McAfee vs Norton

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
Which uses least system resources / processor power?
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Norton is your only choice.

McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.

Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
league.

Bobby

"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
> McAfee?
> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Never any problems with McAfee here.

--
Peter.
Toronto, Canada.
Windows XP Home SP2.
Pentium4 Dual HT @ 3.0ghz, 160gb HD, 1gb DDR.
"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:uiFnpCakEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Norton is your only choice.
>
> McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.
>
> Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
> league.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>> McAfee?
>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

No problems here either.. although I am not a fan of the interface..


"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:uiFnpCakEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Norton is your only choice.
>
> McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.
>
> Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
> league.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>> McAfee?
>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

neither AVG Pro 7.0,,,lol

"Gareth Tuckwell" wrote:

> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

AVG was tested by ZDnet (German Labs) along with 13 other AN apps, and AVG
missed 1 common virus and 1 common worm. Norton was the only one that had a
100% success rate.

Bobby



"Rho_1r" <Rho_1r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34571044-F3D5-4372-AC7B-F0A67848F1E2@microsoft.com...
> neither AVG Pro 7.0,,,lol
>
> "Gareth Tuckwell" wrote:
>
>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>> McAfee?
>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>
>>
>>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I am using McAfee Internet Security and find no issues whatsoever. Norton
caused problems with programs that required cookie information to run
properly, (weatherpulse) and did slow my system down. McAfee allows me the
freedom to choose what I want and how I want it. The privacy feature works
almost too well.
I have seen McAfee improve over the last 2 years and I don't have to deal
with product activation. Also seamlessly ties in with SP2.

"Mike H" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:XVZZc.25754$CG3.1780543@news20.bellglobal.com...
> No problems here either.. although I am not a fan of the interface..
>
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:uiFnpCakEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Norton is your only choice.
>>
>> McAfee has had issues with it's latest version.
>>
>> Norton is so much better than McAfee that they aren't even in the same
>> league.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>>> McAfee?
>>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I bought the (pay for it) McAfee three years back and tried to do the
subscription bit over the internet at the end of the first year. It was
ridiculous! There subscription renewal had me going in and out about dozen
windows and each time all I got was an email from them on how to uninstall
and reinstal their program, and I emailed back saying saying how do I renew
my subscritipon, only to get yet another how to reinstall email. As I never
got as far as getting the transaction completed (So they hadn't got my money)
I gave up, went to Norton's site, paid and downloaded their program, and
renewed last year in only about three or four clicks, no trouble at all. As
far as I can tell it's a goody program, it's not let a bug through in the
last two years and it's not crashed my machine yet. (It's reported about ten
attacks just from half a dozen or so people I email with who don't seem to
keep their AV's up to date).
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:29:31 GMT, Gareth Tuckwell wrote:

> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
> Which uses least system resources / processor power?

Personally, I choose not to use either of those products. Have had them
installed in the past and just didn't like how they ran on my systems.
That's just personal opinion, there's plenty of people that feel otherwise
about them.

Personally, I switched to Etrust's EZAntivirus on my systems when it was
still InnoculateIT and continue to use it.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Again, I refer you to recent tests conducted by ZDnet labs in Germany. 13
current AV offerings were tested. Guess which one was dead LAST? ETrust EZ
antivirus. It missed more than half of the known viruses tested.

Good Luck (I think you'll need it).

Bobby

"Sharon F" <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org> wrote in message
news:eg4AitekEHA.784@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:29:31 GMT, Gareth Tuckwell wrote:
>
>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>> McAfee?
>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>
> Personally, I choose not to use either of those products. Have had them
> installed in the past and just didn't like how they ran on my systems.
> That's just personal opinion, there's plenty of people that feel otherwise
> about them.
>
> Personally, I switched to Etrust's EZAntivirus on my systems when it was
> still InnoculateIT and continue to use it.
>
> --
> Sharon F
> MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi:

My two cents for your reference.

I have been using Symantec Norton Internet Security for several years and
now using NIS 2004 on one desktop and one notebook, and the other notebook
is installed with McAfee online security suit bundled with MSN services. Of
course, both products are mainly for personal use and the company has
another set of firewall and anti-virus solutions.

I am not sure about the system resources or processor usage for the two, but
here are some of my thoughts on the usage and features side. It is my
knowledge that McAfee has changed its solution from client/local version to
online version a few years ago. It is the main reason that I switched from
McAfee to NIS a few years ago.

I am still more comfortable with software installed on the local and can
control when and how to access Internet for update. I found both are quite
good in terms of protecting viruses and intrusion, but NIS has more detailed
set up , features, and controls than McAfee.

Maybe it's also for me, I also dislike McAfee for it has a minor
compatibility problem with the notebook which is just like other systems
with NIS and all are XP Pro with the same patches and updates. I called its
technical support, and appeared to be less helpful than my experience with
Symantec. Until this day, this problem still exists and every single time I
logged into the system, it will have an error message, and I have to click
it to make it disappear.

I am using it, simply because it is free and paid by the bundled service
already, and I wish to see and monitor the differences between the two
products.

If I have to buy, I will choose Symantec not McAfee although I used it very
early about 12 years ago.

Hope this will help.



--
Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
around.



"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
> McAfee?
> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:35:04 -0700, Rho_1r <Rho_1r@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Gareth Tuckwell" wrote:
>
>> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
>> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>neither AVG Pro 7.0,,,lol

LOL indeed.

My son used AVG.
Prior to installing SP2, he installed NORTON AV which found 4 files
containing viruses, that AVG had missed.

AVG came down near the bottom in a test conducted by Dresden
University for a Dutch PC magazine
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote:

>Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
>Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>

Both are equally lousy, but in somewhat different ways.

Norton, especially the 2004 version, appears to suffer from shoddy
programming and is the source of a vast number of errors and problems.
It is, for example, pretty much totally incompatible with Windows
Millennium Edition.

McAfee has a well-deserved reputation for making your computer perform
in a way that is comparable to driving your car with both feet on the
brake.

My personal preferences for Antivirus:
eTrust
AVG
Kaspersky

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.

I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
so.

FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.

Bobby

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jiij01tfa7i8ugjldqi97imnroa6tgs01@4ax.com...
> "Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
>>McAfee?
>>Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>
>
> Both are equally lousy, but in somewhat different ways.
>
> Norton, especially the 2004 version, appears to suffer from shoddy
> programming and is the source of a vast number of errors and problems.
> It is, for example, pretty much totally incompatible with Windows
> Millennium Edition.
>
> McAfee has a well-deserved reputation for making your computer perform
> in a way that is comparable to driving your car with both feet on the
> brake.
>
> My personal preferences for Antivirus:
> eTrust
> AVG
> Kaspersky
>
> Good luck
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Run AVG by Grisoft. Superb, free and far less intrusive than Norton.

mike


"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
> McAfee?
> Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message news:%233Vv2rkkEHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
> and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
> Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
> the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
> misfortune of dealing with.
>
> I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
> so.
>
> FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
> utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
> came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
> and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
>
> Bobby

Of course you didn't tell everyone here that all of your machines were built and bought from the now defunct "Toys 'R' Us" toy store chain!
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Gee, Al, isn't that where you got your inflatable "wife"??? You know...the
one that always tells you she has a headache?

Bobby

"Al" <al@owlll.co> wrote in message
news:jAi_c.137676$JG7.4874@hydra.nntpserver.com...

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:%233Vv2rkkEHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at
> home,
> and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
> Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite
> possibly
> the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had
> the
> misfortune of dealing with.
>
> I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
> so.
>
> FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top
> antivirus
> utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus.
> Others
> came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
> and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.
>
> Bobby

Of course you didn't tell everyone here that all of your machines were built
and bought from the now defunct "Toys 'R' Us" toy store chain!
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:56:30 GMT, Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or McAfee?
>>Which uses least system resources / processor power?
>>
>
>Both are equally lousy, but in somewhat different ways.
>
>Norton, especially the 2004 version, appears to suffer from shoddy
>programming and is the source of a vast number of errors and problems.
>It is, for example, pretty much totally incompatible with Windows
>Millennium Edition.
>
>McAfee has a well-deserved reputation for making your computer perform
>in a way that is comparable to driving your car with both feet on the
>brake.
>
>My personal preferences for Antivirus:
>eTrust
>AVG
>Kaspersky

The first two don't trap known viruses and worms.

Norton AV works perfectly with Win XP. Magdeburg University rates
McAfee slightly better than NAV
In their view Sophos is best.
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:46:29 -1000, "NoNoBadDog!"
<mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote:

>In my own experience, just the opposite is true. I have 5 machines at home,
>and a small network of 23 machines at work that I am responsible for.
>Norton runs fine on all of them, but McAfee was a nightmare...quite possibly
>the single worst example of a poorly written application I have ever had the
>misfortune of dealing with.
>
>I would not put McAfee on any machine, even if you offered me money to do
>so.
>
>FYI...ZDnet in Germany just did an exhaustive review of the 13 top antivirus
>utilities available. Only one found every virus...Norton Antivirus. Others
>came close (AVG was second). The two worst ones were Etrust EZ Antivirus
>and McAfee...both missed significant numbers of known viruses.

That doesn't tie in with the recent Dutch PCMagazine report.
I am almost certain that both tests were conducted by Magdeburg
University.
PCMagazines results are summarised at
http://app2.pcmweb.nl/pcm/extra/nr5_virus.htm
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Gareth Tuckwell" <ContactGT@NoSpam_hotmail.com>
wrote in news:LXVZc.27$V57.9@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
> Big question, but which one is the better virus scanner - Norton or
> McAfee? Which uses least system resources / processor power?

You can also see some testing of several AV products at:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

The last report was in August 2004. They tend to bounce as to who is
the then current leader in detection for each test, so you might want to
look at the older reports to see who was more consistently at the top.
However, these only rate their effectiveness at catching viruses. It
doesn't rate them regarding their stability, how they may affect
reliability of your system, scan speed, ease of use and documentation,
and feature sets.

--
_________________________________________________________________
******** Post replies to newsgroup - Share with others ********
Email: lh_811newsATyahooDOTcom and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
_________________________________________________________________
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:53:34 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> Again, I refer you to recent tests conducted by ZDnet labs in Germany. 13
> current AV offerings were tested. Guess which one was dead LAST? ETrust EZ
> antivirus. It missed more than half of the known viruses tested.
>
> Good Luck (I think you'll need it).
>

And this particular test is authoritative - why and according to whom? Pick
a different test (there are several that posts results online) and you'll
find different positions for each brand. No one product consistently rates
as top dog. And the tests that I keep an eye on rate EzTrust more highly.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Sharon F" <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org> wrote in message
news:%237vHintkEHA.3912@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:53:34 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> Again, I refer you to recent tests conducted by ZDnet labs in Germany.
>> 13
>> current AV offerings were tested. Guess which one was dead LAST? ETrust
>> EZ
>> antivirus. It missed more than half of the known viruses tested.
>>
>> Good Luck (I think you'll need it).
>>
>
> And this particular test is authoritative - why and according to whom?
> Pick
> a different test (there are several that posts results online) and you'll
> find different positions for each brand. No one product consistently rates
> as top dog. And the tests that I keep an eye on rate EzTrust more highly.
>
> --
> Sharon F
> MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User


Sharon;

I agree that test results can be arbitrary, and that the test procedures
probably have a great deal to do with the outcome. I have, however, paid a
lot of attention lately to AV. I frequently see results that indicate that
eTrust misses *KNOWN* viruses. I have trouble recommending anything that
has been implicated by more that one test. I realize that MS recently
purchased the company. I just think the product needs a little more work
before it reaches maturity, and can compare favorably with the likes of
Norton and AVG.

I hope that now that some money should be available for development, the
software engineers will have the opportunity to make the needed adjustments
to the product.

Bobby
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:11:44 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> I realize that MS recently
> purchased the company.

Misinformation. MS did not purchase this company. ETrust's parent company:
http://www.ca.com/

They do have an agreement with Microsoft currently that provides their
product free to XP users for one year (offer expires February 2005):
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Thank you. I had read that Microsoft had purchased an Antivirus company
recently and assumed that since the eTrust disc shipped with the Security
Updates disc from last January that the company was eTrust. I guess what
they say about what happens when you "assume" something is true 😉.

Bobby


"Sharon F" <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org> wrote in message
news:uHZ70UukEHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:11:44 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> I realize that MS recently
>> purchased the company.
>
> Misinformation. MS did not purchase this company. ETrust's parent company:
> http://www.ca.com/
>
> They do have an agreement with Microsoft currently that provides their
> product free to XP users for one year (offer expires February 2005):
> http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/
>
> --
> Sharon F
> MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:37:41 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:

> Thank you. I had read that Microsoft had purchased an Antivirus company
> recently and assumed that since the eTrust disc shipped with the Security
> Updates disc from last January that the company was eTrust. I guess what
> they say about what happens when you "assume" something is true 😉.
>
> Bobby

No problem, Bobby.

I think when it comes to the topic of antivirus programs, there's always a
wide spectrum of opinions on what is best. And people tend to feel strongly
about their favorites. Me? I like whatever doesn't cause blue screens on my
system. 😉

While it's good to research products and choose what's best for you and
your system, what's most important is keeping those virus definitions
updated. Without this maintenance, the level of protection is greatly
compromised.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom