maxey13
Premium
join:2001-06-02
Anderson, IN
1 edit | McAfee Security Suite from Comcast . Is it ok ?
My anti virus is expiring and i'm thinking about free McAfee from Comcast. I haven't seen any posts in awhile. Is everyone finding it is running ok now?
Thanks Dennis |
|
MADx
join:2005-05-25
Richmond, IN
1 edit | See for your self 
»www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/e···8_11.php |
|
ablickle
join:2002-01-24
Norcross, GA | reply to maxey13
I am running it on all of my computers without issues. I'd say give it a try, you'll like it just fine. If not, uninstall and you're still not out any money. |
|
FicmanS
Premium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | reply to maxey13
It's a good free option, would not be my first choice. Getting it uninstalled can be a challenge, gets a little confused every now and then. Average coverage in my book...
|
|
Puffnstuff
join:2008-04-12
Jacksonville, FL | reply to maxey13
I've noticed that is has problems with steam and causes security center to think that no firewall or av is present. If you don't use steam then you should be fine. I just ignore the message and do my thing with it. |
|
helter
join:2007-09-11
Silverdale, WA | reply to maxey13
If you have the CPU and ram to spare, it is fine otherwise, download.com try out avast or AVG. |
|
huyvu
join:2001-03-25 | reply to maxey13
Helter is spot on. I uninstalled it due to the overhead required to run it (the pay version is better). I'm running Avast at home. |
|
wenter99
Alpha Male
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to maxey13
I'd say McAfee Security Suite is OK too. I've been using it for nearly 5 years along with a daily Windows Defender scan. The combination of both of those freebies have kept 2 machines clean so far.
On the downside it is a drag on resources (as noted by others above) while it's scanning and it updates a couple of times a day some days. |
|
inferno
join:2008-07-06 | Garbage in my opinion. Avast! (home version) is the best antivirus out there.. did I mention its free?  |
|
crf250r
@comcast.net | reply to maxey13
mcafee is a no no in my book.. its HIGH on system sorces, iow it uses alot of your cpu/memory so its a system hog.. and it doesnt even do a good job.. like mentioned avg or avast will do ALOT better |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to maxey13
I won't have anything McAfee (or Norton) on any computer I own, or maintain. Free, or otherwise. I have used both in the past, and they were the source of much cursing and tooth-gnashing.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
maxey13
Premium
join:2001-06-02
Anderson, IN
·Insight Communicat..
| reply to maxey13
Thanks for all the replies. I asked the question because I had McAfee several years ago and it slowed my computer way down and when I tried to get rid of it it was a mess. I was hoping something had changed. I have 2 grandkids that are very active steam players also. I think i'll give Avast a try first then change to Mcafee if that doesnt work.
Thank you
Dennis |
|
anon6582471
@in.us | reply to maxey13
This isnt 1998 with our 400 mhz pentium 2's...
If you have a dual core box and 2 gig of ram... which you should have anyway considering the price... you wont even notice its running... |
|
CUBS_FAN
Next Year Again..
join:2005-04-28
Chicago, IL | McAfee is resource hog and is constantly scanning. Virus Scan Enterprise 8.0.0 is installed on a work P.C and is currently consuming 105,344K in memory usage. I use Avira free  |
|
andyross
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
1 edit | said by CUBS_FAN  :McAfee is resource hog and is constantly scanning. Virus Scan Enterprise 8.0.0 is installed on a work P.C and is currently consuming 105,344K in memory usage. I use Avira free Enterprise 8.5 and 8.7 supposedly have smaller memory footprints. Alot of memory may not be a bad thing. If it's used to cache scanning of files, it can speed things up by not having to always rescan a file if it doesn't change. |
|
andyross
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :I won't have anything McAfee (or Norton) on any computer I own, or maintain. Free, or otherwise. I have used both in the past, and they were the source of much cursing and tooth-gnashing. A recent article tested some of the slowdowns by various virus packages. The newest Norton's was actually one of the better ones. I think McAfee was average. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | The issue wasn't "slowness", but the mangling of the file system. |
|
JahsDisciple
Living my life like it's golden
Premium
join:2007-07-07
Baltimore, MD | reply to maxey13
not a McAfee fan. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to maxey13
also not a McAfee fan... POS software, bad detection rates, system resource hog, etc.. The Comcast free ver is even worse.
I have been using Norton's latest (AV2008 / AV2009) with good results and much lower resource usage then older ones. It has excellent detection rates and updates at least daily.
Personally I don't trust the 'free' AVs as there is no real guarantee on them catching anything. With that said, I've used avg and it did seem to work ok and was system light.
bottom line is to use a quality, trused AV. In my case I choose Norton AV (not NIS or 360).
||done
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com |
|
CUBS_FAN
Next Year Again..
join:2005-04-28
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
·Vonage
| reply to andyross
said by andyross :said by CUBS_FAN :McAfee is resource hog and is constantly scanning. Virus Scan Enterprise 8.0.0 is installed on a work P.C and is currently consuming 105,344K in memory usage. I use Avira free Enterprise 8.5 and 8.7 supposedly have smaller memory footprints. Alot of memory may not be a bad thing. If it's used to cache scanning of files, it can speed things up by not having to always rescan a file if it doesn't change. Installed over 8.0 with 8.5i and Mcshield.exe is now consuming 49,112K which is about half of what 8.0 was. That's better but still higher than Avira. |
|
