Mcafee VirusScan or Norton Anti-Virus?

[jrichrds]

I get to choose between the latest versions of one of these.
As I won't have any of the background scanning stuff activated, I'm mainly interested in the on-demand scanning (e.g. download a file and scan it for viruses), an efficient, fast, easy-to-use interface, and ease of virus definition updates.

Which one should I go for?

 

[OZEE]

Of those choices, I'd definitely go with McAfee. Free dat files for the support-life of the version you get. Norton requires $$ for annual access to their dat files. I've also seen compatibility issues with Norton stuff that I've never experienced with McAfee.

However, my av app of choice right now is AVG. It's free, dat files are free, it's easy to use, it's free, it's light on resources, it's free.

 

[randypj]

Yep, the $15/yr fee from NAV is sorry. I sure wouldn't go with it, just for that reason.
--Randy

 

[Workin']

I've made a small fortune fixing people's computers that McAfee hosed. It's a piece of crap bloatware system-invading molasses-running abomination. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

NAV is OK except for the annual fee, and is arguably the best at catching virii.

The user interface to either McAfee or NAV is not what I would call "elegant", but between the 2 NAV is much easier to use, IMO.

AVG has worked well for me on dozens and dozens of machines. The price is certainly right. The interface is clean and easy, too.

 

[sean2002]

NOD32 has the best track record catching viruses in the wild.

 

[pcmax]

Originally posted by: Workin'
I've made a small fortune fixing people's computers that McAfee hosed. It's a piece of crap bloatware system-invading molasses-running abomination. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

NAV is OK except for the annual fee, and is arguably the best at catching virii.

The user interface to either McAfee or NAV is not what I would call "elegant", but between the 2 NAV is much easier to use, IMO.

AVG has worked well for me on dozens and dozens of machines. The price is certainly right. The interface is clean and easy, too.

Agreed, McAfee sucks, I have had to fix entire networks that it took down with it's updates from hanging on the boot scan to thinking that clean windows system/program files are viruses, which the users promptly deleted per McAfee's instructions!:disgust:

 

[lupohki]

Doesn't just uninstalling and reinstalling reset NAVs 'clock'? That's how it's always been for me.

 

[starwarsdad]

Originally posted by: Workin'
I've made a small fortune fixing people's computers that McAfee hosed. It's a piece of crap bloatware system-invading molasses-running abomination. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

NAV is OK except for the annual fee, and is arguably the best at catching virii.

The user interface to either McAfee or NAV is not what I would call "elegant", but between the 2 NAV is much easier to use, IMO.

AVG has worked well for me on dozens and dozens of machines. The price is certainly right. The interface is clean and easy, too.

WOW!

I wasn't going to be quite that vocal about it, but what he said!

McAffee has hosed several machines on my office network and cost me hours of downtime and "rebuild" time.

I think I might have finally convinced my boss to try Norton.

 

[CraigRT]

I've heard bad about McAffee...
but here is the catch...

I've heard bad about Norton.
and I've even heard some bad about AVG.

I just don't open spam emails from whom i don't know is sending..

 

[Toxic]

RAV or AVG would be my choices.

I'm not a big fan of Symantec products, and McAffe stuff has sucked for years now.

NOD32 might be great, but at $130ish bucks, it ain't that great.

 

[starwarsdad]

Ever wonder how many virii there would be without antivirus software vendors???????

Its a multi billion $ industry.

Just the cynic in me sneaking out for the ride home

 

[pcmax]

Originally posted by: lupohki
Doesn't just uninstalling and reinstalling reset NAVs 'clock'? That's how it's always been for me.

Doesn't work, they have a better registry system with the 2002/2003 versions. I haven't seen a registry hack yet for it (and I'm not advocating one).

starwarsdad, yah things that make you go hmmmmm?

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: pcmax

Originally posted by: lupohki
Doesn't just uninstalling and reinstalling reset NAVs 'clock'? That's how it's always been for me.

Doesn't work, they have a better registry system with the 2002/2003 versions. I haven't seen a registry hack yet for it (and I'm not advocating one).

starwarsdad, yah things that make you go hmmmmm?

Then try reformatting your hard drive, it's good medicine anyway every 6 months or so.

 

[pcmax]

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: pcmax

Originally posted by: lupohki
Doesn't just uninstalling and reinstalling reset NAVs 'clock'? That's how it's always been for me.

Doesn't work, they have a better registry system with the 2002/2003 versions. I haven't seen a registry hack yet for it (and I'm not advocating one).

starwarsdad, yah things that make you go hmmmmm?

Then try reformatting your hard drive, it's good medicine anyway every 6 months or so.

Ahahaha, that will certainly do the trick and rid of any lingering virii too!

 

[Agamar]

I have used both NAV and McAfee. Both caught the viruses like they should, but I think that McAfee is the better of those 2 (of course, over the years both of them have been number 1). Never tried AVG though.

 

[jrichrds]

At home, I'm using a years-old copy of McAfee (VirusScan 4.5) and can still AutoUpdate it to the latest scan engine and virus definition file.

For on-demand scanning, are the newer versions of McAfee any better at detecting and cleaning viruses? Or do they just have a fancier interface and extra Internet and background scanning features?
I demoed VirusScan 5 when it was still new, and didn't care for the slower, "fancier" interface. So I haven't checked out newer versions since then.

It noticed too that NAV says there's an annual subscription fee. But if you go to their website, it seems like you can just download the latest update manually. Maybe the fee is only if you want it automatically updated.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: jrichrds
I get to choose between the latest versions of one of these.
As I won't have any of the background scanning stuff activated, I'm mainly interested in the on-demand scanning (e.g. download a file and scan it for viruses), an efficient, fast, easy-to-use interface, and ease of virus definition updates.
Which one should I go for?

Since I work for Symantec, I'll let you derive my suggestion That said, I'm curious why you won't have 'any of the background scanning stuff activated'. Your asking for trouble with the configuration you suggested, and I think you'll be happily suprised how light on the system NAV 2002/2003's autoprotect feature is now...

Bill

 

[jrichrds]

Since I work for Symantec, I'll let you derive my suggestion That said, I'm curious why you won't have 'any of the background scanning stuff activated'. Your asking for trouble with the configuration you suggested, and I think you'll be happily suprised how light on the system NAV 2002/2003's autoprotect feature is now...

Bill

So....Mcafee? j/k.
Hey, that's cool. Do you develop any particular Symantec software, or involved with other aspects of the company?

 

[randypj]

bsobel--Thanks for getting in the thread. Hey....you never answered my question months ago. You weren't involved in the NU 3.* debacle were you? The worst POS that Symantec has put out.....well.....WinFax might be worse. My Dad sure swears at it.

I also have to say that running NAV in the background is not a problem for me.....even if I forget to turn it off when I'm gaming....no problems. Course, I don't run any of the other System Works stuff in the background. Back with W95, NAV hosed my dialup connections, which were easily enough fixed. No problems with any part of System Works since.

I've used parts of NU, NAV, and System Works since back in the DOS days, and have always liked it. Speed Disk was way better and faster than defrag in W9x. IME, NAV has caught 100% of any virii....but, has not always been the best at cleaning. And, submitting virii to Symantec has been a hit and miss proposition. Sometimes you get a reply, sometimes not.

What really did it for me was the $15/yr. charge for definition updates. Last year it was ~$4. Now, it's $15. I realize it is an attempt by Symantec to force people to upgrade to System Works 2003. But, for W2K users, even Symantec admitted in an email that there is no need to go to SW 2003. I've spent too much $$$ with Symantec in the past to be soaked for the $15/yr, when there are freebie solutions that are decent.

I dunno why it seems that SW/NAV/NU keeps getting "Windows XP" prettier, but less intuitive with each release. I'd take ease of use over prettiness any day.
--Randy

 

[beyonddc]

It's a tough choice to pick between McAfee and Norton. Obviously Norton background shield takes up less system resource and McAfee does.

I have an AMD 300mhz system serving as a server right now. I installed McAfee on it, the background shield lags the whole system, so I uninstalled it, and installed Norton on it. It's running very smooth now.

However, I would still perfer McAfee over Norton on faster systems. It's just the fact that you can get unlimited updates from them. I don't know if this is the case anymore, because recently, I upgraded my Mcafee VirusScan 6 to VirusScan7 Home Edition, and I noticed that in the About screen, it said how many days left for free updates.

 

[bsobel]

Hey....you never answered my question months ago. You weren't involved in the NU 3.* debacle were you?

Sorry, thought I had, short answer no, longer answer 'long story' (you'd need to supply the beer, however )

Hey, that's cool. Do you develop any particular Symantec software, or involved with other aspects of the company?

I started at Symantec in development in the early 90's, I worked with the team that did the initial Windows development in the Norton group. I was originally responsible for the windows shell in Norton Desktop for Windows, I did three versions of that product before 95 came out. I then moved to the first windows versions of Norton Utilities and then to the anti-virus team. There where a zillion other things I wound up helping out on (like pcA and our shared libraries) at various times. At some point I started migrating from being a developer to being more of a technologist (and getting back to my security roots, my prior job was network management/security applications). Since about 98 I've been involved in our strategic planning and mergers (I current work in the M&A group). The first merger I worked on was Ghost, and I've worked on most since including the most recent 4. It's a pretty fun job as I honestly can't tell you what I'll be doing in 6 months as it's always different (and I like it that way)

Cheers,
Bill