well i hope the subject is self explanatory I'm just wondering which is better if there is no answer to my question please excuse me but the newbie status isnt just for show I actually am a n00b well thanx any way
Printable View
well i hope the subject is self explanatory I'm just wondering which is better if there is no answer to my question please excuse me but the newbie status isnt just for show I actually am a n00b well thanx any way
Personally... I'm a fan of Norton. I never really cared for Mcafee.
I use Norton Internet Security at home and Norton Corporate at work.
You'll find people that don't like Norton and like Mcafee better.
I think the important part is keeping it updated.
I've been loading free antivirus for all my family members. AVG has not let me down yet.
Well...here's a 2005 test comparison by a security site I came across a couple days ago...
http://www.alcatrazsecurity.net/antivirus-review.shtml
apparently they think Shield Pro is the best of the ones they tested.
I like Norton better. I've used it a home for 7 years and combined with Windows updates and little common sense I've never been infected.
Most of my experience with McAfee is in older products and in machines with out of date virus definitions and badly infected. I've never tried any of their new products.
Do I give a **** who and what you are? Your answer is neither... antiviral software is one of the largest scams of all time. Usefull only to people who wouldn't take the time to maintain their computers even if they actually knew how. Don't be an idiot, they both scan for the same things so I'll go ahead and get that out of the water, the question is which one is the bigest waste of performance.Quote:
I'm just wondering which is better if there is no answer to my question please excuse me but the newbie status isnt just for show I actually am a n00b well thanx any way
:o But you know what... I'll leave you to it, man. Redundant thread.
Hum i seem to be on contradiction with most of the members.Personally i like mcafee but i guess it has to do with the fact the i never tried norton for long so as to compare it with mcafee.
yeah one thing my mcafee home edition doesn't detect keylogger.I was just wondering whether norton detects keyloggers?
edit:
keyloggers are not detected by most antivirii's coz sometimes system administrator installs it on purpose and if they try to mail logs to a mail address(which comes under malicious activity)then it is a job of firewall to detect it .
trend micro.
I run Pccillin and it does nicely for me. I have issues with both Norton and Mcaffee, those being -
Norton eats a VAST amount of system resources. Mcaffee does too. Neither will fully uninstall from your machine and require you to spend time both sorting through and deleting dead directories on the hard drive and scanning/deleting registry keys. In addition, there are a very large number of virii out there which target Norton (or Mcaffee, or both) directly, rendering them useless and opening your machine to further malware...
Norton : NetSec 2004 ...........not had any problems so far, apart from when it let something through that 'ate' my set up ................:(
Apart from that ? it's been easy to set up and monitor.
like The Specialist said, both are looking for the same thing, also both are using outdated signiture matching methods. Niether prevent virusis, they just delete them when they are there. Knowing not to be a ****tard and to lock down your box is ore important then which AV to use. a firewall is a better investment, but most AVs come with a software one, so you should be ok no mater which you pick. Just be sure to keep updated.
Personally I like NAV but they both have their benifits. Mcafee is easier for the home user as far as I am concidered and uses less memory. Norton is also becomming bloatware. But comparitivly they are about equal. Its just personal prefrence from there on out.
Even with a locked down computer, a computer is never completely safe (unless it isn't hooked up to the internet). I’ve seen people write that so many times, so won't be smart to have an antivirus program just incase a virus does slip through. I might be wrong about this but I would rather be safer than sorry (and there is no reason to pay for an antivirus program, just find a free one).Quote:
Originally posted here by TheSpecialist
antiviral software is one of the largest scams of all time. Usefull only to people who wouldn't take the time to maintain their computers even if they actually knew how. Don't be an idiot, they both scan for the same things so I'll go ahead and get that out of the water, the question is which one is the bigest waste of performance.
:o But you know what... I'll leave you to it, man. Redundant thread.
i agreee ,and personally i think the best AV is the one that keeps updating very very frequently .i mean even before the virus are out. :-)Quote:
Norton eats a VAST amount of system resources. Mcaffee does too. Neither will fully uninstall from your machine and require you to spend time both sorting through and deleting dead directories on the hard drive and scanning/deleting registry keys. In addition, there are a very large number of virii out there which target Norton (or Mcaffee, or both) directly, rendering them useless and opening your machine to further malware...
Pc-Cillin is what I am currently recommending to my customers.. especialy if their O/S is win 98/MeQuote:
trend micro.
KAV (Kaspersky)has a level of respect from me.. BUT none of my suppliers have access to it so i can't put it on the shelf... but it isnt known by customers.. so will not be popular
Resource hogging is always a concern..
for myself... AVG, mixed careful security settings (not tight), with parasite toools, Ad-block Hosts file, use firefox, external router/firewall.. with the exception of odd id-ten-T errors no problems..
Edit\... I will need to re-evaluate KAV inlight of that review.. certainly didnt have problems with my test systems last year(Aug-Oct)..
esp when u are in a network and the computers are not equal in memoryQuote:
Resource hogging is always a concern.
i seen network configured according to the persons need some have p4 with 1gb ram and some have a p2 -3 on 64 mb ram ,this is really an issue ,tren micro has a plus point on memory usage
but i personally don ythnk that its virus catching capabilites are good enough (personal opinion)
With a PII BOX, 256MB Ram and 30GB HD, well, Norton works well enough.
Protection of your BOX depends on many many things. Like some of the AO's elite said, it will all depend on you. Best AV is useless if you don't get the idea of a DISCIPLINED PC USER.
Norton System Works 2004 mostly save my BOX more than a worth while.
Yo!
Hi,
As everyone suggests here, it depends more on ones taste. Every program has its pros and cons. i've been using Norton for few years now and really like it. Most of the corporates i've worked with also uses its corporate edition. Norton provides daily signature updates also which is really important.
Now as McAfee is also starting daily signature updates, you may want to give it a try too. What i would suggest is try both of them and evaluate the product features with the list you want. You may evaluate other vendors also if your options are open like http://www.kaspersky.com/
-Joseph
josephjohnt,
Just so that you know...this thread is old...that's why the dates are flashing. The only reason to revive an old thread is if you have something " new " to add to it...that can further the discussion.
If you have nothing unique or " new " to add...my advice is to leave these threads alone...unless, of course, your favorite colour is red.
What ever everybody say about Norton or McAfee. But I say Norton makes you computer slower by 20 - 40%. That what atleast 15 people I met who are using it, agree.
Its your own choice. choose what ever AV you want. But B - U - T But, update it regularly. Thats my point.
Navdeep
Ok, most of this thread is garbage. In fact I knew it was gonna be garbage when I read it, but there was a commercial during the Vebture Brothers and I had nothing better to do at 2am.
That said...
-EgaladeistQuote:
Well...here's a 2005 test comparison by a security site I came across a couple days ago...
http://www.alcatrazsecurity.net/antivirus-review.shtml
apparently they think Shield Pro is the best of the ones they tested.
is of great importance. Why? Because they are so blatant. Have a look at their best reviewed... now look at the ad on top of that page. What a surprise! One in the same. Nearly all reviews are the same, only most have a little more sense about not being so painfully obvious about the fact.
Your best bet? Make a checklist of what you need and want, then contact each of the vendors and see how they stack up. Otherwise you just bang your head against capitolism in action.
cheers,
catch
Hello,
Realistically, I don't trust single-point failure systems, ie only one antivirus program.
I have use (at the same time):
1. norton and antivir (excellent together)
2. f-prot and norton (a little bumpy in certain areas)
3. f-prot and antivir (also a little bumpy)
The bumpyness was when both were full scanning at the time.
Why more then one? European viruses travel at a different rate then US viruses. AntiVir (Germany) would have an update 12 to 24 hours before the US venders. Same applies on the other side of the fence.
On my linux mail server, I have 4 (yes FOUR) different virus scanners updated hourly just because of the spread rate based upon origin.
You would prefer installing some usefull applications rather than more and more AVs. :pQuote:
Using more than one AV is harmful to system(memory)'s health.
...none of them offer you anything close to complete protection. Good training and eye for viruses and spyware is the best protection. There's two good free AV solutions out there: AntiVir and AVG. Both work well on older computers, forget running the latest versions of Norton or McAfee on, say, a Pentium III. Your older computer will take quite a hit performance-wise. He-heh, you need a new computer just to run either Norton or McAfee. :p
Which is better: Norton's or McAfee? I have fewer problems with Norton's, but that's not saying much. I don't think I ever got over having to deploy McAfee 6.0 when it came out. What a bear. After my experience with 6, I wouldn't let McAfee near a harddrive of mine. But I've had a lot of problems with Norton's too.
I usually steer folks into the free AV's and also put them onto online AV scans, like RAV, Trendmicro and Panda. Personally, I no longer use AV software, none at all. But I don't recommend that to most folks. I cut my exposure to viruses by avoiding the use of Internet Explorer, and I flat out will not allow Outlook or Outlook Express to be used on any of my computers. Avoiding MS programs, even if you're using Windows, makes you a lot safer. Sign up for a Yahoo email acc't, or even Hotmail, and you'll NEVER have to worry about email viruses.
Just my two bits...
In my opinion they're all OK. I do feel that Norton is becoming a resource hog. I have used many different brands. I am currently using Avast. I like it because it will generate a recovery database of your files. And it is FREE. I found this link while surfing one day. It compares test results of most known brands of AV software. This is the link:
http://www.geocities.jp/stealrush/en_ScanTest.html
I like noe32 and it lite on your pc.
I know you asked for opinions on "one or the other" but it's been my professional experience that both are resource hogs, loading services you may not need and simply don't catch the most virii. Instead my recommendation is either Panda Platinum (click off the Tru-Prevent feature if it slows you down) or NOD32. Kaspersky is great too, but you said you were a noob so....
Free online virus scans can be had at www.pandasoftware.com, until you decide.
ZT3000
.Quote:
Your older computer will take quite a hit performance-wise. He-heh, you need a new computer just to run either Norton or McAfee.
Thats what I said. AVs decrease system performance. :o
I've run just about every AV I could find, including Norton for a couple of weeks, and settled on AVAST!. I recently upgraded to their new 4.6 with the WebShield, and love it.
Between McAfee and Norton, I'd take McAfee's firewall, neither of their antivirus programs. If you read clp727, you'll see that AVAST's older 4.5 software isn't that far behind McAfee in detection rates. The newer 4.6 will boost that detection rate a bit more.