Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| reply to spenster
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 |
|
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| reply to Foxbat121
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 | reply to KoolMoe
How about worked in AV industry for years in the past and attened many AV conferences?
Foxbat |
|
