PC Applications forum

General discussion

Norton AntiVirus 2006 or McAfee VirusScan 2006?

by Haze01 / April 11, 2006 12:06 PM PDT

Which of the two do you prefer, or is there a different utility that rivals those two?

This will be used on a new computer running windows xp home, sp2.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Norton AntiVirus 2006 or McAfee VirusScan 2006?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Norton AntiVirus 2006 or McAfee VirusScan 2006?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You will get plenty of discussion on this one
by Dick Humfrey / April 12, 2006 4:50 AM PDT

Out of the two you name I prefer the Norton program.

But there are a lot of virus programs out there and other users can add their comments on others.

I am only responding to your direct question.

Collapse -
You were so right. (nt)
by Haze01 / April 14, 2006 2:02 PM PDT

No text.

Collapse -
Neither
by ttspff / April 21, 2006 7:11 PM PDT

I use AVG free addition. Norton and some other programs use alot of memory while they are running in the background.

Collapse -
I agree
by yossil / April 22, 2006 11:22 AM PDT
In reply to: Neither

Avg is great. I just bought a new computer and has McAfee as a trial for 90 days I am using it for now but will go back to AVG so simple to use and does a very good job!

Collapse -
AVG.....why ?
by rlarryp / April 23, 2006 12:44 AM PDT
In reply to: I agree

I downloaded AVG to try, but there was just something about it that i didn't like...don't know why...how long did you use it ? How Good was it REALLY ..thanks ..lp

Collapse -
NAV Vs McAffe
by rwt325 / April 29, 2006 9:02 AM PDT

Neither one. Both are too bloated and too intrusive. Try Kaspersky AV or NOD32 both rated as No 1 or 2 by independant rating labs.

Collapse -
Hard to define...
by shankru85 / April 13, 2006 7:49 AM PDT

Personally i would never install NORTON (which i consider one of the worst ever)...so i'd choose McAfee .
Going over this choice , i think that there are many good AV softwares :
Eset
Bitdefender
Antivir
AVG
& more .

Best Regards

White [ITA]

Collapse -
Norton vs. McAfee from one that supports 1000's of installs
by bbumsted / April 14, 2006 12:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Hard to define...

Of the 2 choices, McAfee or Norton, the answer depends on your use. McAfee is first to protect against viruses (nearly a week ahead of Norton in many cases), has a better spyware catcher, but with a much larger overhead then Norton.
Norton (Symantec) believes that their bread and butter is from the Home users and would rather have speed then better protection. This would be very accurate for those Dial-up users that got on - got what they needed - and got off the internet. If you are one of those users then by all means Norton is a great choice.
McAfee on the other hand focuses on the business clients, and fluffs up a special addition for home. You benifit from their hyper security, but lose a bit more speed and money.
For us - its a cost on support. McAfee has the least amount of time/$ spent supporting machines with there product, while Norton is a regular cash flow. Here is an e-mail about W32.Sober.X@mm!zip that only plagued Norton users. Names were removed for fairness. Notice that it took them 25 days on a Corporate Gold Support contract to answer, and on phone support they did less.
-----Original Message-----
From: Symantec Service and Support [mailto:tsnews@symantec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: W32.Sober.X@mm!zip


***************************************************************************
This is a copy of Symantec's response to your online technical support question. If you want to reply to this message, you can post your response here:

http://servicenews.symantec.com/cgi-bin/displayArticle.cgi?group=symantec.support.network.smse45.general&article=1181

Note: Please copy and past the entire URL link into your browser if you encounter an error.

Please do not reply directly to this email address. This address does not accept incoming email.

Thank you for using Symantec's online technical support service.
***************************************************************************

On "Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:17:29 +0000 (UTC), Bradley P. Bumsted wrote:

> Configuration Information:
> Product: Symantec Mail Security
>
> The mail security 4.6 is not stopping the virus from reachig the end
> users. However the desktop (10.0) is catching it.
> Last Live update for 4.6 was 11/26 Rev. 3 How do we addres this?

Symantec Technical Support:

The definition set should be updated by now, and should be able to remove the virus infection. Additionally, it is important to understand that the sober.x virus uses its own SMTP engine and can therefore bypass exchange and mail security altogether. Blocking against zips will prevent it from getting to you.

Best Regards,

Enterprise Support Technician
Symantec Corporation

Collapse -
When you say overhead...
by Haze01 / April 14, 2006 2:07 PM PDT

Do you mean the computer resources required for day-to-day virus protection, or the resources required during a virus scan?

What I had heard recently was that, in both the day-to-day and the system scan, Norton was the larger load.

That, combined with the much cheaper OEM price of McAfee (compared to that of Norton), is making me lean towards their solution. As well, from the sounds of your e-mail, McAfee seems to have better customer support.

Collapse -
Definately Norton
by AInTeL / April 13, 2006 1:29 PM PDT

Been using Norton Antivirus (recently norton symantec systemworks) for years, along with a decent firewall (zonealarm), and i've never had problems.

Definately norton, hands-down. Big hater of mcafee

Collapse -
Norton v. McAfee anti-virus
by barlydd / April 13, 2006 6:58 PM PDT

I use neither. On the advice of a member of my local computer club, I have opted for Computer Associates' eTrust EZ Antivirus.

It's simple to operate, has worked well for both my own and my husband's PCs for several years. It costs half the price of both the Norton and the McAfee antivirus programs (I have just checked all three websites) and I refuse to be browbeaten into paying double for a name, when the product is the same.

By the way, we both use WindowsXP.

Are there others out there that agree with me.

Barlydd

Collapse -
Better deal with McAfee anti-virus
by RetiredOldGuy / April 14, 2006 4:03 AM PDT

I have been a Norton Systemwork?s user for many years. However, I am in the process of dropping all Norton products. I have found their support is difficult to use in a timely manner; takes day?s to get an answer to problems. The other reason is, they have really have increased their renewal price; costs near the original price and you must purchase one copy for each PC that you own and I own three PC so the cost to continue upgrading is way out of line since the changes are minor per release. Oh, they add new features, but many of them, and I suspect that others may feel the same way, will not need or use those features.

Because I am a current user of Comcast for my Internet connections, Comcast has joined with McAfee and as long as you?re an active customer to can use a copy of McAfee?s virus software and this is saving me money. I have installed McAfee?s virus software on my three PC?s and so far everything is working just fine. I might add that it picked up a Trojan that Norton?s virus program missed. I have also started using System Mechanic 6 by iolo that will replace the functions of Systemworks and I might add, does a better job and cost less.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thank you for your sharing your experience (nt)
by Haze01 / April 14, 2006 2:09 PM PDT
Collapse -
eTrust EZ Antivirus
by mayn53 / April 16, 2006 6:38 AM PDT

Just had to reply to this. I had this (eTrust) for several years on my machine, running Windows 98. and guess what, I was soooooooo infected that I eventually had to get a new machine. I use McAfee my self and no problems so far

Collapse -
EZ....
by rlarryp / April 16, 2006 7:41 AM PDT
In reply to: eTrust EZ Antivirus

no wonder Tiger irect is practically giving away CA Internet Suites when you buy a broadband router !!!lp

Collapse -
Consider an alternative
by Havin_it / April 13, 2006 7:00 PM PDT

While I've never used McAfee, friends tell me it suffers the same problem I've always found with Norton: *massive* memory hogging. If you value your sanity, don't install any Norton version more recent than 2002 on a machine with less than 512MB of RAM.

Also with McAfee, bear in mind that a couple of months back, they unleashed a defective update to their virus definitions, which caused many people to inadvertently hose their systems. (Then again, you might see this as a good thing, as McAfee has been 'predisastered'. And there's no reason Norton couldn't do the same thing tomorrow...)

My personal gripe with Norton is that it doesn't play well in a security-conscious environment. I always try to have the day-to-day usage of a Windows PC done under a Limited User account (I consider this a simpler and more reliable security measure than any antivirus, BTW) - but Norton's automatic LiveUpdate doesn't support this setup, it will only work when you are logged-in as an Administrator-level user. To undermine security best-practice in this way is, IMHO, unforgiveable of a security-focused application.

At home, I use AVG Free Edition. While free AV applications seem to have a whiff of stigma about them, this one has really opened my eyes. It updates itself faithfully every logon, is simple to use and configure, and the memory usage is the lowest I've yet encountered. Even while scanning it's possible to continue working at the same time at a reasonable speed. And yes, its detection-rate is up there with the biggies!

Others I've tried include BitDefender Professional Edition, which worked pretty smoothly and has a super-high detection rate (so I read), with medium memory requirements; and Avast! free AV, which although it has the sexiest interface of the lot and good hit-rate, I found another very heavy memory-hog.

/rant over - hope it was some help

Collapse -
What do you mean about the memory hog?
by Haze01 / April 14, 2006 2:16 PM PDT

As I mention in a later post, I have been using Norton's 2003 edition of their anti virus software on an old, underpowerd computer for three years. The machine has half the ram you recommend, but has worked just as well as I've expected.

Of course, I have always been doing my system scans during times that I would not need to use the computer, but I expect a virus scan to be a system hog. Is that the wrong attitude? I've never before experienced any kind of system scan that doesn't slow down the computer; virus, defrag, and xp search funtion, all take a long time and slow the comp.

Now that I'm using a higher-powered computer, perhaps I can consider running more demanding applications while doing those activities.

Collapse -
It's not a hog while scanning
by Havin_it / April 16, 2006 10:29 AM PDT

or at least, no more so than most other applications. I'm referring more to the permanent system overhead imposed by Norton's processes running in the background. On a 256MB machine, Norton Internet Security 2005 is just too painful to run the whole suite. It adds a hefty chunk to boot-time as well.

NAV 2003 (without the rest of the suite), I don't think we used that one, but based on experience with '02 and '05, it would probably be tolerable on a 256MB machine, though there would still be a palpable slowdown.

Collapse -
Try NOD32 - the best I have used - Sygate firewall
by BobB / April 13, 2006 7:20 PM PDT

I do not use Norton or McAfee as they are both recources hogs. I use NOD32 that really does not slow the computer down much at all - it is barely noticable. Also, if you check at vb.com (Virus Bulletin) it has not missed a virus in the wild for 5 or 6 years. Quite inexpensive also.

I live in Ozz (Australia) and 2 years of updates only costs me about $90 AU. This also includes updates to the whole system. No "pay me some money because I wish to update the basic database" - all included.

I also use Sygate as my firewall. Unfortunately, Symantec have bought them and shut down all support and updates for, in my view, the very best firewall I have ever used - free too.

Symantec wonder why they are disliked - XTGold, Sygate - the list goes on where they have bought companies and shut them down to get rid of really good software and "flog" there own rubbish.

I do use System Works without the virus scanner or firewall. I also use WinFax Pro but it has "bombed" my computer out several times now. Thank heavens for one good program they sell - Ghost.

McAfee has caused me many problems in the past also. Will NEVER go back to either of these virus scanners.

Collapse -
Bob-Have you tried Ztree-better than Xtree
by Dick Humfrey / April 14, 2006 4:13 AM PDT

XTGold has been much improved on-I had a registered version of the old XtreeGold.

Go to this website-download it and try it.
http://www.ztree.com/

If you loved Xtree you will love Ztree

Collapse -
Norton or McAfee

None of the above!!!
Both are bilge water!!!

The best is either PC-Cillian by Trend-Micro or
E-Trust by Computer Associates (CA).

All the others are a waste!

Collapse -
eTrust
by mayn53 / April 16, 2006 6:40 AM PDT
In reply to: Norton or McAfee

Bad Apples

Collapse -
Try Other Alternative
by srudis / April 13, 2006 8:07 PM PDT

I used NORTON, but found it quite Resources Hungery. You required atleast 1 GB of RAM to operate it smoothly and if you wants to run other software also, then you can think ......?

McAfee is considered to be good AV from many people, but my experience is not good with this AV. When I installed it first time, it just damaged my registry and system files. I have to reinstall the windows completely. What was the problem I could not know. I tried to call its help centre, but no reply from them.

Then I started using QUCIK HEAL. It solves all the problem I was facing using NORTON and McAfee.

Quick Heal is a good alternative to both of this AV. It stay's quitly in system tray and while checks all the acivity you do on net or on any drive. It is not system hungery. Support is also very good over TELEPHONE. E-mail support is quite slow. but this can be neglected considering it's software performance. Updates are also automatic and on time. Also provide Precaution steps to be taken on time to time.

So, I think QUICK HEAL is the best option.

Collapse -
AVG Combo
by doceason / April 13, 2006 8:47 PM PDT
In reply to: Try Other Alternative

I've been trying out AVG combination anti-virus and firewall. It seems to be working fine...and the cost is less than Norton/Zone AlarmPro.
I'm no computer expert, when I say it's working ok I really assuming it is. I wondered if anyone else is using this version of AVG and what you think.

Collapse -
avg combo
by mittens / April 13, 2006 11:46 PM PDT
In reply to: AVG Combo

the latest version of Norton2006 seems to have many of the features of the old firewall I used last year and discarded, simply because it slowed down my computer, it really didnt block anything that it was supposed to, and I still needed three other anti spyware programs to block what Norton was supposed to be doing anyway. So what was the point?

I think a lot has to do with the way you use your own computer, where you go on the web, and what programs and sites you access or download that could cause problems. Game sites, porn sites (not that anyone here ever ever goes there no no), animated graphics sites, places that have a huge number of ads going on all over the screen, blink blink flash flash.

And I dont think it's safe to depend on just one program any longer, and expect it to do everything. With compatible "other' programs such as hijackthis and spybot, you're pretty much covered in a nice overlapping way when you use an anti virus program as well.

No program is perfect, is the bottom line. Only what works for the way you use the computer.

Collapse -
using AVG Combo, and it seems fine
by doceason / May 4, 2006 11:19 AM PDT
In reply to: avg combo

so far, the trial is almost up so I'll have to buy it or go back to the freebe....I like the combo part, both firewall and antivirus...uses less resources. I just downloaded and saved AdawareSE Firewall, free version, I haven't used it but I think I'll start a thread see what people think of it. The spyware is excellent.

Collapse -
AVG Combo
by hwiesel / April 14, 2006 4:14 AM PDT
In reply to: AVG Combo

yeah....norton and mcafee both lag your computer...mac or pc
-Norton keeps giving you these annoying security pop-=ups saying that the program has automatically changed the settings for a program and....
-McAfee does the same thing but nobody really cares...it just keeps getting really annoying when you gotta click continue what i was doing every 15-20 seconds

AVG (the free version) is good enough

it works and doesnt lag you computer.....plus its small in disk space so you dont need a lot of hard disk space


GO 4 AVG FREE VERSION/PAID VERSION

Collapse -
AVG
by lonfjjr / April 17, 2006 2:02 AM PDT
In reply to: AVG Combo

AVG may have worked well, but I CONNOT REMOVE IT from my computer using control panel, add or remove program and it's really messing my email program up.

Collapse -
Try this
by beatboxx--2008 / April 17, 2006 6:44 AM PDT
In reply to: AVG

Have you turned off the AVG components in MANAGE ADD-ONS? This may cause some of the grief you have encountered. Once these are turned off, then go into windows explorer and find the uninstall in the Grisoft folder of program files. Make sure you have diabled the active component in system tray. Once all done simple run your favorite registry cleaner and move on to next AV.

Collapse -
cant remove avg?!?!
by hwiesel / May 3, 2006 6:31 AM PDT
In reply to: AVG

well 1st of all you need to go to ctrl+alt+delete
and close ALL of the avg programs/processes
there is a process under the system registry so it comes up as a process under the system when you sort it by user

then go to control panel
-add remove programs and remove it.....DUHHHH

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!