100

        Trendmicro….the way to go!

        by eneimi ·

        In reply to Trendmicro

        Wats all the noise and hype about mcafee and norton. i’ve been on the job for a couple of years now and belive me when you combine stability, virus and malware detection capability, use of system resources, all round value for money den pccillin is da way to go!!!

      • #3273034

        I agree completely

        by jdgretz ·

        In reply to Trendmicro

        I have been using TrendMicro products for several years now and recommend them to all my clients. What I like about it most is that is just works. No muss, no fuss, it just sits there and does what it is supposed to do – stop virii from getting into a machine and cleaning out those that have been left by other products (namely those being discussed here).

        In many corporate environments I have seen Symantec/Norton on the desktop and Trend on the servers. Why? Until recently, Symantec had a better enterprise management system. Fortunately, that no longer is the case. The server folks did not want Symantec products on their boxes as they wanted a reliable system.

        None of my clients who have installed TrendMicro’s products have suffered a virus outbreak on their networks or stand alone machines.

        In the corporate world, if I couldn’t get Trend, I’d seriously look at Sophos out of the UK. Not a bad product, but not so good for individual PCs.

        jdg

    • #3101756

      Based on my Experience

      by cweb ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Symantec (Norton) wins hands down.

      • #3273249

        Errr… Okay… Why?

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Based on my Experience

        Again, why?

      • #3085888

        Based on my experience, I hate Mcafee

        by pchsiu ·

        In reply to Based on my Experience

        I had been using Mcafee since the age of Bulletic Boards, (15 years ago, I reckon),(before internet was common). At that time they charge HKD500 per year through an Hong Kong agent. I did not mind the cost. Updates were four months late, and there were only four updates each year. That’s not the problem. Around 1997,(When internet first became common) I renewed my subscription through the internet on their USA web page. Then I found that I could not update virus definitions. I complained to the USA website. They referred me to an Australian website which said that they could not find my record. I went to their Hong Kong office. What I got was:”Go away before I call the police, unmistakably you are a pirate!!!” So I had to pay double for an alternative–Norton AntiVirus.
        I am using an old PC:Pentium 4-1.6GHz with 512MB ram. I do not find Norton AV have caused a burden on resources.

        • #3100245

          I forgot to tell more about McAfee

          by pchsiu ·

          In reply to Based on my experience, I hate Mcafee

          Hey! I forgot to add one more information why I hate McAfee. What happened was:
          Immediately after I told McAfee (as at the end of my complaints to them.) that I would switch Anti-Virus suppliers, I received forty virus attacks in a week. I never had any virus alarm before that. And up to now, after things went to normal again, I receive less than one virus alarm in a quarter. Obviously, I knew who sent me those virus attacks.

    • #3101739

      Neither, they both suck

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Norton is the most wasteful resource hog I have ever seen made available for the PC. Norton’s products cause more PC problems than they could ever hope to fix. Over the last 10 + years I really couldn’t count the number of PC ‘fixes’ that have been simply removing (spending several hours thoroughly cleaning) all traces of Norton from a system.

      As for MacAfee, it’s not as bad on resources as Norton, it doesn’t try and infiltrate every running process and doesn’t seem to cause as many system problems as NAV or NSW.

      Personally, for business I would go for E-Trust (formerly InnoculateIT)as it is very resource friendly has a tiny footprint but is still robust, easy to manage across the network and I have yet to find any system issues caused by it.

      For personal use, AVG AntiVirus (or there’s even a free e-Trust personal) will do just as well and save you the headaches found with retail offerings like Norton of MacAffee.

      Just because you pay for it, and it’s widely advertised, does not mean that it’s any better; it’s just that they are making money from it…and you.

      • #3100445

        Definitely other options to explore

        by tink! ·

        In reply to Neither, they both suck

        While Mcafee and Norton are both good in their own ways, I do think that they are just like many other widely known brand names. They are such a big name that they reap the benefits off of it and don’t necessarily offer all that they could as far as services for the $$.

        Personally I use avast! antivirus at home. It’s free for home use and it’s keeping us safe.

        At work, we went with Kaspersky because they are cheaper than Mcafee and Norton for multiple business licenses. One of my pet peeves is paying high prices simply for the name.

    • #3101638

      E Trust

      by rob miners ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      By far the best on the maket.
      Norton bloatware on file server 300mb trouble with updates and it takes control of the PC.
      E Trust 25mb so user friendly. I like the “You had a Virus” when it does find one and deletes it.
      I have never understood why anyone would want to quarantine a virus and then not be able to do anything with it.

      • #3272967

        False positives

        by wdewey ·

        In reply to E Trust

        I you get a false positive then simply deleting the file may cause a great deal of head ache and hassle getting it back. If you want to disable it while you investigate the problem then quarantine it.

        Bill

      • #3088007

        Thank God for quarentine!

        by mwradio ·

        In reply to E Trust

        I have had Norton throw away programs that I use in servicing PC’s on two occassions, calling them “Hacker Tool”‘s. If it weren’t for Quarentine I would have had to go find and get them again. Not always an option, especially for paid for, downloaded programs! With Quarentine I can go get them again and put them in protected folders. Without Quarentine they are lost forever. Nuff said.

    • #3101569

      From an enterprise perspective

      by ristephen ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have evaluated both enterprise solutions and we have ended up implementing McAfee’s ePO solution. Running ePO server with a backend SQL for the database, 4000 desktops and servers updating every day, it is so scalable and configurable even for VPN users.

      I can’t imagine any better solution out there. Comes with many preconfigured reports written in crystal. It takes care of itself. Imagine 4000 machines in 50 separate sites updating virus definitions in a 3 hour window with no network impact.

      • #3100628

        Same here

        by ben “iron” damper ·

        In reply to From an enterprise perspective

        We have been using EPO to manage McAfee on all of our desktops and servers and couldn’t be more happy.
        While none of the above mentioned products are a 100% guarantee I still say something is better than nothing!

    • #3100622

      Mcafee by far

      by wojnar ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I inherited an office where over 40 workstations were Symantec was in place. The users of most PC’s were complaining how over the past 6 months, the applications were running slower. After investigating, I discovered 180 Search assistant was installed on all the ‘problem’ PC’s.

      Symantec had not detected the installation. I went with Mcafee’s managed antivirus service and all infections were identified (some PC’s had at least 4 virus infections.

      My conclusion – Norton has some great utilities but for virus identification, you can’t beat Mcafee. With the managed product, I can identify what the update level is on each pc, who is uotdated and which pc’s have had infections stopped.

    • #3100524

      It’s a trick question!

      by alangeek ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      This is a trick question. The proper answer is NEITHER!

      • #3088052

        Niether is also going to be my answer. Had too many problems.

        by mwradio ·

        In reply to It’s a trick question!

        McAfee:
        I had a bad time with AOL’s companion piece McAfee VirusScan8. It claims to be able to run on a 133Mhz. I would love to see that just for a laugh. I recently spent my spare time for a week figuring out that my friends 300Mhz AMD had come to a screeching halt because of the McAfee and there was nothing AOL or McAfee was willing/able to do about it. It is a HORRIBLE machine hog! I lucked out in that I got a 1.3 GHz Intel to work on at the same time that need to be reloaded anyway. When I tried it on there, THAT machine took THREE MINUTES LONGER to boot than usual and was noticebly slower than before! Since then I have met another person using it on a 1.8 GHz Intel laptop with the same complaint. After this experience, I don’t care how good there definitions are I can’t/won’t use/recommend McAfee. If any has any info on thier other products I will listen, But will remain sceptical.

        Norton:
        Recently I had to fix the Windows update on a local church’s machine. Seems that Norton Internet Security 2005 broke it. When I went to find out what the problem was, I found out I was not the only one with this problem. It has been an on going problem since 2002. Many people have had the same experience, few had the answer. After three hours Googling every combination of symptoms I could think of tryng, I finally found the answer on Symantec’s site under a different problem discription.
        I am still using Norton AV2003, because I already have it, and a host of other spyware and adware detectors to make up for its omissions, but have been recommending AVG to most people.
        Thank you for reading my long post.

    • #3102322

      ANTIGEN IS BEST

      by vinay_sharma ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Did you heard about Antigen recentaly aquires by Microsoft and its using 5 worlds best anitvirus engine at in a one sonftware and all work together.i think its a world best antivirus solution for entherprise and for home/personal users AVG is best then other.i can prove Norton antivirus is usless antivirus.it cant handle the micro viruses.and TrandMicro has lots off bugs itself which will damage your etherpeise solution anytime.once happend with my exchange server.

      Think for Antigen.

    • #3273334

      Trend Micro’s PC-cillin is tops!!!

      by kim.hall10 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      PC-cillin bundles anti-virus, spyware/adware protection, personal data/privacy protection from phishing attacks, spam, fraud and web filters, and wireless network security all in one easy to use and rock solid product – Internet Security 2006 for $50. McAfee and Norton sell 3 to 4 products to cover all of this and it’s a lot more than $50 when you’re done. This was rated highest by Consumer Reports for ease of use and effectiveness and I personally agree.

      • #3272801

        Right On

        by multimedia 1 ·

        In reply to Trend Micro’s PC-cillin is tops!!!

        I have hands on experience with NAV where I work. I use Trend Micro’s PC-cillin in my home office network and I think it is the best… hands down.

        Better pricing and better performance.

      • #3085403

        Here Here

        by ffulton ·

        In reply to Trend Micro’s PC-cillin is tops!!!

        I used to be a Nortonian, But Symantec has ruined Peters good name. After More then 20 Years of using and trusting Norton Product I no longer use or trust them

        And Tech Support for failed installs is atrocious; they keep telling me to do the 20 minute uninstall and then the 20 Minute reinstall even when I told them I had already done that several times. I will Never Buy Another Symantec Product as Long as I Live.

        I have been using Trend Micro for about 18 Months. I have two 5-user license packs all for about $90.

        It uses less of my systems ram and less CPU Cycles.

        I am a Very Happy Camper.

    • #3273332

      Symantec v McAfee

      by jmason55 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I just had a problem with Symantec that you may want to hear. I had a problem with the integration of Norton Anti-Spam and Microsoft Outlook 2003. Every time I shut down Outlook, it would create an error message when I logged out of Windows. I tracked it down to the Norton Anti-Spam plugin. I went to Symantec tech support and they first told me I had problems with my live update. When that didn’t work they had me un-install and re-install all my Norton products, I have Norton System Works and Internet Security also. That didn’t work so they told me they couldn’t help me and that the only fix was to upgrade to the latest Norton products. I only had Norton 2005 products for 6 months! They offered to upgrade my subscription once I updated my software to add an extra 6 months. I wasn’t happy, but in my stupidity I did as they asked. Norton Anti-Spam was included in the bundle, but was the same version as I originally had. It still doesn’t work! I was considering returning my Norton products for refund and switching to McAfee.

      • #3273176

        Let me know…

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Symantec v McAfee

        …where you can return software that’s DOA or NFG (not functioning good). I wanna know! Tell me, tell me!

        • #3273056

          Here’s how…

          by jmason55 ·

          In reply to Let me know…

          Fortunately, I still have the receipts from the purchase I made over the weekend, but if you don’t and complain to Symantec loud enough, they may help you.

    • #3273258

      Which are better?

      by dicklaw ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Both do their job very well, but Symantic is by far the smoothest. McAfee is far toooooo intrusive – it is constantly butting into your daily life with a comment of some kind, Norton allows you to check up on things if you feel uneasy.
      DickLaw

    • #3273251

      I’ve used both McAfee and Norton

      by ontheropes ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have had Norton Internet Security 2002, upgraded to IS 2005 and bought IS 2006 with Antispy/AntiAdware shortly after release. Their IS product (firewall and antivirus) taught me the true value of a sound backup plan.
      Since 2002, on the PC that ran the Norton product, I have had to restore from backup at least 12 times. Norton also taught me the value of not running just one product AND prompted me to study security in depth.

      I have had to repair many PC’s that have had Nortons protection.

      The PC’s where I have installed McAfee’s product are all on Comcast cable and used by aggressive surfers. I have yet to find a virus on any of my customers PC’s running McAfee when I perform bi-monthly updates at the customers location.

      For these reasons, I’m going to give McAfee the real life edge.

      On the 5 different PC’s that are on my small home network I have run my own extended trials. The ones that come to mind right off are BitDefender 8, Grisoft’s AVG, Zonelabs IS Suite, F-Protect, Avast and others. (I’d have to dig through my notes for the others)

      What do I use now? TrendMicro PC-cillin Internet Security 2006. Is it perfect? No. Is it what I recommend? Yes.

      I also have had and continue to use the usual, Spybot S&D, Adaware SE personal, Spywareblaster along with Counterspy, MS Defender, Spycatcher, Mozilla Firefox and PW protected accounts with a Limited account for surfing. I still have a back-up cycle that runs every other day and backs up everything on all drive partitions to external drives.

    • #3273244

      McAfee

      by dombenson ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I agree with the significant number of people here who have found problems with Norton – my objection to it is based on the issues people have had with reinstalls, but more with the unnecessary difficulty experienced in removing it. I use McAfee ISS on Win32 – on Win64 I use AVG, as the previous (I have not tested the current on 64 yet) was not compatible. It is configured to do an automatic full system scan at midnight every night, and I have a backup script that runs at 11 am and 11 pm, which mirrors e-mail and important documents to two other hard drives. In addition I use AdAware for manual scans and make use of the (admittedly basic) hardware firewall on my system. I have never had any problem with these, and one or other has caught every incoming virus, and AdAware takes care of the tracking cookies that make it through.

      • #3273215

        They both S#@K

        by vtassone ·

        In reply to McAfee

        I do phone support for a small ISP. I also do PC repair. I can not count the times Symantec has screwed up a machine and as far as I’m concerned McAssy is much better. When a customer calls about an email issue or “I can’t get online” one of the FIRST things I ask is “What antivirus system are you using.” Besides being a system hog,It is to complicated for the average home user. With Win9x I tell people to use AVG and install AdAware and Spybot S&D. With XP I suggest AVG and Micro$oft antispyware. I may raise some ire here but these programs are very easy for the home user to comprehend, they are FREE (my favorite 4 letter word) and they WORK. I would like to send Symantec a bill for the messes I’ve had to clean up after them. Anyone have an address I can send it to? Mr. Norton put out some excellent software.I can’t understand why he let his name be draged throught the mud by Symantec.

        • #3087882

          Hell yeah , Norton and Mcafee suck big time , trust me !

          by pcfreakske2000 ·

          In reply to They both S#@K

          Indeed , I have to agree with you , both of them suck big time.

          I don’t trust those antivirus apps no longer. Nor do I advice people to install it.

          I advice people not to choose for Norton or Mcafee , because they let through some virusses and other malware.

          I use Panda Platinum Internet Security 2005 myself , it works great. It even has TruPrevent Technologies aboard , which scan for malicious software and new virusses and block them.

          That pro-active protection really works well.

          Greetings ,

          Pcfreakske2000

    • #3273228

      Looking to change…

      by ole88 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have been a Symentec user since my DOS days and have always liked the tools in SystemWorks for keeping the system running optimally. However, I have been getting sick of the cost of AV and system maintenance tools. I am now looking for good no-cost or little cost replacements. I know I can get good AV on the cheap (like AVG), but I may have to keep the other Symantec tools in order to keep my system running optimally. If anyone has any good alternatives to Speed Disk and System Doctor, I am open to your suggestions.

      • #3273185

        Alternatives

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Looking to change…

        VCom’s Fix-it Utilities 6 Professional was just something I happened to come upon and bought to try because it was priced so low. Now it’s one of my favorite tools. I’m one of those people that have to try as much software as I can get.
        I’ve run trials on many system performance “improvers” and FIU6 is the only one I recommend for the average user.
        FIU6 permanently resides on my daily use desktop PC.

        I use the FIU6 Registry fixer along with the free tools RegSeeker and CCleaner to keep my Registry in top shape. FIU6 has yet to be overly aggressive in the Registry, unlike some other products.

        As always, export a copy of the entire registry to someplace you won’t lose it before running a registry tool.

        The only thing I don’t like about FIU6 is the AV tool. Choose custom install, if you buy it, and don’t install their AV product. I think it’s a case of a product trying to do too much. Also, do not choose to AutoUpdate. They never have an update if you don’t have their AV installed.

        If you want the ultimate defrag tool, IMHO, there’s none better than Raxco’s PerfectDisk. Pricey but excellent.

        I’ve also used Systemworks for several years and I don’t miss it. FIU6 works great for me.

        My personal choice, after much trial and error, for an AV/Firewall solution is TrendMicro’s PC-cillin Internet Security 2006. AVG free is okay though I think the TM product does a good job. Using the inexpensive TM along with some other free AV tools (which I can highly recommend)AND properly configuring your PC for surfing will give you a fighting chance to survive the Internet.

        If you don’t have a regular backup schedule, do yourself a favor and take the time to develop a good plan for yourself. With good backups, you should be right next to bulletproof.

    • #3273848

      NORTON’s Policies Stink

      by hughes ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I like and use Norton products BUT they have deceptive advertising and rebate practices. I have tried three products over the last few years. On said “$40 dollar rebate”, One said “$20 rebate”, the third was either a “$20 rebate” from Norton with a receipt from Staples saying it was a “$40 rebate”. Amount received from Norton – ZERO! And, yes, I followed all the directions and instructions. I spoke with two store managers who said that this is a common practice with Norton. Few (if any) people get the repbate. The products are good but their rebate program is bogus.

    • #3273888

      Alternate Data Streams

      by andrew.wright ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      According to an article in January’s edition of PCW, McAfee Virusscan & Kaspersky Antivirus are the only AV products that scan alternate data streams – Norton Antivirus does not.

      Apparently anything can be hidden in an alternate data stream (of course we’re talking Windows here) including executable files and therefore Viruses!

      http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Alternate_Data_Streams.html

      • #3272928

        Not quite correct

        by wdewey ·

        In reply to Alternate Data Streams

        After reading what I believe to be the same article it said that only McAfee and Kaspersky found a removed all ADS files. PC-Cillian scaned and found one and the others jumped into action after the script was ran.

        Did they list what versions were used in these tests? I didn’t find any.

        Bill

        • #3088187

          You are correct

          by andrew.wright ·

          In reply to Not quite correct

          Yes, I re-read and you are correct in what you say.

          It is interesting that no version info. was provided.

          I would hope that up-to-date versions of ALL AV products would scan ADS’s – it could be that they were testing with an older version.

          Because they don’t say which versions they were using I guess it’s a bit of a null argument for which is best.

          The ADS thing is interesting though from a system security point of view.

    • #3273145

      Depends on your situation, however…

      by reconlabtech ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      We have used Symantec Corporate Antivirus susccessfully for 5 years with no trouble and no outbreaks or penetrations. I have tested McAfee every year just to make sure we have the best solution, however, McAfee always seems to cause a problem on some of our machines. It probably works just as well but I don’t need problems and have had 100% success with Symantec.

    • #3273108

      They are both great at ADVERTISING…

      by shawnmatlock ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      … but if you want actual protection, look elsewhere.

    • #3273060

      eTrust – forget McAfee and Norton

      by techniquephreak ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have found that Norton and McAfee both fail on a regular basis, and the only reliable suite I’ve come across is CA’s eTrust series.

      • #3272908

        Norton

        by bschmidt ·

        In reply to eTrust – forget McAfee and Norton

        eTrust is pretty good, it came preinstalled on PCs at a place I used to work that was a PC reseller. Did a fair enough job compared to the others. But between McAfee and Norton I have to say Norton. At the place I worked we did PC repair. 7 out of every 10 PCs that came through with a virus were running McAfee. Usually the only ones with Norton were used by people that click on links to Paris Hilton videos in their email. On the other hand, Norton is a resource hog and sometimes doesn’t play nice with email.

        But really, it kind of makes you wonder who writes all the virus in the first place. For every big virus that comes out their stock jumps a notch. Fishy…

        On another note:
        SBC support is a joke. Worse than MS. By far.
        IBM is the devil.
        CDW will only help when they want to sell you something.

    • #3272906

      Symantec slowdowns

      by firstaborean ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      When I built my home-brew, I installed Norton AV 2004. Bad news. It so slowed my computer as to make a Windows update take over eight hours and not even then be complete. A systems-integrator friend advised, “Get rid of everything Symantec.” I did. Currently I use Trend Micro, there are no problems at all, and A-V updates are free. Several others have told me of their Symantec slowdowns, too, and have changed security software.

      • #3088012

        If someone needs to fix this problem…

        by mwradio ·

        In reply to Symantec slowdowns

        See my reply to paguda at the top of this forum for a few more details.
        (There are fixes to the Norton problems you mention.)

    • #3272903

      PC-Cillin by Trend Micro beats them all

      by jessie ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Why is this discussion limited to just McAfee and Norton – as if they own the entire marketplace. Norton is a notorious resource hog and problematic for a number of reasons. I have been using PC-Cillin for the past year and it’s fantastic. Easy to configure, not nearly as annoying, and doesn’t slow my laptop down at all like Norton used to do. Check CNET and other review sites – most Techs in the know stay away from Norton & McAfee

    • #3272868

      Sophos

      by ccthompson ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Sophos is the best I found so far, it is always running in the background, which so is McAfee, but it doesnt hog the resources near as bad as McAfee. Automatic Download, automatic update, ect….

      Pretty much admin free, unless you get a virus, then you shuold always triple check it, even if the anti-virus software says its gone, always triple check it.

      • #3088393

        Why triple check????

        by servicetech ·

        In reply to Sophos

        I use Sophos for the School network that I take care of due to price….. $6.50 per PC for 3years of protection. I couldn’t afford to go with anyone else. The others were about $25.00 per year for each PC!
        Our connection to the internet is content filtered by a third party, HCCA, and they do a good job of catching most problems. However, an occasional trojan will sneek in and Sophos will clean it up for me.
        What type of problems have you experienced?

      • #3286879

        Sophos is (nearly) junk

        by ian lewis ·

        In reply to Sophos

        Unless you have a machine with lots of memory and processor power Sophos will slow it to a crawl, particularly when On Access scanning is activated. Naturally you need it active to have a decent chance of catching nasties.

        The configurability is poor and the enterprise version requires hacking of an exported XML file to change some of the undocumented and invisible settings.

        Not good enough.

    • #3272790

      Symantec work fine on my system

      by another canadian ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have bought Symantec as a special package at Future Shop and it was Gohst and Norton Internet Security 2006 sold as one unit, so I have a safe backup (Full image and incremental also). I have the SEMPRON 3000+ and could record TV on a good quality motherboard so for me it mean that it is a good product.

      I had trend micro security suite 2005 but it did interfer with my network connection making impossible for me to browse any of the machine not matter what I did try and at the beginning it was infererring with Zone Alarm also, I own four computer in my house so at the end Symantec with gohst do the job for me and offer me the backup feature.

      The symantec does not interfer at all with my network connection as trend micro did and yes we did have problem at work with McAfee, some of our network were not protected for some lenght of time because of a corruption that happened in one update we did with the Anti software. (I work for the DND department here in Canada but I am sure it wasn’t just because of that it must certainly play a big factor for us, DND decided to switch to Symantec all across Canada so from a point of vue of a user it work and I know that the commercial version is less ressource hog but I don’t have full backup also like I have now at home but who need that if you have full backup on the server :).

      For the rest yeah I don’t open or go to were you will find the usual Anna Kourniva picture 😉 or I don’t try to open them in any email as nothing is free in this world :). If you do that for any kind of attachement you already do 90% of the job the rest is commen sens I guess and update the virus defenition of course.

    • #3272789

      Panda beats them both

      by data ninja ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Panda AV outperforms both McAfee and Norton, and their TruPrevent has proven to catch new virus’ before they are added to the signature files.

      The only slowdown that I’ve found is their builtin firewall, but by disabling it and using a different product – that becomes a mute point (I’m sure they’ll fix the problem soon).

      • #3088252

        Yep , you are right , Panda rules !

        by pcfreakske2000 ·

        In reply to Panda beats them both

        Hi all ,


        @Data
        Ninja : I use Panda as well , Panda Platinum Internet Security 2005 and I totally agree with you.

        TruPrevent Technologies is a good addition to the antivirus.

        Yes , the built-in firewall doesn’t work that well , so I also , like you Data Ninja , disabled it and I’m using ZoneAlarm ( Free version ) as a replacement.

        Let’s hope they will fix the firewall problem soon , indeed.

        Panda rules them all , that’s right !

        Greetings ,

        Pcfreakske2000

    • #3272747

      Neither is good

      by tubadenis ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Look around and read the articles, most self-councious computer store will sell you a PC with anti-virus like Grisoft or Avast which are less intrusive and more efficient. Combine any of them with a good firewall or even better, with a router and you should notice the difference… And your wallet will thank you too.

    • #3272579

      Well I feel sorry for you guys in the USA and other places

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have been using Vet (www.vet.com.au) which is a subsidiary of Computer Associates, on ALL my computers (plus some refurbished ones that I sold) for 7 years and have NEVER been infected.

      It actually stops nasties (like trojans) in mid air, so to speak, before they can enter the system.

      Updating occurs unnoticed in the background, usually daily or at the least every second day.

      It is also very cheap. Download it from the website and the annual renewal fee is $AU 43 (say $US 30).

      And you don’t have to REMEMBER to renew your licence. You are mailed a reminder well ahead of the date that it is due.

      As for availability outside Australia:

      [b]Vet Anti-Virus purchase outside of Australia[/b]

      Currently, only Australian customers can register through this web site. Other customers can register, but they will need to contact their local office rather than using the web.

      We are working to improve the online registration system to allow all customers to register through the web in the future.

    • #3087982

      McAfee, PC-Cillin and Panda

      by blueknight ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      At work we use McAfee and have had no problem whatsoever with it. I have PC-Cillin at home and am extremely happy with it… less overhead on my system than McAfee (even though I could have McAfee for free due to a deal my employer worked out w/Network Associates).

      One I wouldn’t hesitate to use also is Panda. I’ve done a fair amount of research and their product sounds like it also is superior grade.

      Not to detract from AVG… heard lots of really good stuff about their product also.

      If I ever got the time, I’d like to put together my own test bed and compare them all head-to-head for myself.

    • #3087858

      Reply To: Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      by scsicat ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Well, I hate to rain on the parade, but the best anti-virus … actually anti-malware program I’ve found out there is Panda Software’s Titanium version. It’s far better than any of the other major brands I’ve tried. In fact, I actually ran my own comparisson: I scanned my Windows 2000 PC with Norton, then McAfee, and both showed no viruses or spyware. Then, I scanned with Panda, and it found that although I didn’t have any malware installed, I did have associated files on my computer. I took the manual option and removed them myself, just so I wouldn’t break anything else.

      • #3143659

        NOD32 from ESET

        by kristofer carlson ·

        In reply to Reply To: Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

        I won’t use McAfee or Symantec products if I have a choice. I always install NOD32 from ESET. It is written in assembly, so it is a compact and fast program. I get updates at least every day, sometimes more. It works differently from most AV products, in that it uses the Layered Service Protocol and inserts itself into the communications stack, and that way it sees everything that comes and goes. The Google desktop will not work if you have NOD32 installed, as they both use the LSP, so I use Copernic instead.

        NOD32 comes in a server version as well, and because of its small size and speed it protects the server while minimizing the impact on server performance.

        • #3144561

          I used to use Symantec until I found NOD32

          by info ·

          In reply to NOD32 from ESET

          Symantec won’t install in a system that is infected with any virus, well beleived or not NOD32 will and it will also get rid of the virus and some spyware too!
          I knew about NOD32 but i was using Symantec because of the strong marketing they have and I regret any second I spent on that software, it make me look bad in front of my customers.
          Since I use NOD32 my life is easier and I have time to clean-up the rest of the system (temp files, Old compressed, drefrag, etc..)
          I look more professional because of NOD32.

    • #3087856

      my best antivirus

      by hi_min2 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      hey buddy… what are u talking abt?hehehhe
      Actually i don’t not use either Macafee or norton coz these antivirus need lot of space and even slow down my system(i don’t know abt other people what teh are using?)But now a days i’m using antivirus named Anivir which is the best antivirus according to me.

    • #3088825

      MCAfee

      by dharris ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Based on a lot of experience with a large installed base of “teachers” computers I would choose McAfee because of the two it is less demanding of your system’s resources. I have found that Norton can totally screw up a system without much effort.

    • #3088705

      THAT KOOL-AID IS PRETTY GOOD, ISN’T IT?

      by charincol ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      For all you SYMANTEC AND MCAFEE KOOL-AID DRINKERS out there that have a choice or influence at the workplace, change to a product made by a company that actually cares about more that the bottom line. Get rid of them. Use something else. For personal (and free) use there is AVG, AVAST, AntiVir, and others. For enterprise there is Kaspersky, NOD32, E-Trust, Trend-Micro, BitDefender, etc (Some of them even allow updates from a central network server like the big boys). There are those of you that choose to use a totally inferior product and say, “I’ve not had any problems,” and choose to believe that the big 2 are the greatest when there are so many that are better. If either is detecting as good as some of the lesser well-knowns but it is still using twice the resources, then that is a problem. If you still don’t think so, then just try removing either of the big 2 completely (GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!) and install any of the ones I’ve mentioned (the paid ones have trials) and check them out. You’ll probably be amazed at how much better and smoother things will run.

      I currently use NOD32 at home (have tried most of those I’ve listed, they are all great alternatives) because it runs so light and it is more configurable than almost anything else.

      For those who want to see a pretty good comparison, see http://www.av-comparatives.org/ it tests most of the top AV’s.

      • #3088605

        av-comparatives

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to THAT KOOL-AID IS PRETTY GOOD, ISN’T IT?

        That sounds like it’d be a pretty interesting website, except I’m not willing to visit unfamiliar websites using IE (and don’t have a Windows machine handy anyway), and it’s broken in Firefox because of standards-noncompliant code.

        I guess that’s to be expected from a website using webpages produced by Microsoft Office, though.

    • #3088641

      Actually, I prefer neither

      by dbucyk ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Having had to reinstall both Norton Antivirus, Internet Security, and McAfee, I have found that they can be a nuisance to remove.

      My personal preference is MicroTrends PC-Cillin antivirus.

      Then again, that’s me.

    • #3088519

      Symantec of Course

      by aaron a baker ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I can’t give the perspectives on how these “Other” products affect ITs.
      However I can state categorically that for my money it’s always been Norton.
      McAfee is and undiscovered sieve.
      They are the ones supposedly protecting Microsoft who then allows Trojans and viruses in to our Computers during downloads.
      As for the others, Avast, AVG,etc. I have stayed away.
      Norton for all that has been said and done about it has never let me down.
      I’ve rarely had any problems and when I reported, was treated with courtesy, kindness and genuine concern.
      It’s the only product that I have and it is compliment by AdAware 6SE and Spybot 1.4
      Add to that the XP SP_2 Patch and very little can get in.
      So I’m afraid that I shall be no fun and stick that which has stuck by me. Symantec.
      Thank you
      Aaron 😉

      • #3087518

        Norton Installation,Re-Instalation

        by aaron a baker ·

        In reply to Symantec of Course

        What I didn’t know and found out the Hard Way is that Norton has different setups for each different OS on the same setup CD.
        I.E. If I install it on my WinME, it will know that’s it’s ME and put in the appropriate programming,whereas when I updated to XP, it didn’t migrate and go along with the change.
        Since I had changed systems, I couldn’t uninstall it anymore. Oh I tried but it wouldn’t go along. I ended up having to track it down through the entire system to remove it all and then re-installed it into my XP “Before installing the SP_2 Patch, not after.
        What Symantec doesn’t tell you is that if you change systems “You Must” remove the Previous Norton first, before your system change and re-install it after the operation is complete. Then install the XP SP_2 Patch, I did it the other way and paid for this too, the hard way.
        Man what a Nightmare, however I’ve learned my lesson and all is well now.
        There are version for all Windows in the Setup CDs but the prior Norton must be removed First, they don’t merge.
        So now it’s XP install, then Norton and them SP_2, and I haven’t had any problems since. 🙂
        Thank Goodness 😉

      • #3086812

        I am not a professional, but I like Norton

        by pchsiu ·

        In reply to Symantec of Course

        I am not a professional geek. So if I make a mistake, forgive me. What I know is many years ago (when I used McAfee), they have alternative settings offerred: 1 McAfee will scan only the first 2k of an exe file; 2 McAfee will scan only the last 2k of an exe file; or 3 McAfee will do both 1 and 2. Maybe this is why somebody feel McAfee is faster and use less resources. Now I am using Symantec(Norton), they take care of everything, scans into compressed archives or cab files also, even takes over the work of Windows XP firewall. So it may use some resources, but I don’t feel it a problem. Somebody with four 160GB hard disks may of course find it time consuming, er–may I ask how much of the 640GB he have have been used up by his files?

        • #3086437

          Pch _You bring a good point

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to I am not a professional, but I like Norton

          You bring up an excellent point.
          What it the use of having 300 to 600 Gb in Hard Drives when most of the time you would only us it for standard purposes anyway.
          By that I mean, there would be XPPro, MS Office, Norton Anti Virus,Spybot 1.4, AdAware 6SE and various other possible programs. Plus the need for expansion? However, it would take an awful lot of programming to actually fill these Monster drives to capacity. PS, I speak of the home user.
          What then is the purpose? I suspect it’s the old, mine is bigger than your’s deal.
          I’ve even heard, “I’ve got a couple of 300 GB Hard Drives, man that’s speed”, I pointed out that size had nothing to do with it, as they all run at 7200RMP but that he should most definitely consider partitions and never mind about the size unless absolutely needed.
          I’m sure that there are actual users out there who could use that kind of room, but I suspect that they are rare.
          My grand total, in two drives, is 160 GB and I have tons of room to spare, so I just don’t get this bigger is better scenario.
          I’m afraid that in this case, it’s just not true, rather the opposite.
          As an example, you take a care, run it down the road on a cul de sac flat out.
          Now take that same car and run it flat out in a football filed, although it’s the same car, same speed, it will take longer to get to the other end due to the size and immensity of the field.
          The same can be said for hard Drives.
          Not to mention, the speed is determined by the CPU , Ram and Motherboard accoutrements.
          So you see, your’s is a darned good question, Why the need for all that room?
          By the way, I’m not putting down those who have such requirements, I’m only pointing out that it seems excessive.
          Can you imagine, filling a 600Gb Drive?
          I could put my whole City in one of those babies. 😉
          Regards
          Aaron

        • #3084365

          I wonder how

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to Pch _You bring a good point

          When the first question was which is better of two companies, How did hard drives get into the
          question ? ? But your right about partitions but I have a hard time explaining that to people . . They seem to want to leave it a whole giant thing . .But I try to get them to partition them down to at least a 100 gig peice’s with different names like country, western, rock ect ect

        • #3100182

          You’re Right on Both counts

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to I wonder how

          You’re absolutely right.
          I don’t kow how the Hard Drive Partioning got into this but it somehow seems appropriate.
          Can’t tell you how many people have had to “Convince” to Partition,and they thought they were losing a part of the drive.
          Then I’d have to almost go into my Partition Sales act for them to get the idea.
          Once done, they very naturally wondered weather or not the Norton on whatever would protect everything in all drives.
          When I answered in the affirmative, then they would be happy.
          My personal choice of course is still Norton, however if a client wishes to install McAfee, then that is what I do.
          I don’t quibble with them. Just do my job and I’m gone. 😉
          Regards
          Aaron
          🙂

        • #3265606

          I am a professional…and this is my opinion

          by dennis_london ·

          In reply to I am not a professional, but I like Norton

          I am a professional geek and this is my opinion as are all the other posts you have read. You are correct, it was many years ago when all AV vendors used that methodology. It was also about 8 years ago that McAfee made the change from scanning the first and last parts of the files to scanning the entire file. It was about that time that all the vendors made this switch including Symantec.

          By the way, Symantec used to be inbedded in Windows…did you know that? Probably not. It was known in Windows 3.X as IBM Antivirus. IBM sold it to Symantec because they heard Microsoft say AV wasn’t going to be needed in Windows 95 because they were going to be introducing better security methods. We all know how well that worked.

          As for the other features, McAfee also does more than the basic WinXP-SP2 FW. It also does more than Symantec with buffer overflow protection and access protection mechanisms. Way to many to list here. But feel free to check out the site. I think you know the URL.

          While Symantec has just recently joined the IPS/IDS world, McAfee has been doing it natively in VirusScan for almost two years now. They have already addressed the surrounding issues and have tens of millions of customers who have been using it for said time.

          The proof is in the pudding my friend. I would not use or recommend anything else. If any of my consulting customers say they want to use a different product I actually make them sign a form stating so. I will back McAfee 100% because I know they are the best.

          Okay, I went a little beyond my opinion but still…

        • #3265366

          I have no quali to comment, but McAfee kicked me out

          by pchsiu ·

          In reply to I am a professional…and this is my opinion

          As I said, I am not a professional, I have no technical reason for preferring either. But McAfee forfeited my money and kicked me out of their camp. Please see my other posting on this subject under the title:”I hate McAfee”

        • #3266009

          do a web search for AVG

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to I have no quali to comment, but McAfee kicked me out

          Go get AVG a ga zillion times better than either one
          an will update daily as your on line and will catch bugs that either of the two mentioned do not catch

        • #3263093

          I shall test other alternatives

          by pchsiu ·

          In reply to do a web search for AVG

          I have visited the web site of AVG. It is half as expensive as Norton. But it doesn’t seem to support Asian languages. This morning I tested NOD32, it’s fast and light, doesn’t conflict with other softwares. But wait for further experience.

        • #3083919

          I too am a Professional with a different Opinion.

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to I am a professional…and this is my opinion

          I too am a Professional of over twenty five years in Computing.
          It has been my experience and observation that most people who have problems with Norton Anti Virus is the result of lack of understanding.
          I’ve been with Norton since the days when they were handing them out in Diskette’s.
          Have every Book ever written on Norton and Norton DOS and so on. I made it my business to know Norton.
          As for McAfee, I can’t be bothered running it down as I don’t know that much about it.
          Suffice to say that for one time only, I tried McAfee and it was McAfee who was supposed to be protecting our downloads from Microsoft while we were getting Trojans , Ads, virus and the Like.
          It was McAfee’s short stay in my computer that allowed a number of viruses and spyware to be introduced.
          Some to the point where I had to wipe out and start all over again.
          I had changed to see the difference and rest assured, the difference became clear, the minute I was being “Protected” by McAfee.
          It should also be noted that, to this day, you can go to a Microsoft Download site, “Protected” by McAfee and come away with Trojans,adware and viruses.
          As a professional, this does not sit well with me. I have been and shall continue to be a stalwart Norton/Symantec devotee.
          While it is true that some people have had problems with Symantec “Me too” 😉 , I suggest that most those problems would have vanished had they simply read the facts sheet of the FAQ areas. That’s what I did.
          Most people, “To this day” do not know that there are Multiple Versions of Norton in Every CD so as to accommodate the system involved.
          If you graduate from WinME to XP, you must remove the old Norton and when you re-install, it will know that this is XP and configure itself accordingly.
          This is one aspect that I like very much.
          So you see.
          There are as many good reason for remaining loyal as there are “Professionals”
          Mine happens to be Norton Anti Virus and I’m still trouble free.
          Hopefully this will continue.
          I’m not saying the other are bad, I’m just saying that for me, Norton works Fine and as the old saying goes,
          “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. 😉
          Thank you
          Regards
          Aaron 🙂

        • #3083804

          Well since late 80’s when XT came out

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to I too am a Professional with a different Opinion.

          So I have been on them too since way back when
          And have seen lots of computers go down from Mcafee
          and lots go down from Nortons its why I went to AVG for my anti virus I can not download a file which is not checked thru my anti virus first . . It has taken me off line in sudden chop style as some file had a virus and this screen turned RED with a message that file has xxxx worm / virus are you sure you want it ? . . So it has been the anti virus I put in new computers I sell ( they have a free version and you got to look for it )

    • #3088307

      Mcafee

      by metmichallica9 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have used Mcafee without problems for years, right now I am using Verizon’s Internet Security Suite. I had several problems with Norton not detecting trojans, left them slip by, and corrupted windows. Had to reformat and install everything over.

      I never had a problem with Mcafee Antivirus not detecting things that it should detect like a trojan/virus or anything like that. Norton I had many problems with though.

    • #3088277

      I choose

      by douglashead ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      When it comes to selection of Anti-virus I go for Norton. It might be big and clunky, but it has a lot of features in it. Currently I have Norton Internet Security 2006 and System Works 2006 with a fair amount of the features installed…I already have hardware and performance monitoring software so I left them out.

    • #3089840

      Symantec av clients hands down winner!

      by unclerob ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I’ve used both and happen to very much prefer Symantec’s antivirus client, currently using v10.x (server & client), plus have you checked out their newest deployment tool (which is included with the symantec server product), I can install symantec’s av client by simply providing a machine name or an ip address, the rest of the work is done for me.

      Plus, have you ever had to uninstall antivirus software off of a pc, I can do it cleanly using the Add/Remove Programs applet in windows for the Symantec product, however McAfee prefers to cause problems during the uninstall of their product leaving you with at best an unsuccessful uninstall of their software and whole lot of unwanted fluff on your machine afterwards.

      Stick with Symantec Antivirus, don’t bother with McAfee’s software. If McAfee and their former chief Sanjay Kumar can take shortcuts with their accounting practices, where else are they taking shortcuts?

      Just my 0.02 cents cdn, feel free to agree or disagree.

      p.s. a great free antivirus app for home users would be IMHO, Grisoft’s Free Home edition Antivirus software. Does the job admirably, and it’s not a performance bottleneck.

    • #3089452

      Neither

      by mr. tinker ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Neither of them, they just aren’t doing what they used to do. Use AVG, F-Prot, Kaspersky-Labs, or F-Secure. Symantec “watered-down” their otherwise good antivirus product-line years ago, and AOL’s “bastard-ized” version breaks all the rules of otherwise respected detection methods. (Ever wonder why AOL’ers still get infected even though they’re using the ‘security-edition’ with McAfee installed AND UP TO DATE!?)
      The suite products by those companies your arguing over just don’t cut the mustard anymore… unless your arguing over which one is in last place.

    • #3085910

      So many choices

      by dksr42 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Norton works good but I have found that no Anti-Virus software is perfect and invulnerable. I prefer to use the free version of AVG on my own personal computers and run norton along with it. I never have any problems with them running simultaneously together.
      If the people who are ignorant to the fact of keeping there computers updated properly we would not have 90% of the problems on the NET, which is an under statement.

    • #3085900

      I hope you like fixing them

      by jackie40d9 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I WOULD NOT put Nortons anything on any computer and McAfee is worse then Nortons ! I put AVG on the computers and NONE OF my clients have Worms or Virus’s as it up dates EVERY TIME they go on line
      I try to beat into people’s heads to run the spy bot remover EVERY time they are on ! ! . . I have removed over 520 bots from a computer at one time as one of my clients did not run it for a LONG while !

    • #3085892

      Symantec Best

      by sfarhanj ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Currently i am using symantec corporate editin 10, it works great you dont need to download virus defs manually you can schedule them.

      At system startup it looks for key paths of your operating system for new viruses, trojans you may have if found then symantec tries to repair it, if not then quarantine the infected file.

      Another thing most of the people have lot of complaints about symantec i.e. after installing symantec my system hanged up and not working properly, my windows got corrupted bla bla..

      These are the people who already have a bunch of viruses in their system and dont want to use antivirus software. Later on if they decided to install any antivirus especially symantec, their systems getting slow just because of symantec keep looking for any virus in your computer which it can repair or quarantine, this step slow down your PC if you have a good PC i mean fast PC then you wont face any problem.

      In addition to this people must have enough know how that how many processes running in system background and check/ monitor them regularly, if found any new thing then he should know what is it.

    • #3085400

      McAfee

      by herrroger ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I am a computer Consultant by trade have been for over 40 years. In my experiences I have discovered that Symantec (Norton’s) has failed many persons in keeping thier computer system(s) safe from virus’s and or spyware. One system had over 12 virus’s/trojan’s/worm’s alone and the Sysmantec virus definintion file was up to date. With that being said trust McAfee over Symantec, and your computer system(s) will be better off.

    • #3085379

      Norton vs Symantec

      by agonzalez1 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Well in my exp i prefer norton, the symantec software was awfully bad in te first days, but abut two years ago have and incredible improve, the systems didnt slow down, actually all of the virus were blocked. Symantec in the other hand have a little problem, slows down all the systems most of the time when its updating virus definitions.

    • #3085364

      Symantec over McAfee – But Trend Micro Better Yet!

      by mark ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      McAfee finds viruses/adware but is not always able to remove them. Also I’ve had more issues with printers with McAfee. That said, I have a client with a verticle app in Optometry that requires McAfee – Norton just locks the system.

      Both are becoming bloatware.

      But uninstalling Symantec if there is a problem can be a NIGHTMARE!

      Trend Micro is now my way to go, specifically Client/Server/Messaging. Less application bulk, smaller price-point for small businesses, more frequent updates, better integration, server controlled or standalone… The only downside so far is long hold times for support, if needed. Their knowledgebase is not fully fleshed out yet, either.

      Mark Raintree
      Raintree Solutions, LLC
      Santa Cruz, CA USA

    • #3085325

      This is Not a Matter of Opinion

      by woody goode ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Earth to many of the respondents: you don’t know what you’re talking about. Assuming this question was “Which product is better at protecting computers from viruses?”, the answer is Symantec.

      That’s not my opinion– it’s a fact.

      The most painstaking, rigorous tests of antivirus products on Earth are conducted by an British computer security newsletter called Virus Bulletin. They stopped printing issues a while back (all online now), but they used to charge $395 a year for 12 issues, and they didn’t accept ads from antivirus companies.

      VB’s readers either work for antivirus companies, as security consultants or in the IT departments of organizations that can’t afford to go down for any length of time.

      Their site (www.virusbtn,com) isn’t a source for light reading (a recent article focused on the need for a better naming convention for worms), but they take their work seriously and everyone who is anyone in the industry either reads it or writes for it. Not surprisingly, their “100% Awards” are the gold standard:

      1. Using the list of actively spreading viruses (as compiled by the WildList Organization (a non-profit group that monitors worldwide virus outbreaks), the staff places infected files on a set of test machines. (They rotate platforms, also).

      2. If a manufacturer wishes to have their program tested, the current release is installed on a machine and checked for both “on demand” (scan the disk and see how many viruses you find) and “on access” (I’ll open an infected file and see if you save me) protection.

      3. To get a passing grade–what they call the 100% Award–a program must spot every infected file and also have no false alarms. Detecting 199 out of 200 viruses is a failing grade. So is finding 201.

      Unlike other groups that test, VB does not charge a fee for testing (which can keep a small company’s product from getting tested). They don’t use only 10-20 viruses (giving you no idea of how products protect against viruses that haven’t made CNN, but are spreading). They use only currently spreading viruses (so the tests reflect real-world conditions). They don’t use simulated viruses (which produce misleading results). And they don’t tell manufacturers which viruses they failed to detect and let them fix the program and submit it for re-testing.

      Symantec is 31-6. The last time they failed a test, Bill Clinton was president. McAfee is 24-18; their last failure was February, 2005.

      (McAfee has more results because they have a version for Linux and other platforms; Symantec does not.)

      Kaspersky isn’t bad (31-13; last failure 6/03), 2003). Trend Micro is pretty good (13-7; last failure 6/02). Sophos is acceptable (31-12, but a failure in 4/05 and 4/04). Computer Associates is OK (24-11, failures in 11/04, 11/03 and 8/03).

      Grisoft’s price (for home users) is wonderful, but its performance blows (11-21). Panda is a frigging joke– after three failures in four attempts, they stopped submitting product.

      I should note the following qualifiers:

      1. I’m not saying that Symantec is better than anyone else. The product with the best results is Eset’s NOD32 (36-3).

      2. I’m also not suggesting that Symantec is the only correct choice:

      * My aunt is using AVG because she won’t spend money renewing virus subscriptions.

      * A friend uses Trend Micro because he’s a gamer and Norton slows his machine down too much.

      * A friend uses NOD32, even though he hates the user interface, because Live Update keeps blowing up on his machine and Symantec’s tech support group is too inept to fix it.

      As the VB guys cheerfully admit, detection rate isn’t everything, and you should make up your own mind based on the criteria important to you. You want to use McAfee, that’s fine.

      But bear in mind, if you’re using McAfee, that your decision ain’t based on rational evidence– it’s your silly opinion. And it would please those of us who DO know what we are talking about if you would stop offering it to other people in tones that suggest that you know what you’re talking about.

      Most IT questions require multivariate, conditional answers. This is one of the few that doesn’t. I have more than my share of issues with Symantec, but McAfee sucks rocks and spits gravel. Period.

      • #3087146

        Well from my personal experience

        by metmichallica9 ·

        In reply to This is Not a Matter of Opinion

        Mcafee has caught more for me. I use Windows XP Home Edition. https://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/product.php?tid=dfgdf$gdhkkjk-kkkk (If you look on that page with a complete list of certification you can see that Mcafee is certified for Windows XP Home). Even though I don’t use it anymore, it probably goes by what os you use rather than what antivirus you use. Being that all antiviruses are not certified for every operating system.

        They may be certified for one and not the other. Mcafee is the only one that is certified for Windows XP Home Edition.

      • #3087046

        problems

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to This is Not a Matter of Opinion

        I’m aware of Virus Bulletin’s tests, and you’re right: they are worth something.

        On the other hand, there are problems with treating them as the be-all and end-all of virus protection standards.

        A mere win/loss ratio doesn’t indicate improvement of the software (or the converse).

        A lot of good AV software isn’t even tested.

        Their tests don’t effectively take into account AV-targeting malware.

        Their tests don’t effectively take into account system stability with the AV software in question installed.

        Et cetera.

    • #3085283

      Neither One!

      by dpskiman ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Check out Panda Software, I’ve tested it agains the “big six” for the past three years, and it reliably detects and disinfects more than all the others. Desktops: Panda Internet Security 2006, Enterprise Networks: Depends on the configuration, there are several choices. http://www.pandasoftware.com or read my reviews at http://www.competitivenetworksolutions.com

    • #3085224

      Try Avast Antivirus

      by mschultz ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I high suggest trying out the free Home version of Avast antivirus http://www.avast.com. The program is amazing and the auto update feature alone makes it stomp out AVG.

      • #3085173

        Hail to the Czechs!

        by barklessdog ·

        In reply to Try Avast Antivirus

        “ALWIL Software is a Czech-based company, established in April 1991.”

        I’ve used AVAST for a couple of years now and it is the bomb! New signatures are out at least a day before the “Big 3”. I use it on my Merak Mail email server and recommended it to my fellow associates for home use (albeit McAfee Enterprise 8.0i is my present corporate solution).

      • #3087120

        Avast! is the truth

        by gavinhyde ·

        In reply to Try Avast Antivirus

        Avast not only performs better than both McAffee or Norton, but I’ve found trojans with Avast! that McAffee didn’t even point to… The people that told me about it had the the same results with Norton… You can’t beat the price and the company’s philosophy is why should you have to pay to protect yourself from Viruses? Thats like our American health care system… Why?
        I would recommend and have recommended Avast! to anyone searching for an awesome alternative…

      • #3143164

        Bravo Avast

        by da philster ·

        In reply to Try Avast Antivirus

        Used to use McAfee but finally gave up over a customer service issue.
        Have been using Avast home edition for a few years now and must say that it performs flawlessly.
        I’ve replaced Norton from other users’ machines with Avast and several issues magically disappeared.
        Definitely a winner.

        • #3143111

          Issues??? With Symantec??

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to Bravo Avast

          Can’t imagine what Issues you could have had with Symantec,. I’ve used nothing But Symantec and have never had any problems with it.
          Whenever I needed help regarding anything at all, they would be right there to help in any way they could. Let’s not forget that Peter Norton, who started it all did so at the same time as Microsoft was just putting out it’s floppies.
          I’d say that one heck of a track record for a firm that most people seem determined to beat the heck out of.
          I suggest that if there are problems, it’s usually on the user end of the scale and it’s much easier to Blame Symantec than it is to admit that maybe we didn’t read enough.
          I’m happy for you if you like “Avast”, however I’ll stick with Symantec and continue not having any problems. 😉
          Regards
          Aaron

        • #3145034

          Issues??? With Symantec??

          by lynne’s honey ·

          In reply to Issues??? With Symantec??

          How deep do you want to go?

          How about e-mail? It is the program most implicated in problems with sending and recieving e-mail. Just go to the Microsoft KB and use symantec as your search term. more than 200 articles will turn up about problems caused by Symantec. On the first page, most of them refer to e-mail problems.

          To be fair, you do get a similar number of articles refering to McAfee, but I noted that, on the first page of results, Three of them refer to using outdated versions of McAfee and two refer to recieve e-mail from the program itself. Only one refers to a problem with e-mail when using McAfee–and that is after its removal.

          In my years of experience, I’ve not seen one e-mail problem from McAfee products, but I’ve lost count of how many e-mail problems I’ve seen from Symantec this past year alone–never mind in years past.

          If you wish to talk about security suites from the two, I’ve not had to fix one problem fromthe McAfee suite, but I quite often see that the Symantec firewall decides to protect the users computer by not allowing any traffic to pass in or out. Sometimes a cold boot resolves the issue, but mostly not. Since this is telephone support where I am seeing the problem, I simply refer the people to Symantec to resolve the issue.

          I can go on and on about th etwo products, but simply stated, McAfee simply causes an infintesmal number of problems when compared to the Symantec versions of Norton.

          Also, while Peter Norton was (is) a brilliant person, he has nothing to do with this product and hasn’t for years, other than to have his name applied to it. He should be left out of this discussion.

        • #3144938

          I beg to differ

          by aaron a baker ·

          In reply to Issues??? With Symantec??

          First of all, the reference to Mr. Peter Norton was meant as an issue of Time.
          How long since he’s been gone doesn’t alter the fact that Norton / Symantec have been in business for one heck of long time.I still have the Original DOS disks and the Original Peter Norton’s DOS etc.I have the entire collection right up to today.With that lenght of time involved, I can only suppose that it means that they know what they are doing, yes?
          Second;
          It seems now, that every time there is a new Anti Virus of Firewall on the ,market the general consensus is to trash the predecessors.
          I could give you a rather long list of “New kids on the Block” and it amazes me to see a lot of people jumping all over them like they were the next salvation or something.Kids with new toys syndrome.
          I don’t mind if someone prefers another product, that’s their prerogative, however I do not see the need to bash the hell out of the Predecessors, especially when your talking about the amounts of time that Symantec has been around.
          They could just as easily make their point without the bashing. As for the product itself, I too could fill a page with facts and figures to bolster my argument, but that’s not the point is it?
          The point is what do you prefer and why. I believe I have already answered that one quite succinctly and without the need to bash.
          This then is the reason I used Peter Norton’s name, as an indication of just how long these people have been at it and there are those who would still equate this kind of experience with the new one of today?. Good for them, but not for me.
          I’ll stick to what has indeed been good to me for reasons only too obvious to mention, besides time.
          For me, it has always been Symantec and always shall be.
          I should also mention, that I’m trouble free thanks to Symantec. 😉
          Regards
          Aaron

        • #3144894

          ( hahaha ) giggling !

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to Issues??? With Symantec??

          Its why I remove both from computers I work on and 90 % of what ever problem there was seems to disapear . . Then I add AVG for anti virus and they are very happy after that

    • #3085191

      Nobody is perfect!

      by jjr.king ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have Norton on my home computers, and use McAfee at work. To date, I would say that overall, Norton is the easiest to work with, although since I moved countries, their automatic update on-line would not work, whichever way I tried it.

      Now, this may be unfair to be McAfee, as I am unsure as to how the network is set up in my most recent job in Spain. However, I continually have to disenable it to allow me to continue to do the work I have to do on a contract basis (therefore time-limited). That worries me, of course, but as a contractor I have little input into the systems in place. However, to have the same warning coming up every time I try to process any email blast for example, is just frustrating. Norton I understand, and I just wish there were a way for me to complete my renewal on-line, but having moved from the UK to Spain, the on-line system doesn’t allow for the differences in address standards etc.

      Has anyone else experienced similar experiences? Norton are simply losing money by this block. It applies to many US hosted sites too – I wish they would say at the start that this only applies to US customers or something to that effect, to avoid my wasting time going through endless form-filling, only to find out 30 mins later that it only applies to the US.

      Are we one nation or not???!!!!

      Yours

      Go Global

    • #3085171

      ClamWin!

      by noyoki ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      ClamWin is the only full a/v I will allow the honor of touching my home computer. (I’ll admit to not having tried AVG.) It’s way less in your face and no bloating that I’ve noticed.

      I’ve one user that has Norton on his personal/business laptop and honestly, it ran MUCH slower once he installed it. And it did it’s job so well that his computer was fairly unusable without some SERIOUS tweaking. He still has to turn it off to use GoToMyPc.

      Everyone else’s office computer has McAfee. I’ve been an advocate of them over Norton for years. McAfee has (IMO) a better written bit of software and trust in their users. Norton spends a fair amount of code in trying to make sure they get your money for their product.

      • #3087134

        indeed

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to ClamWin!

        The next time I need to install Windows on a system here (it’ll probably happen eventually, just so I’ve got a test platform for Internet Explorer when I’m doing web development), I’ll be doubling up with AVG and ClamWin on the thing. Symantec and McAfee won’t be coming anywhere near the thing.

    • #3087105

      McAfee ASAP

      by wtdriscoll ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      We use thier managed service, ASAP. This contains virus and spyware protection. Updates are automcatic daily, I get centralized reports and can push installs from a web page (it will show all computers online and you can select which ones to install on). I get weekly reports from McAfee. I run the Server version (8.0 +) has a personal firewall. Enterprise VirusScan.

      I have been really happy and I can quickly see when computers are out of date.

    • #3087099

      Based on my experience: McAfee

      by psbruciu ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I have two computers: one working under Windows 98SE (W98), and the other one working under Windows XP Pro (WXP). On W98, I had Symantec 2005. On WXP, I had, and still have, McAfee. Between the two, I am much more satisfied with McAfee, because:
      1. It does not interfere with I am doing every time I opening a Web page, asking me to allow something;
      2. You can uninstall and re-install McAfee without any problem. With Symantec 2005, the things went ugly when I uninstalled it and tried to re-install it using their original CD. I could not re-install it. After several weeks and tens of e-mails to Symantec, nobody there was able to fix the problem. I spent days cleaning repeatedly the W98 computer, registry included, following Symantec?s advises, all for no avail. More over, after I uninstalled Norton Utilities, which I downloaded from their Web site for a fee, I have asked Symantec to tell me how I can download it again. I sent them several e-mails, but I did not receive any answer from them. Long story short: Symantec is the least reliable and dependable from the two in my opinion.
      According to my Professor for Windows Server 2003, the best AntiVirus software application is Sophos.
      Stefan.

    • #3087091

      TRENDMICRO

      by largo_dave ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      PC Cillin Internet Security is an excellent choice if you are not happy with your current AV program. Trendmicro has been given excellent reviews for AV protection at both the server/client and gateway level protection. I do prefer Symantec over McAfee, but tend to lean towards TrendMicro if given a choice.

    • #3087082

      Neither!

      by ~atheria ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      McAfee has long been a problem to many of my users over the years.

      Norton Anti-virus is one of the most bloated and system-slowing pieces of software ever made to “protect” one’s computer.

      As the years have passed, I have done two things:

      1. I have opted to teach my customers about the dangers of going to websites that are not “well” known and downloading ANYTHING. I teach them NOT to open attachments from even their closest of friends and family – too many of them have received viruses in JUST this way, it’s too dangerous. If someone wants to send a file, you should know in advance or at least CHECK with them before you open any attachment.

      That said,

      2. I have searched and found that “free” software such as AVG Free Edition is more than up to the task of protecting home and small business users. It’s small size and even it’s updating, which isn’t too painful even over a dial-up line, is more than adequete. It will search on command, check your email silently and is the most painless of all the “free” virus protectors that I’ve seen to date.

      When McAfee first came out, it was amazing. When Norton was small and NOT part of a larger package, it was a good program – not great, just good. Paying for subscriptions year after dog-ed year is not giving the public what it needs – we’re just making someone rich for their name – just like buying designer jeans or tennis shoes. We don’t need designer virus checkers, we need fast, on-the-fly, amazingly good checkers that don’t cost a dime for the average, everyday user – less viruses being spread between the average user could well speed up the internet in the long run as well as give Norton and McAfee the impetus to compete and offer their own “free” versions – like they used to…

      ~Atheria

    • #3087045

      It depends on whether it’s a managed

      by eswearengin ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      My Experience is with both and the draw back has been almost equal on individual computers. Since installing McAfee managed service, my computer is constantly running. It sounds like its just working away, but the computer runs and works fine. Symantec would hog my resources and bog down my computer but it wasn?t constantly running. I work as an administrator on a network of computers that previously used a managed Mcafee that was to be replaced by Symantec Corporate Edition as a managed installation. This was mostly for financial reasons. The company got a good deal.

      The Symantec picked up endless viruses that Mcafee never recognized. I?m not talking spyware. I?m talking real Trojan viruses. It didn?t entirely impress me, because it was a managed Symantec installation and not the client software that many of us report as being a resource hog. In my experience that Symantec Managed installation is not a hog and has out performed McAfee by a long shot. It is the individual installations of Symantec (unmanaged), that suffers.

      • #3086652

        AVG

        by jim_stables ·

        In reply to It depends on whether it’s a managed

        Used both Mcafee and Norton at work and at home
        Didn’t like either one. AVG is far superior in performance ans update frequency. And not near the “resource hog” that Norton or Mcafee is. They are both very intrusive, maybe more than you think; just uninstall one and then do a search for leftover files with the name of the program (i.e Mcafee) and see what you find.
        Because of this most problems arise when companies switch from one to the other.
        If forced to choose between the 2, suicide would become an option

    • #3087025

      TrendMicro

      by mehulnpatel ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      After evaulating all the three major AntiViurses like Symantec, McAfee & TrendMicro I feel TrendMicro is the best solution for both Corporates and Home. Even Microsoft is using TrendMicro for their Hotmail E-Mail Services.

    • #3086985

      McAfee

      by general ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Based on our experience, McAfee is a much more “transparent” software. Ie, you never now is there.

      With Norton we had problems such as hanged processes, excessive memory usage, etc.

      Chris

      • #3086665

        Which Norton product? And what year?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to McAfee

        I’ve seen that before, but it has gotten much better the past 2 years.

    • #3086914

      Why choose between them – get something better!

      by goodwisj ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Elsewhere in the replies I have seen mention of the Panda Platinum Software – it is robust, updated daily, relatively cheap, has a reasonable user interface/user experience and I have used it to replace Norton that became slow, unreliable and insecure……

      Try out Panda!!! You may just be surprised….

      • #3086705

        BitDefender 9 Standard

        by gacooley ·

        In reply to Why choose between them – get something better!

        PcWorld just did an article on Antivirus programs. The winner is: BitDefender 9 Standard; cost? $30.
        Coming in second is McAfee VirusScan 2006 for $40.
        Need more info? Get PcWorld and read it yourself. 🙂

    • #3086663

      “monkey with a sledgehammer”

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I thought it was a Symantec smear job, but it was actually a commercial [b]for[/b] McAfee 7 [b]by[/b] McAfee that described their own product as “like a monkey with a sledgehammer”.

      I would have picked a different metaphor or analogy if I were trying to convince a rational person [b]to[/b] buy a product!

    • #3086497

      Wow excellent responses

      by brad mankoff ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      I did not expect this many responses but this is excellent input, please don’t stop. So many different experiances and situations. It will take a couple of days to read them all.

    • #3267267

      Kaspersky

      by netadmin109 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Has anyone tried Kaspersky? I have demo’ed it and used it here and there and have had excellent results. I could install Kaspersky on an infected PC when neither Symantec nor McAfee would install. The price can not be beat.

      • #3106300

        Kaspersky =)

        by coltm4carbine ·

        In reply to Kaspersky

        I’ve used Kaspersky and it did detect all the viruses that Norton [which was preinstalled with my pc] didn’t detect :).
        I am still using KIS 6 beta but I will uninstall it later on (End of the BETA). Although it was a BETA i haven’t had any problems with it, not even performance wise.

        • #3106139

          Never heard of it but ok

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to Kaspersky =)

          Here is a program which is current and works as well
          its called “AVG” I have found tons of stuff on lots of computers which ran Nortons stuff ( I fix them after people destroy them ) And try to talk them into a faster better computer starting at 2.7 gigahertz CPU and 1 gig of ram
          So do a search at any search engine and type in AVG
          and have to look for their free version but their pay for version is dam good too ! !

    • #3266274

      I’ll say either and neither…

      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      They both have the ups and downs. Norton’s big down is that it doesn’t actually detect all known viruses and its heuristic scanning is rubbish.

      McAfee is relatively good but can be a pain for novice users.

      I have a selection of three I use for customers depending on their needs.

      VET Antivirus, or the free version EZ Antivirus, is exceedingly good when kept up-to-date. It’s drawback is that if the defs are out of date it won’t autoprotect your system. It’s pro is that is undoubtedly has the best heuristic scanning engine around.

      AVG – Both Free and Paid For versions do an exceptional job at protecting your system from viruses and are easy for a novice computer users. I experienced it’s capabilities after installing it when my Norton subscription ran out. The full system scan picked up stuff that Norton didn’t even know was there. It’s drawback is that if it’s defs are out of date, it’s heuristics are not good enough to pick up new threats.

      Anti-Vir – Very good at picking up any and every virus. Even works exceedingly well when the defs are out of date. Haven’t been using it long enough to see any drawbacks but mayhaps everyone else can say something more about it.

      Thoughts? Comments? Am I out of my freaking mind? 🙂

    • #3076422

      Sophos – built in spyware protection and the best response times, hands dow

      by carlmorris3 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Symantec or McAfee? Are you kidding me? I would have said Symantec 5 years ago.. but they haven’t gotten any better.. and McAfee has just gotten worse.

      Sophos protects my network.. has integrated spyware protection and responds the fastest to new threats and offers the most updates.. check this out..
      http://secunia.com/chronological_virus_list/

      My 2 cents anyway,
      Carl

    • #3074325

      Actually, neither is better

      by dr_zinj ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      From a security standpoint, it’s better to be running BOTH of them together. Unfortunately, that means you have twice as many system resources tied up with that form of security.

      • #3264975

        Sorry Dr_Zinj…I have to disagree

        by dennis_london ·

        In reply to Actually, neither is better

        From a security standpoint, McAfee is better. Let us break the two antivirus applications down:
        McAfee offers integrated buffer overflow protection – Symantec does not.
        McAfee offers integrated firewall capabilities – Symantec does not.
        McAfee offers integrated anti-spyware and anti-adware protection – Symantec does not.

        Symantec offers add on modules and additional application to provide the basic level of protection which McAfee offers in just the AV product. Of course they both have their separate firewall apps and such but I don’t think the original question was who offers the most add-on modules.

        And from a security standpoint (yet again) McAfee’s core focus and business is security. Symantec isn’t focused on any one thing. They are (in my opinion) busy trying to be the next IBM. Perhaps they should borrow Sesame Street’s Big Bird costume for their next event… we can just call them “Big Yellow” compared to IBM with “Big Blue”.

        • #3264955

          I think…

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to Sorry Dr_Zinj…I have to disagree

          merging your two posts, you’re actually not disagreeing with them.

          Pretend McAfee is ADT (a company that protects everything dealing with the defense of a home – fire, intrusion, doors, windows, CCTV, anything and everything (I’m not sure how well known they are worldwide, or if they’re just here in the US)), and Norton offers you to pick and choose.

          If you choose to add a 28 complex locks and steel bars to the existing doors and windows configuration, ADT will still make sure that anyone opening the door has the password for the ADT system, but at least noone can just get in through said door because they found 1 of the 2 keys laying around. (Be they a vulnerability, definitions weren’t updated, whatever.) They need the combinations for the second system too.

          This analogy and thought of “more security is better” assumes, however, that McAfee and Symantec play and integrate well with each other. But the fact remains that Symantec really wants to be the absolute sole protector of the computer, gets offended when anyone else is brought in to help, and just doesn’t play nice with McAfee in general. (Or so I understand at least. I’ve never been masochistic enough to install Symantec, nevermind Symantec AND anything else.) This may be because they are competitors, or because 2 people are in a small space, trying to watch the same door at the same time and getting in each other’s way.

    • #3264819

      I don’t know that one is any better

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      but for God’s sake, don’t install them both! 🙂

    • #3105546

      Why only talk about Norton & McAfee?

      by pchsiu ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Hey, why is the field set for competition between Norton and McAfee only? Certainly there are other alternative anti virus softwares in the world. I think it is time for some reverent magazine editorials to make an objective comparison of most players in the field. Would PC World Magazine, etc., elect an “editors’ choice” so to say?

    • #3148918

      Neither one

      by serginho ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      McAfee ruled in the beggining. Norton relies more on marketing techniques than on effectiveness.
      After years fixing customer computers, I’d use one of these only if I had no choice of a third.
      AV software has been evolving as virus get smarter, so the best solution today, may not be the best one tomorrow.
      So, I’d say today the best solution for small sites would be Kaspersky Labs AntVirus. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good solution for large enterprises as well, but they still have to make their distribution (push) system a little more consistent
      Regarding detection and update availability (every 3 hours, average), I wouldn’t think twice.

      Regards

      Serginho

    • #3144255

      Antivirus Software…Which is better?

      by thepan123 ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      In the fourteen years + that I have been doing computer work, I have tried about a cazillion antivirus programs. I ALWAYS come back to Norton. Oh…there are many out there that are of notable mention. I used to really like Zone Alarm alot. But it’s not a “complete” antivirus program, at least when I was using it. Norton is the by far, the BEST antivirus program with the least amount of problems encountered by this person, to date.

      • #3143341

        Anti-Virus Zone Alarm?

        by lynne’s honey ·

        In reply to Antivirus Software…Which is better?

        Zone Alarm is not an A/V program, it is a software firewall, and works very well. There are versions tath include A/V, but I would not depend on them for my A/V. They used to use the CA A/V, and may still use it. It is a poor A/V program at best.

        Use Zone Alarm as your firewall, not your A/V.

        In yor 14 years, you must have seen very little. Norton is more than famous for the problems it cuases on Windows based machines.

        • #3164564

          ZoneAlarm DOES have Anitvirus.

          by sir_cheats_alot ·

          In reply to Anti-Virus Zone Alarm?

          you have obviously not heard…Zone Labs Do have a ZA Antivirus program. they also have ZA security Suite which is AV, anti spyware, firewall, pop-up blocker, and IM security all in one.
          It does a very good job too…it’s WAY over protective on the IM security though. but i have not had an infection in over the year i have used it.
          you should check it out 😉

    • #3143363

      McAfee vs. Symantec

      by lynne’s honey ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      To keep with the original question, McAfee is teh choice.

      In a home situation,, one is normally dealing withthe suite products. Doing tech support for a small ISP as a part time thing, I find more problems with the Norton suite than any other piece of software. I’ve never had to deal with any problems caused byth eMcAfee suite.

      On a corporate level, the centralized management feature of McAfee are far more flexible than those provided by Symantec, which, alone gives it the edge. The fact that McAfee seems to do a better job at identifying and removing virus than Symantec, also brings the scale over to the McAfee side.

      Both products do, from time totime, release definitions that cause problems, but McAfee seems to make fixes faster when they become aware of the problem.

      Why the slicks always rate the Symantec product higher than McAfee, I’ll never understand. I cringe when the reviews are released. They must have one heck of a PR department.

      I’d never recommend a Symantec product to a client (and I am probably selling the last version of Veritas’s Backup Exec, since Symantec seems to ruin nearly every product the acquire), but recommend McAfee or one or two fo the other products mentioned in other places here.

      • #3143232

        I agree with you on Nortons

        by jackie40d9 ·

        In reply to McAfee vs. Symantec

        Nortons was a good program to recover files and wipe the hard drive and then they went to doing other things . . And from there it went down hill fast . .
        I have had to remove Nortons (Symantec ) stuff from so many computers its not funny but I add AVG for anti virus its D- – Good ! ! They did a forceable take over of my fire wall company and I do not get up dates now . .

    • #3143189

      The best of a bad lot

      by rickydoo ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      would be Mcafee, it seems to get broke less often than Symantec in my experience. But when i does break it sometimes takes a herculean effort to fix it. A couple of times I had to clean out the registry manually before it would install properly again. After those messes I just recommend AVG to anyone with problems with either AV.

      • #3143115

        Its what I recomend to

        by jackie40d9 ·

        In reply to The best of a bad lot

        When I make and sell a new computer for some one I INSTALL AVG as their anti virus . . As its one of the best and keeps things running with NO bugs or worms . .

        • #3145603

          my recommendation

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Its what I recomend to

          Typically, my recommendations for home Windows security are:

          [b]antivirus = AVG + ClamWin[/b]
          ClamWin provides some of the best antivirus protection for Windows systems available, and it’s open source (which means, among other benefits, that you can use it for free for any purpose whatsoever, and even modify it for your use if you like). ClamWin lacks some ease-of-use and realtime scan functionality that is important, though, so it’s good to combine it with something that does excellent realtime scanning without actually introducing problems, which is why I suggest AVG as well. If you’re doing something really resource-intensive, and you’re not doing anything that can reasonably introduce viruses to the system, it’s entirely reasonable to turn off AVG’s realtime scanning temporarily.

          [b]firewall = iSafer Winsock Firewall + ZoneAlarm[/b]
          This combination gives you about the best local-system firewall protection it’s possible to get on a Windows machine without paying thousands of dollars. It’s no substitute for an external firewall, but it is an excellent addition to one. iSafer’s firewall provides highly configurable, extremely effective socket-layer protection, which is of critical importance: you don’t want to rely solely on application-layer protection, as this will leave you open to lots of bad stuff. Because the iSafer firewall isn’t a fully stateful network-layer firewall, however, it’s a good idea to get something else to augment it, and that’s why I suggest using ZoneAlarm as well. ZoneAlarm provides stateful application-layer firewall protection. When you have any problems that require you to “turn off your firewall”, you can easily disable ZoneAlarm’s protection temporarily, as needed, to get the open access that’s needed without exposing yourself to the Internet without a firewall at all. iSafer Winsock Firewall is excellent for gamers, for instance, who don’t want a resource-intensive application-layer firewall causing tremendous lag in the midst of combat.

          [b]antispyware = Spybot Search and Destroy + Bazooka Spyware Blaster[/b]
          Bazooka is just incredible. It does thorough system scans in seconds, and provides step-by-step instructions on how to remove malware more fully than any automated removal tool ever could. It also serves as an excellent tutorial tool for learning about the Windows Registry. Scan your system daily with Bazooka, and have the Spybot Search and Destroy tea-timer running pretty much all the time for realtime scanning protection. If Bazooka ever detects something, run Spybot Search and Destroy to get rid of the majority of what you find, then use Bazooka to manually mop up any leftovers. I’ve never seen a situation where that has left anything behind that any other spyware and adware detection/removal tool didn’t find and/or remove, and I’ve cleaned systems (professionally) that had more than fourteen hundred discrete pieces of spyware and adware on them.

          All of the above will provide better protection than using Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, and Ad-Aware, and also better than using the Norton security suite. With the ability to eliminate most of the resource footprint of the above setup temporarily by turning off ZoneAlarm without eliminating a critical part of your security (firewalling), none of the more common security setups out there even come close to the leanness of this configuration, and they typically don’t even work half as well.

    • #3145457

      Neither if you can aviod them

      by sir_cheats_alot ·

      In reply to Which is better McAfee or Symantec(Norton) Antivirus

      Both are resource hogs, and PC-Cillin doesn’t catch everything. If you are going to buy a Security program for windows get ZoneAlarm Security Suite its very nice and easy on resources. it usually updates daily.

      If you perfer free AV’s; AntiVir backed up with weekly visits to http://housecall.trendmicro.com you shouldn’t have a problem.

      if you are forced to choose between Norton and McAfee..i’d go with McAfee, but again only if i had to. ZoneAlarm Security Suite is my AV and firewall of choice on the windows platform.

Viewing 76 reply threads