Norton AntiVirus 2004 vs. McAfee AntiVirus 8.0

[Dane2003]

Norton AntiVirus 2004

Symantec Corp. - Website

$49.95 Direct (Download and Package) - Upgrade Rebate Available

Version 10.0

Symantecs Norton AntiVirus 2004 is easily the best AntiVirus out there. It features out of the box protection. It automatically cleans infected files. It protects almost all of the major instant messengers (AIM, MSN/Windows, Yahoo! - No ICQ Protection). The software contains tamper protection...If software try's to shut it off or it shuts down for an unknown reason, you'll be alerted and it will correct itself. The AutoProtect agent takes up very little resources and has very little impact on system performance. When it scans a file, a toast window will open telling you what it is scanning and gives you the option to stop the scan. The software also detects Malicious scripts and blocks them from your computer. Also detects Spyware. The software by default will schedule a weekly scan Fridays at 8PM, easily changeable via the Windows Scheduler. This software DOES contain Activation.

My Personal Tests

I threw 3 known viruses, 1 unknown virus, and the test string at it, and here is the result I got.

W32.Sasser.A -- Detected

W32.Blaster.A -- Detected

W32.Annoying.Worm -- Detected Note: This is an MSN Messenger virus which has the purpose to spread. MSN Messenger Protection was tested and worked on this file.

Unknown Virus One (Generic Backdoor J) -- NOT DETECTED Highest Level of Bloodhound detection used and this Unknown virus was not detected by the software, Classified as Generic Backdoor J when I submitted it to McAfee.

Test String -- DETECTED

McAfee AntiVirus 8.0

McAfee Corp. - Website

$39.99 (Annual Subscription), $49.99 (Download), $59.99 (Package) - Direct Prices - Upgrade Rebate Available - NOTE: Software comes free with MSN Internet Service

Version 8.0

McAfee's AntiVirus gives Norton a run for its money. It has very competitive features. It offers Powerful Instant Messenger Scanning (For Windows, Yahoo and AIM). It automatically cleans viruses and it detects spyware. The software also scans incoming/outgoing emails, and updates silently and automatically. Also, the software can submit files to its A.V.E.R.T. (AntiVirus Emergency Response Team) Center. What I dont like is how it says that its Email Scanning and Submit to A.V.E.R.T. features are new, they've been available for quite some time now.

My Personal Tests

I threw 3 known viruses, 1 unknown virus, and the test string at it, and here is the result I got.

W32.Sasser.A -- Detected

W32.Blaster.A -- Detected

W32.Annoying.Worm -- Detected Note: This is an MSN Messenger virus which has the purpose to spread. MSN Messenger Protection was tested and worked on this file.

Unknown Virus One (Generic Backdoor J) -- DETECTED Advanced detection was enabled and did detect this new virus.

Test String -- DETECTED

Compare them

Comparing them together they both look the same, but heres my comments. Although they both have generally the same features, Norton AntiVirus 2004 is my pick due to its More Customizable interface, Preferences Password Protection, Automatic Tamper Protection, etc. McAfee contains a less customizable Preferences panel.

As promised...Norton AntiVirus 2005 Preview

No official information has been released, but from what i've been told it will contain better threat detection, a revised interface, and a new updater. Again, non of this is confirmed.

EXTRA! EXTRA! SCREENSHOTS!

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=182025&st=0&

Edited June 24, 2004 by Dane2003

[shrike]

I think Norton has turned out like Microsoft. Prides themself on being the best, so when something goes wrong it's the worst thing in the world.

They try and only do something when they're 100% sure it's right, otherwise it's not worth it.

Unlike open source.

I was on Mandrake 10 the other day, and KDE has a wallpaper saying that it's bug free* (*almost), or something. THis is good, it admits that they've got problems, but atleast they know about them and are doing something about it.

The big monopoly companies just tend to ignore what they can't do something 100% to fix it.

NOTE: this thread wasn't intended to start a big Microsoft vs. Open Source discussion. Clearly McAfee isn't Open Source. It's only about how the major, MAJOR, companies get too big for their own good.

[+virtorio MVC]

I personally think both Norton and McAfee anti-virus solutions are overrated.

The only reason why Norton is so well known is because its bundled free with millions of machines, and years ago McAfee used to be the best but now, very mediocre. Both are pathetically resource hungry, and in recent times Symantec products have become vulnerable to a number of flaws.

Both have acceptable detection rates, but I personally think Kaspersky AntiVirus, Nod32 or (to a lesser extent) F-Secure are far better products.

Just my opnion.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Another thing to keep in mind is that these year is both McAfee's and Norton's worst products yet. Neither made any real enhancements to the underlying engine but changed alot of things on top and threw it out at the public.

On Norton's side you have thier new DRM and a subpar spyware capability.

On McAfee's side they rebuilt the thing on ActiveX which results in a horrible interface, and they cut alot of the more power user options from VS 7.1.

In both situations I think that the 2003 version of Norton and the 7.1 version of McAfee are superior to thier present products, however between Norton and McAfee I think McAfee is far better than norton when it comes to actual detection rates, and that in my opinion is more important than an interface.

[Dane2003]

First Off (virtorio): NOD32 was the worst and failed PC Labs (PC Magazine's) Virus Tests.

Second, McAfee's new version has a VERY complex panel of preferences and navigation, I quite agree that 7.1 is better. As for Norton, I think that 2004 has enough new things (Spyware Protection, New Virus Alerts, Advanced Detection [More expanded threats], DRM, etc.). And I wouldnt call Digital Rights Management a bad thing, they have the most pirated product line.

[+virtorio MVC]

First Off (virtorio): NOD32 was the worst and failed PC Labs (PC Magazine's) Virus Tests.

I have seen other tests and have had experence with both that can proove otherwise.

One such source would be from here http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?

Another one is PC Magazines own web site, which gives Nod32 4/5 (with a user rating of 5/5), and has nothing bad at all to say about it. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,978452,00.asp)

But your welcome to your opnion.

[Premgenius]

If I'm correct Norton AV 2004 is not for corporate use but home, for corporate it's Symantec AV 9.0 unless you tested that this is a unfair review because you are comparing two diffrent products from two diffrent catergories.

Symantec's and McAfee corporate AV are very good.

Also NAV2005 preview is not really a sneak preview we dont have screenshots or anything else to prove that.

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

Norton AV 2002 is better than 2004 I find ;)

Corporate ones are good too ;)

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

He compared the correct two products Norton 2004 and Virusscan 8, he just listed Symanted Corporation as Norton's website(correctly I might add) that's all.

[AQUaDeX]

always used McAfee, always liked it (and the fact I get free copies from them lol)

[Samoa]

Nav corp personal choice.

[Premgenius]

He compared the correct two products Norton 2004 and Virusscan 8, he just listed Symanted Corporation as Norton's website(correctly I might add) that's all.

I've cheked the site and he has named the products slightly incorrectly....sorry for the earlier post

[Rek]

yucky programs both laggy

*hugs AVG*

Anyway great review

[Rahul]

i use norotn 2002 updated to the hilt ( coz its very light on the resources ) ,

anyways loved ur sneaq peek of norton 2005 ( lol) real short & sweet :p

[Stivoo]

Norton AV 2002 is better than 2004 I find ;)

Corporate ones are good too ;)

Yeeah NAV 2002 is better.... i Agree :)

[kombolcha]

used to be a mcafee user until i had a lot of a software problems, then switched to NIS 2002 which is probably the best i ever had, now i run Norton System Works 2004

[McGazza]

used to be a mcafee user until i had a lot of a software problems, then switched to NIS 2002 which is probably the best i ever had, now i run Norton System Works 2004

Norton Antivirus 2004 takes up too many resourses and memory. It is "In Your Face" all the time with its massive alert box unlike 2002 and 2003. I must try McAfee though. I use NAV 2002 with Norton Systemworks 2004 lol and it seems to run better does anyone agree? Anyway there doesnt seem to be anything too new with 2004 except for its Adware detection and "View the list of virus i am protected against" option removed. :)

[kombolcha]

doesn't bother too too much, but i'm def going to to buy 2005, i hear its going to be way better

[mzkhadir]

McAfee 7.0 all the way, have it on 4 computers and works great. When Norton went down last year, I had to reinstall windows xp.

[Brandon]

i still use NSW and NAV 2002.. works fine for me.. never had a virus in my life

[Bubbabyte]

both of them completely suck, for reasons already mentioned... like resources and such, and mainly because they coudl care less about most trojan or worm virus's, occasionaly they will detect them, but will do nothing but tell you it cannot be fixed or repaired, so you end up going to their site and finding a removal tool, which is fine, if you dont mind doing the work that the software you purchased should have done.

Your best bet is KasperSky or my personal favorite... Panda..

[Veedems Veteran]

I used to love Norton, but both Mcafee's and Norton's latest product use way too many cpu cycles when I go to run ANYTHING on my system. I don't want to see their processes jump to 70% when I try to open Fx. Norton 2003 never did this and Mcafee's earlier versions didn't either.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well actually McAfee detects far more trojans than any other AV with the exception of Kaspersky, it also has a superior unpacking engine than most AV's and a superior memory scanner than most AV's.

McAfee's been a top notch AV detection wise since 6, is consistently one of the most robust AV programs out thier, and second in detection to Kaspersky alone. To say that McAfee's detection rates are sub par is a flat out lie.

If you don't like McAfee because of thier reputation, or because it didn't work on your system, or a past experience than fine, but you can not call it a sub par product in the detection department.

On another note I find people's hang up's over interfaces in an anti virus rather amusing. I don't know about you but I don't open and play with my anti virus settings every day. This isn't windows you don't stare at you anti virus' config screen all day, what the hell does it matter if the one day you had to set it up it looks like crap or is a little complex? Once you set it up you're done.

Another weird thing I've started to notice is peoples hang up's about system performance. People champion Nod32 and AVG as champions of little resource usage but don't you realize that they had to sacrifice things to get them to run that fast? You know a good on acess scanner with excellent unpacking abilities doesn't come cheap performance wise, there's a reason Kaspersky uses alot of resources while AVG doesn't. If all of you are so worried about system resources why don't you just stop getting on the internet?

That said McAfee VS 7.1 is better than 8 and Norton 2003 is better than 2004 as I said earlier.

[andi_kam]

anyone else got any more info on norton internet security 2005, or rumours etc, links etc..

[em_te]

On McAfee's side they rebuilt the thing on ActiveX which results in a horrible interface, and they cut alot of the more power user options from VS 7.1.

Norton Antivirus is also guilty of that. And I think it is a huge step back as I am now unable to lock down the computer by disabling ActiveX without affecting the virus scanner.

Another thing I dislike about them both is their heavy integration with the Windows registry. It makes installation and deinstallation problematic. I had to resort to downloading AVG on my friends comp because the initial installation of NAV screwed up and left it in a semi-installed state inwhich I could neither install nor deinstall it.