Mcafee Vs. Norton

[asmithz]

What do you thinks better. I have norton an dont favor mcafee but havent tryied the new one.

[MUSLEMAN]

i have mcafee 7.0 home edition and love it, so far it has not caused me any trouble as far as other programs or viruses :lol:

[toddiscool]

Well as I say so often I work for a ISP. We have so much troubel with mcafee. DHCP error and macafee go hand in hand. or "your mail server has not responded in sixty seconds woudl you like to wait" mean mcafee.

I think all the prblems with the antivirus can be attributed to the Half assed fireall built into it.

I have no excusses for why the full firewall program is such garbage though.

I can only rate on what I see, I see tonnes of mcafee problems, tonnes ot zone alarm problems.

Never have I had a problem being caused by norton, so i have to say norton.

[asmithz]

hmm well that 1 for norton and 1 for mcafee

[balamm]

Sygate Pro for Pro's. Everything else is just so .... desktop.

[asmithz]

what i was really refering to was a virus scanner not a fire wall.

[balamm]

Oh well then, it's norton corporate 8. If you want it and will seed it, send me a PM for the link.

[bus2jupiter]

Totally disagree with toddiscool:
I find McAfee to be better than Norton, counting the number of clients reporting errors, taking market-share into account.
Using McAfee myself, never had problems with it (once I extended the server timeout in your mailclient's settings but that goes for Norton aswell).

[Enigma2003]

Until last week, i would have said Norton. i have alwats used systemworks and have no problems with it. But last week, for the first time i used McAfee. my dad prefers it, so i had a look and was quite impressed.

**VERDICT**
Both are good

[toddiscool]

Originally posted by bus2jupiter@5 September 2003 - 10:39
(once I extended the server timeout in your mailclient's settings but that goes for Norton aswell).
I am a little confused as to what you are saying here, once you extended the server timeouts on my client? well thanks, but i did not need you to. :P

Seriously though are you saying that once you had to do that - or that i need to?

I have not had a problem personaly with mcafee, I do not use it. (I installed once in the eighties but i did not enjoy it! (movie?))

I just know from the amont of pop server errors that i get at work caused by it, not to mention the DHCP server errors caused by the antivirus scanner half assed firewall, that there is a shit load of problems with it.

Oh how many formats have been casued by that system saving program.

[sharedholder]

Try to search on the warez sites Mcafee Virusscan Enterprise v7.0 its only 9.85 mb and rocks.

[asmithz]

Originally posted by balamm@5 September 2003 - 00:59
Oh well then, it's norton corporate 8. If you want it and will seed it, send me a PM for the link.
Thanks Balamm but i dont think me or you will be on long enogh for me to download it.

[MUSLEMAN]

ok i think the mcafee team is up so far

[asmithz]

Originally posted by sharedholder@5 September 2003 - 03:16
Try to search on the warez sites Mcafee Virusscan Enterprise v7.0 its only 9.85 mb and rocks.
thanks for the advice but when i go to download it its 43mb

[N£MO]

Agnitum Pro for me and NAV Corp for antivirus.

[sharedholder]

thanks for the advice but when i go to download it its 43mb PM me the site cause i want to see .43mb :blink:

[sArA]

I have tried both....I find that Norton can be really greedy on system resources. However, McAfee is tends to be slower when checking just one dl file it seems to require that the prog is fully opened but Norton just checked in one small window....but the prog slowed the whole system down.

Not a techie...but thats my experience

[MUSLEMAN]

Originally posted by sara5564@5 September 2003 - 06:46
I have tried both....I find that Norton can be really greedy on system resources. However, McAfee is tends to be slower when checking just one dl file it seems to require that the prog is fully opened but Norton just checked in one small window....but the prog slowed the whole system down.

Not a techie...but thats my experience
what version of mcafee are you using???

[-Archwolf-]

for me it's norton i had mcafee installed f*cked up my whole system had to reinstall almost everything and with Norton never had any problems

[RPerry]

only gripe I have with Nortons is the pain in the ass it is to do a total uninstall....

[asmithz]

Originally posted by RPerry@5 September 2003 - 04:12
only gripe I have with Nortons is the pain in the ass it is to do a total uninstall....
And install and full system scan

[RPerry]

actually, re-install is what made me say uninstall sucks, lol

[sArA]

Using version 6.02

[mail2me]

I had Norton myself and this happened to me:
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.n...dSection=2&Src= (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/2003010811233306?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=2&Src=)

It also happened to one of my friend's father's computer who never even noticed that Norton was not running anymore until I brought it to his attention after seeing his PC. Your computer is unprotected when it happens making it vulnerable to viruses again. It also doesn't allow to uninstall the software to even reinstall after this happens. You have to download a special tool from the Norton website or edit the system registry manually which makes it very difficult to even fix it. Some say that Norton gives better protection than McAfee in general but what good is it if it has a bug that suddenly causes it to turn itself off and cannot be relied for protection when you need it. Any Anti-Virus slows down your PC to an extend but the system resource greedy Norton slows down the PC a lot more than McAfee. I have tried both and the difference is very noticeable. Norton used to be the best previously but now McAfee is much better especially with Windows XP.

[toddiscool]

I did have that problem with 2002, constantly trying work arounds to no avail. Have not had a prob with 2003 though.

[BawA]

if u have zip file or too many file in single folder with mcafee it take time to load that folder but in norton it dosent take time cuz it dosent cheak for virus in zip file which is not needed when u extract it if there is any virus norton catch it


so i think norton is best

[mail2me]

Originally posted by bawa@Klite_user@5 September 2003 - 14:41
if u have zip file or too many file in single folder with mcafee it take time to load that folder but in norton it dosent take time cuz it dosent cheak for virus in zip file which is not needed when u extract it if there is any virus norton catch it


so i think norton is best
IIRC, this can be customized in both under options. Any good anti-virus program will catch an infected file as soon as a file is extracted. I found that just running Norton alone in the background slows down the PC considerably, so it also takes away any advantage that it may have thereafter when checking individual files/folders. In this case however it looks more like a user preference in settings.

[asmithz]

I got say something about the new norton 2004 pro. not norton 2004. It fixed the resouce eating problem. It would take like 10 minuets for to scan my comp with 2003 now it take 1 min.

[Tmpj]

I use Norton AntiVirus 2003, and I love it! :D

Panda AntiVirus Titanium is OK for home users as well! :P

[ultimatejester]

i never used mcafee or ne other antivirus software except nav

[Jay]

norton is all u need

[asmithz]

Originally posted by Jay@5 September 2003 - 17:50
norton is all u need
Yeah really.

Hey 800 post give it up :D lol

[MUSLEMAN]

Originally posted by Shad0w Hacker+5 September 2003 - 20:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shad0w Hacker @ 5 September 2003 - 20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jay@5 September 2003 - 17:50
norton is all u need
Yeah really.

Hey 800 post give it up :D lol [/b][/quote]
only 200 to go now :lol: but i have to still go with mcafee 7.0

[asmithz]

Originally posted by MUSLEMAN+5 September 2003 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MUSLEMAN @ 5 September 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Shad0w Hacker@5 September 2003 - 20:53
<!--QuoteBegin-Jay@5 September 2003 - 17:50
norton is all u need
Yeah really.

Hey 800 post give it up :D lol
only 200 to go now :lol: but i have to still go with mcafee 7.0 [/b][/quote]
Lol :D I am getting mcaffe soon.

[slimboyfatz]

Mcaffee-NO NO NO...screwed up my internet connection (i think their Firewall is a little Duff&#33;&#33;)...
Norton- YES YES YES...had no probs at all with it using NAV 2002/3/4..Just better for system stability and finding Viruses...Use Windows XP&#39;s built in Firewall for extra protection... ;)

[MUSLEMAN]

Originally posted by slimboyfatz@6 September 2003 - 03:22
Mcaffee-NO NO NO...screwed up my internet connection (i think their Firewall is a little Duff&#33;&#33;)...
Norton- YES YES YES...had no probs at all with it using NAV 2002/3/4..Just better for system stability and finding Viruses...Use Windows XP&#39;s built in Firewall for extra protection... ;)
you like norton that is fine but don&#39;t blame the software if you can&#39;t configure it :lol: B)

[asmithz]

Originally posted by MUSLEMAN+6 September 2003 - 00:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MUSLEMAN @ 6 September 2003 - 00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-slimboyfatz@6 September 2003 - 03:22
Mcaffee-NO NO NO...screwed up my internet connection (i think their Firewall is a little Duff&#33;&#33;)...
Norton- YES YES YES...had no probs at all with it using NAV 2002/3/4..Just better for system stability and finding Viruses...Use Windows XP&#39;s built in Firewall for extra protection... ;)
you like norton that is fine but don&#39;t blame the software if you can&#39;t configure it :lol: B) [/b][/quote]
Yeah if you confure it wroung your screwed.

[sharedholder]

Mcaffee-NO NO NO...screwed up my internet connection (i think their Firewall is a little Duff&#33;&#33;)...



And Norton killed my PC&#33;

[Schuler]

Norton Anti Virus has always worked great for me. Systemworks is another story but that irrelevant. The Anti Virus software has worked good and has always caught anything malicious. I&#39;m sure everyone has had their share of problems with each so I say go for what&#39;s easiest to find and has the longest subscription to update virus definitions.

[zapjb]

I have NO mc*ff** on my computer. And I was a longtime Norton devotee. Now the only Norton products I use are Ghost & NU (for WinDoctor). WinDoctor is a killer, killer app. It fixes so much. But now my computer is faster & safer without NAV & NIS (NPF). My solution for a PF is Sygate PF Pro 5.1. My computer is now totally stealthed. When I had NIS, I had a bunch of security holes. With Sygate PF Pro 5.1 I only had to add 1 advanced rule to obtain total stealthness. Sygate PF Pro 5.1 is also much easier on system resources than NIS. Instead of NAV as resident AV. I&#39;m using NOD32, it&#39;s rated higher than NAV & others in independent reviews. Read NOT cnet nor download.com, they are now Norton/Symantec whores. NOD32 takes less than 4mins for a full system scan vs 15mins for NAV & once again is much easier on system resources than NAV. As a NON-resident AV I&#39;m using KAV Pro 4.5. Also using KAV to automatically scan my files downloaded with FlashGet.

[sharedholder]

Read NOT cnet nor download.com, they are now Norton/Symantec whores Right&#33;&#33;

[mogadishu]

norton corporate works for me.. takes up practically no system resources.

[Dale]

i vote for norton B)

[MUSLEMAN]

i have a question for all the norton users, did you guys pay for norton when you got it or did it come bundled up with something or did you download it for free???

[slimboyfatz]

Originally posted by MUSLEMAN+6 September 2003 - 08:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MUSLEMAN @ 6 September 2003 - 08:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-slimboyfatz@6 September 2003 - 03:22
Mcaffee-NO NO NO...screwed up my internet connection (i think their Firewall is a little Duff&#33;&#33;)...
Norton- YES YES YES...had no probs at all with it using NAV 2002/3/4..Just better for system stability and finding Viruses...Use Windows XP&#39;s built in Firewall for extra protection... ;)
you like norton that is fine but don&#39;t blame the software if you can&#39;t configure it :lol: B) [/b][/quote]
Should have said originally..that its Horses for Courses..y&#39;use what u think is best..d&#39;ya think that Mcaffee and Norton are the world leaders for nothing??? :D Personally though Norton has never caused me any trouble..if it aint broke dont fix it&#33;&#33;&#33; ;)

[asmithz]

Originally posted by MUSLEMAN@6 September 2003 - 02:22
i have a question for all the norton users, did you guys pay for norton when you got it or did it come bundled up with something or did you download it for free???
I wont pay for any thing any more of corse i got it free. :D

[Bodasher]

I have tried Pc-cillin which I thought was quite good, but it wouldn&#39;t let me register. I have NAV Corp 8.1 now, which is good, but I don&#39;t like the interface, it&#39;s just not stylish in any way an dit&#39;s a pain to do some things. I have tried NAV 2004, but not Pro, but if I didn&#39;t activate it in 3 days, I wouldn&#39;t have been able to use it. I tried McAfee once aswell, and it didn&#39;t work at all, I kept clicking on the shortcut but nothing happened. It does that with Norton sometimes.
Anyway, whats the difference bettwen NAV 2004 and 2004 Pro?

[asmithz]

Originally posted by Bodasher@6 September 2003 - 05:22
I have tried Pc-cillin which I thought was quite good, but it wouldn&#39;t let me register. I have NAV Corp 8.1 now, which is good, but I don&#39;t like the interface, it&#39;s just not stylish in any way an dit&#39;s a pain to do some things. I have tried NAV 2004, but not Pro, but if I didn&#39;t activate it in 3 days, I wouldn&#39;t have been able to use it. I tried McAfee once aswell, and it didn&#39;t work at all, I kept clicking on the shortcut but nothing happened. It does that with Norton sometimes.
Anyway, whats the difference bettwen NAV 2004 and 2004 Pro?
Norton 2004 is a better version and its trial is 15 days, not 3 that was the beta. In 15 days the crack will be out.

[balamm]

Originally posted by Bodasher@6 September 2003 - 13:22
I have NAV Corp 8.1 now, which is good, but I don&#39;t like the interface, it&#39;s just not stylish in any way an dit&#39;s a pain to do some things.
Do we need stylin antivirus now? Or something that works incredibly efficiently? You only ever open the interface once anyway....

What do you mean it&#39;s hard to do any thing with? Right click, scan file. That&#39;s all there is to it. All updates are fully automatic. Just set the level of heuristics in advanced and never mess with it again&#33;&#33; What could be easier?

By the way, I still have it for direct http if anyone wants it. PM me.

[Bodasher]

What I meant is that it looks crap compared to NAV 2004.

[balamm]

But still... You never see it so... ??

[Snee]

Why do you need cracks of these programs?, isn&#39;t there a free version of AVS or AVG available for download. And that stuff has like the highest pattern update freq. anyway.

[Amarjit]

I&#39;ve only paid for Norton AntiVirus 2002, but it soon expiried, and I really didn&#39;t feel like paying an extra £15 per year so I downloaded 2003 Professional. McAfee has it&#39;s virus definitions updated less (not good) is harder to use and lacks features that Norton has.