uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO | -yawn- Ehh, I never liked McAffee anyways.. Gimme Norton AV anytime.
--
Someone set up us the bomb! | |
|
 Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: -yawn- Thank you! | |
|
Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Norton AV is just as useless as McAffee. | |
|
 |
uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: -yawn- said by Foxbat121:
Norton AV is just as useless as McAffee.
They're more effective than McAffee... I like Norton.. plus I like F-Secure back when they were called F-Prot  Again, my WWiV BBS sysop roots show...
--
Someone set up us the bomb! | |
|
| | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: -yawn- I beg the diff. In the AV industry, NAV ranked bottom. The only thing Norton has is good marketing machine.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 16:41:35] | |
|
| | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs: | Re: -yawn- ranking reference? supporting info?
I've been an avid user of Symantec products for many years now. I think their stuff is (largely) top-notch. If you're going to make such damning statements, please provide references.
KM | |
|
| | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Re: -yawn- How about worked in AV industry for years in the past and attened many AV conferences?
Foxbat | |
|
| | | | | 
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| Re: -yawn- So you've worked in the industry for years... wonderful. Do you have data to back up your statements? I can say I've worked in the industry for years just like you, but that doesn't mean anything.
For what it's worth, I've seen first hand the difference between McAfee and NAV. I was getting tired of having to constantly repair issues caused by McAfee "updates". Numerous pc's no longer booting, GPFs, illegal operations, and numerous others. Not to mention the thousands of infected files that were found on machines where McAfee (with updates that lived) had been removed and NAV installed. McAfee just hasn't been able to keep up like they once were able to do. I've also noticed a growing number of OEMs that used to distribute McAfee as part of the software bundles but now offer NAV instead.
Face it, they just aren't what they used to be. | |
|
| | | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: -yawn- If you read my other posts, I'm not interested using any of them. I'm not implicating McAfee is better than NAV.
And when I'm talking about the ranking, I'm not talking about free of bug or easy of use, I'm talking about how effective the product doing its job -- blocking the virus if you still remember what you need that in the first place.
It's the technology behind the product and how many viruses it can catch. As for the problem you encountered, read a few post down, someone had the similar issue with NAV as well.
If you like, I can sell you an 'anti-virus product' that so easy to use and deploy, never crash and update itself every day, except it never catch any real virus. But you don't really worry about that, right?
Foxbat | |
|
| | redleaf
join:2000-09-12
| F-Prot ruled! Free and thorough.
As for Norton, they're good precisely because of their ease of use (I don't remember the last time I saw an ad for them.) Whenever someone asks about a good AV program the next question is usually is it easy to use. The AV program is useless if the user is scared to update it.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 18:32:11] | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Ever see the muck norton makes out of your registry? you have to format and reload to get that 'virus' out. I prefer AVP | |
|
|
|
|
