Which is the best? I need to buy one this weekend. Warren
There are much better av packages around, I can recommend Kaspersky personal pro, or AVG free version, which IMHO out-perform both McAfee / Norton.
Friend of mine just paid £49.99 for McAfee Internet Security Suite. Despite the best efforts of myself and another friend, both of us reasonably PC savvy, we couldn't get the bloody thing to work and finished up putting in AVG free and Zone Alarm free. I personally use Norton Internet Security and am happy with it despite all the criticism Norton gets in these groups.
(Warren Barr) wrote in @storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net: Here are a few freebees that are pretty good- http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004SECURITY.php#Anti-Virus
I use NIS 2004 and if anyone here thinks it's crap I give you permission to hack in to my, either put-up or shut up. LJ
Both are good but Norton's TSR has a tendency to conflict with a lot of software where I have never seen Mcafee conflict with anything. Beware of Nortons Internet security stuff, if you ever change your network setup you will have a nightmare on your hands.
Neither, IMHO. Get Etrust EZ-Antivirus, from www.CA.com or Get the free Avast! home user version Antivirus from www.avast.com. Neither of these two clog up your computer with massive bloatware that Norton and Mcafee have become.
Whether it's hackable isn't the issue. It's crap because it's bloatware, and it's like dropping a 500 pound weight on your computer once installed. The shit is almost as bad as some spyware when it comes to the typical performance hit.
Works great for me and many, many millions other of customers. It's a good and stable firewall, doesn't really matter what you think but I thought you would add your two cents. LJ
If you were a technician who works on many different computers, you would most likely think otherwise after dealing with the messes these Norton suites routinely cause.
Just removed Norton System Works from a customer PC last night. They had some minor spyware problems, and the fine, ignorant people from OfficeMax recommended that they install NSW. Well they had an HP 1.8Ghz Athlon PC, running XP Home, but being one of those bargain basement off-the-shelf models, it only had 128MB of RAM and the video was eating 8MB of that. So you can imagine that it didn't run very well even in the best case scenario. Once they put NSW on the thing, it practically brought it to a screeching halt. It went from being annoyingly slow, to virtually unusable. Even though it didn't really have enough memory, it only serves to illustrate the huge overhead Norton puts on a PC these days. An antivirus program shouldn't be that burdensome. They are getting a memory upgrade to 384MB as soon as the module from Crucial arrives, but they aren't putting NSW back on that machine after seeing just how much of a load(of crap) it really is. I put Avast on it, and you could barely notice a difference in performance with, or without it, even at 128MB. Why the hell Norton needs to be so bloated and burdensome, escapes me. Other antivirus programs have amply demonstrated that an AV program need not be such a big drain on system performance to do the job of protecting against viruses worms and trojans. ...
I've been using NIS for a while and haven't had 1 problem what so ever, before I installed SP2 you was warning everyone don't do it, haven't had any problems with that either. LJ
Norton. I get more new customers because of Norton than McAfee. Have a nice one... Trent Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876!
I *LOVE* Norton!!! Between Norton and XP SP2, I should be in business for a LONG time. Things have really been hectic the last coupla months. lol Have a nice one... Trent Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876!
Yes you did warn people not to install it. But at least I've give you something to ramble 3 pages about again. See I did exaggerate then. (It was 2 pages Still haven't had any problems with SP2 Though. LJ
"I merely suggested that it is prudent and sensible to wait at least a couple weeks and see what kinds of problems it causes" That isn't encouraging people to install SP2 now is it. LJ
LOL! Suggesting a bit of a precautionary wait and outright recommending that no one install it, period, are two totally different things, Dumbass. And it was in reply to your idiotic and shortsighted posts, not someone else who hadn't yet installed SP2. Evidently your narrow mind cannot encompass the difference.
