Comcast dumps McAfee for Symantec's Norton security suite


Recommended Posts

Comcast dumps McAfee for Symantec's Norton security suite

05:44 PM Jan 20, 2010

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/01/comcast-dumps-mcafee-for-symantecs-norton-360/1

http://security.comcast.net/norton/resi/?CID=NET_33_248

Sally Jenkins is VP of consumer marketing at Symantec.

Courtesy Symantec:

Antivirus giant Symantec just announced a big triumph over rival McAfee. Starting today, Symantec's Norton Security Suite will begin replacing McAfee's antivirus service for some 15.7 million home and business subscribers to Comcast's high-speed Internet service.

The revenue boost for Symantec -- and loss for McAfee -- is a big number. Comcast will pay Symantec an undisclosed amount for delivering ongoing Norton protection for up to seven PCs for each of Comcast's 15.7 million broadband subscribers.

Comcast subscribers will now get a version of Norton Security Suite similar to the one Symantec sells online or at Best Buy for $79.95 a year, says Sally Jenkins, vice president of consumer marketing. She declined to disclose how much Comcast agreed to pay Symantec for protecting up to seven PCs per Comcast household, which could total as many as 110 million computers.

"It's a huge win and a great win," says Jenkins. "We're very excited. McAfee was the incumbent and we have displaced them with this new partnership with Comcast."

Jenkins notes that Symantec has similar supplier deals with ISPs Earthlink and UOL in the U.S.; T-Home and 1&1 in Germany; and Emobile in Japan.

Doesn't really matter, as both McAfee and Norton are junk. Why use this? Oh, right, for the illusion of safety, as these all have the multitude of green indicators for "you are protected" and so on. Most of us in the know, we'll continue to use the lighter and always FREE alternatives.

Replacing junk with different junk. Lol!

I'm a PC Tech and a lot my customers use what Comcast provides because they feel they're paying for it or something. I hate both McAfee and Norton and tell my customers as such. I don't use any virus protection since I know what I'm doing but if I were to use something, I'd probably use like AVG or Antvir for real-time scanning with MBAM (Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware) for on-demand scanning. All free and in my opinion better than McAfee, Norton, or most AVs out there.

@mzta cody

1. Do you have anything better to do than bash Symantec? NAV has supposed gotten much better.

2. So you don't think the lighter and free alternatives have green indicators too? And Im sure free AVs have the "illusion of safety" as well. For example maybe on a computer running MSE a piece of malware goes undetected but then you switch to avast and it detects it.

Doesn't really matter, as both McAfee and Norton are junk. Why use this? Oh, right, for the illusion of safety, as these all have the multitude of green indicators for "you are protected" and so on. Most of us in the know, we'll continue to use the lighter and always FREE alternatives.

Replacing junk with different junk. Lol!

I agree with you 100%. I will tell you this true story:

I work for the cable company here in Central Florida and I am a PC Tech for them. The other day I went to a customer home to fix an internet issue. Customer was complaining that she couldn't connect to the internet and was of course blaming our service and equipment. When I got there, she had a brand new PC with Norton Internet Security 2010. Up to date and with a subscription valid until 2011. I checked our stuff and everything was fine. Then I opened her Norton and scanned her PC and Norton said there was nothing. That her PC was clean. So I went ahead and installed Malwarebytes and scanned her PC with it. Guess what?

Malwarebytes found 247 infected objects, some from Rogue Software (they make that fake antivirus called Antivirus 2009) and a lot of backdoor and other trojans. So what does this tell you? Very simple: Norton sucks. The little green lights that tell you "you are now safe" mean nothing, like you said.

I was able to remove the infected objects with Malwarebytes and guess what? Her computer was back to normal. I told her to get a real antivirus such as NOD32.

I agree with you 100%. I will tell you this true story:

I work for the cable company here in Central Florida and I am a PC Tech for them. The other day I went to a customer home to fix an internet issue. Customer was complaining that she couldn't connect to the internet and was of course blaming our service and equipment. When I got there, she had a brand new PC with Norton Internet Security 2010. Up to date and with a subscription valid until 2011. I checked our stuff and everything was fine. Then I opened her Norton and scanned her PC and Norton said there was nothing. That her PC was clean. So I went ahead and installed Malwarebytes and scanned her PC with it. Guess what?

Malwarebytes found 247 infected objects, some from Rogue Software (they make that fake antivirus called Antivirus 2009) and a lot of backdoor and other trojans. So what does this tell you? Very simple: Norton sucks. The little green lights that tell you "you are now safe" mean nothing, like you said.

I was able to remove the infected objects with Malwarebytes and guess what? Her computer was back to normal. I told her to get a real antivirus such as NOD32.

lol whatever

So many ignorant Norton bashers. Not surprising that they switched Norton is a really good product now.? ?

it took long enough to fix up their damn product. Mind you, why waste your time when you can get the Microsoft antivirus for free?

it took long enough to fix up their damn product. Mind you, why waste your time when you can get the Microsoft antivirus for free?

So you trust Microsoft for your Anti Virus, you're braver than I thought!!!!

So you trust Microsoft for your Anti Virus, you're braver than I thought!!!!

what evidence fo you have that symantec or mcafee would be better? The illusion that because you've paid an arm and a leg it magically makes it better?

10 years of crap, CPU hogging, instability cause garbage products gives them a better reputation when compared to a couple of years bad luck experienced microsoft? Lord help is from your wisdom!

what evidence fo you have that symantec or mcafee would be better? The illusion that because you've paid an arm and a leg it magically makes it better?

10 years of crap, CPU hogging, instability cause garbage products gives them a better reputation when compared to a couple of years bad luck experienced microsoft? Lord help is from your wisdom!

Well, you could take a look at this report which gives the 2009 summary of A/V products. Symantec does have the product of the year 2009. Not to say that it is perfect, but they have improved quite a lot. However, having mentioned that, MSE is in its own right a brilliant product, and I am confident it will keep getting better.

AV Comparatives

From my experience, the Home versions of both Norton and McAfee are quite bloated and crappy, but the business versions (Symantec AV and McAfee Enterprise) are quite solid, slim and fast, offering good protection and management capabilities.

At work we run Symantec Enterprise. We still have to run AntiMalwareBytes and SUPERantispyware to clean machines. Symantec seems to only catch (some times) Virii, never catches any spyware.

Also we called it the "Wednesday slowdown" when the AV kicks off at noon and runs the PC:s so hard they are damn near unusable. These are XP SP3 machines with ONLY office 2007, and Symantec with 3.4GHz and 2GB of RAM being brought to a halt by Symantec ever Wed at noon. Sadly this is the new Endpoint version too.

At work we run Symantec Enterprise. We still have to run AntiMalwareBytes and SUPERantispyware to clean machines. Symantec seems to only catch (some times) Virii, never catches any spyware.

Also we called it the "Wednesday slowdown" when the AV kicks off at noon and runs the PC:s so hard they are damn near unusable. These are XP SP3 machines with ONLY office 2007, and Symantec with 3.4GHz and 2GB of RAM being brought to a halt by Symantec ever Wed at noon. Sadly this is the new Endpoint version too.

well, all Anti-Virus software will slow down the system when it's doing on-demand scanning. That's why on-demand scans are usually set at lunch time when people don't need to use the PCs.

The problem about the Home versions is that they slow down the system even when it's not doing on-demand scanning. :shiftyninja:

Last company I worked for used McAfee Enterprise with Antispyware module. And it seems it catches all kind of stuffs, and may be even a bit too much in removing "potentially unwanted programs". I have to set a special exlusion folder to store my security analysis tools. We didn't have any virus/spyware problem, but for the normal employees, they can't do much besides surfing the web and working with MS Office, anything remotely suspicious will be promptly deleted, which may be what the boss wanted anyway. :shiftyninja:

it took long enough to fix up their damn product. Mind you, why waste your time when you can get the Microsoft antivirus for free?

Norton is more than a antivirus.

You can polish a turn only so much, and in the end it's still a turd.

If you look at the antivirus product of 2009 as a turd then the problem might be you.

At work we run Symantec Enterprise. We still have to run AntiMalwareBytes and SUPERantispyware to clean machines. Symantec seems to only catch (some times) Virii, never catches any spyware.

Also we called it the "Wednesday slowdown" when the AV kicks off at noon and runs the PC:s so hard they are damn near unusable. These are XP SP3 machines with ONLY office 2007, and Symantec with 3.4GHz and 2GB of RAM being brought to a halt by Symantec ever Wed at noon. Sadly this is the new Endpoint version too.

why wednesday at noon and not say a friday at 5pm, or pretty much anytime in the middle of the night or weekend?

If you look at the antivirus product of 2009 as a turd then the problem might be you.

No, the problem is with people discounting the opinions of others simply because they don't agree with what's been posted. It seems to be the norm here on Neowin.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!