Comcast dumps McAfee for Symantec's Norton security suite

[wellofsouls]

Norton is more than a antivirus.

most people don't need those non-antivirus parts of Norton, which are mostly useless anyway...

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

One website's opinion is hardly any indication of universal truth.

[I am Reid]

Because 95% of the users have gone home at that time on Friday ... And shut down the computer.

would it be too much of a task to have all computers automatically boot, run the scan, and then turn off?

[x-byte]

most people don't need those non-antivirus parts of Norton, which are mostly useless anyway...

One website's opinion is hardly any indication of universal truth.

Considering the ones it competed against it should matter. And one sites is more credible than any user here.

And your opinion that other features in Norton is useless isn't any better. For most users it's a much needed feature to have.

would it be too much of a task to have all computers automatically boot, run the scan, and then turn off?

You can, but much more work.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

I wonder how many versions it'll take for people to give Norton a second chance and realise that Symantec have changed their ways. If you were ever in the Beta, you could literally see a build-for-build improvement. Brilliant software now.

[wellofsouls]

Considering the ones it competed against it should matter. And one sites is more credible than any user here.

And your opinion that other features in Norton is useless isn't any better. For most users it's a much needed feature to have.

That's just your opinion, which isn't any better nor any more credible than any user here anyway.

For most users, Norton is antivirus, so non-antivirus features are useless and not needed.

And there are sites (for example ssupdater and co.) that think the AVC is just crap. Ofcourse that's just another site's opinion, just like AVC's opinion...

[x-byte]

I'm not going to argue your opinion. We wont agree anyway.

[Grumpy Old Man]

@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.

Lots of angry Norton fans in this thread it seems. Norton might well be going through a renaissance right now but the fact remains that Norton has been pretty terrible in past versions. It started out as a really good AV but over the years got more and more bloated and buggy. Trust is like virginity, you only lose it once. Norton failed me in the past and caused me problems so now matter how good it is just now I wouldn't go back, not when there are free alternatives which are much better. Granted, not all of the free alternatives are good (AVG used to be good but, like Norton, has become seriously bloated with each new version) but even the worst free AV is marginally better than Norton.

If you love Norton, fine. I just don't see the point in paying for a subscription for something that you can get for free elsewhere.

[vanx]

Trust is like virginity, you only lose it once.

At some point, every AV/IS maker is gonna screw up. It's how they bounce back that speaks a lot. Symantec cleaned up their act with NIS 09 and built on that in 2010. I think it's very reductionist that people have a mindset of a few years ago instead of looking at the facts of today.

If you love Norton, fine. I just don't see the point in paying for a subscription for something that you can get for free elsewhere.

Two things I'd never be a cheapskate on -- an OS and AV/IS. You're not paying money for nothing.

[wellofsouls]

At some point, every AV/IS maker is gonna screw up. It's how they bounce back that speaks a lot. Symantec cleaned up their act with NIS 09 and built on that in 2010. I think it's very reductionist that people have a mindset of a few years ago instead of looking at the facts of today.

Granted, Norton nowadays is no longer trying to be a be-all end-all suite aka. Nero, but it's still far from a clean and slim software like Avira, NOD32, or even MSE, not to even mention its Enterprise siblings like Symantec AV and McAfee Enterprise. I get an antivirus software to protect the system silently at the background, not to gaze at some flashy radar-like graphs and dots that eats up resources for nothing.

Two things I'd never be a cheapskate on -- an OS and AV/IS. You're not paying money for nothing.

not sure about the AV/IS part, but if you are using a free OS like Linux or BSD, you will basically have no need for AV/IS.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

I have to agree that Norton is better than McAfee. There product just looks better and performs better IMO.

Norton is way more user friendly in my books

[vanx]

I get an antivirus software to protect the system silently at the background, not to gaze at some flashy radar-like graphs and dots that eats up resources for nothing.

It is rather unfair to take a product and criticise it because it doesn't fit your requirements, no? NIS 09/10 runs quietly in the background and is very light on resources. Yes, it is rather graphical when it comes to representation of some data, but only if you ask it to show that data.

not sure about the AV/IS part, but if you are using a free OS like Linux or BSD, you will basically have no need for AV/IS.

As you pointed out, it's an "if" scenario. Personally, I wouldn't move to Linux/BSD to save money on OS/AV/IS.

[Growled Member]

If you love Norton, fine. I just don't see the point in paying for a subscription for something that you can get for free elsewhere.

I feel the same way. I'm happy with MSE. I doubt if I would ever go back to a paid version.

[master2k27]

norton is a very good product in lots of ways

[i_was_here]

Norton might well be going through a renaissance right now but the fact remains that Norton has been pretty terrible in past versions.

Emphasis is mine.

I just don't see the point in paying for a subscription for something that you can get for free elsewhere.

I wouldn't pay for it either, but I also don't bash it based on old experiences.

[Grumpy Old Man]

I feel the same way. I'm happy with MSE. I doubt if I would ever go back to a paid version.

The problem I have with Microsoft is that they have a habit of arbitrarily ditching products. I quite liked MSE, but I have no idea how effective it really is. I didn't feel properly secure with it, which is why I switched to Avast 5 when it came out.

[BetaAddict]

The problem I have with Microsoft is that they have a habit of arbitrarily ditching products. I quite liked MSE, but I have no idea how effective it really is. I didn't feel properly secure with it, which is why I switched to Avast 5 when it came out.

This has been my initial thoughts as well, but there are now benchmarks that confirm its effectiveness, placing it among the best free alternatives to paid AV. Only problem is that you have to trust Windows Firewall to provide the other half of the protection, though it should hold majority of the time.

Now with regards to Norton, I vouch for it as the best paid AV software available. It should not be overlooked that I too once thought Norton was crap, but that was 5 years ago. Get over it, ignorant neowinians. Companies change; technology update; products transform. I have been avid Norton user for the past 2 years and have found no other AV that matches it simplicity, aesthetics, and performance. This comes after trying NOD32, Kaspersky, and a bunch of other popular AVs. To see McAfee constantly getting new partnership deals despite their crappy product that has not improved in years is a disgrace. I am really happy to see Comcast came to its senses and will finally offer free Norton 360 for all of its subscribers, including me.

[vanx]

I feel the same way. I'm happy with MSE. I doubt if I would ever go back to a paid version.

Fair enough, if you're happy with MSE. I am, on the other hand, always wary of using free versions of OS, AV/IS and such "serious" software. To me, it matters more if there's money on it. Also, considering that AV software is not Microsoft's traditional market, I am concerned that they'd lack motivation to do a good job. While a lot of people seem to like it, it is yet to shine in lab tests.

Back on topic now... ;)

[barfster]

But Microsoft DO have money riding on the quality of their a/v. Doesn't MSE share the same engines and definitions as their corporate product Forefront Client Security?

Personally I've found MSE definitions to frequently pick up stuff that Symantec Corporate definitions were missing. It does have its faults though, scan speed really is quite atrocious...

Fair enough, if you're happy with MSE. I am, on the other hand, always wary of using free versions of OS, AV/IS and such "serious" software. To me, it matters more if there's money on it. Also, considering that AV software is not Microsoft's traditional market, I am concerned that they'd lack motivation to do a good job. While a lot of people seem to like it, it is yet to shine in lab tests.

Back on topic now... ;)

[bjoswald]

Antivirus software seems to be a "flavor of the week" type of deal these days, but it's nice to know they're putting their best foot forward for the sake of their customers. Of course that's subjective and we all know how touchy people are about AV, but still...

[Pharos]

A client asked me to install Norton 360 for her since she paid big money for a 3-PC license. I felt compelled to skip it and install a free alternative like Avira or even MSE because of all the negative things I heard (and I've always had a horrible experience with Symantec), but then I wouldn't be following my client's request.

So I swallowed my pride, installed Norton 360, and I was really surprised at how well it ran! I feel they are still catching up, but it is a solid piece of software, and I bet their next release will be even better. McAfee though, really is BAD! So good job, Comcast.

[wellofsouls]

Now with regards to Norton, I vouch for it as the best paid AV software available. It should not be overlooked that I too once thought Norton was crap, but that was 5 years ago. Get over it, ignorant neowinians. Companies change; technology update; products transform. I have been avid Norton user for the past 2 years and have found no other AV that matches it simplicity, aesthetics, and performance. This comes after trying NOD32, Kaspersky, and a bunch of other popular AVs. To see McAfee constantly getting new partnership deals despite their crappy product that has not improved in years is a disgrace. I am really happy to see Comcast came to its senses and will finally offer free Norton 360 for all of its subscribers, including me.

So I swallowed my pride, installed Norton 360, and I was really surprised at how well it ran! I feel they are still catching up, but it is a solid piece of software, and I bet their next release will be even better. McAfee though, really is BAD! So good job, Comcast.

It seems many Norton fans are also McAfee bashers. Granted I've not used a McAfee product for five months, but for the past three years where the company I worked for used McAfee Enterprise, it's quite solid, and version 8.0 to 8.5 to 8.7 are always improving, and it usually catches more virus (and other suspicious stuffs) than Symantec AV.

[BetaAddict]

It seems many Norton fans are also McAfee bashers. Granted I've not used a McAfee product for five months, but for the past three years where the company I worked for used McAfee Enterprise, it's quite solid, and version 8.0 to 8.5 to 8.7 are always improving, and it usually catches more virus (and other suspicious stuffs) than Symantec AV.

Mcafee Enterprise is an entirely different product marketed for businesses and is not available for the typical consumer. I am not even going to argue with you on this and will go out on a limb to say McAfee Enterprise is one of the best business AVs out there that you will probably find installed by many, if not majority, of major corporations. However, when speaking about consumer products, McAfee is horrible in comparison to Symantec/Norton AV or other alternatives.

[wellofsouls]

Mcafee Enterprise is an entirely different product marketed for businesses and is not available for the typical consumer. I am not even going to argue with you on this and will go out on a limb to say McAfee Enterprise is one of the best business AVs out there that you will probably find installed by many, if not majority, of major corporations. However, when speaking about consumer products, McAfee is horrible in comparison to Symantec/Norton AV or other alternatives.

well, both Symantec AV and McAfee Enterprise are business AVs, and both are far superior to their home version siblings. I do think the home version of McAfee is quite bad, even worse than Norton AV depending on editions, but it's still quite absurd to say Norton is the best AV out there. Even the AVC comparison, which gave Norton the AV of 2009 award, showed that Norton is not the best in catching malware nor performance, it seems they rated Norton highest for some secondary functionalities like speed of on-demand scan (okay, faster speed is nice, but its importance should come WAY after malware catching ability, after all, when users perform a whole system scan, they want the system clean, not whether it takes 30 minutes or 50 minutes to finish the scan), non-antivirus features (another thing that should come WAY after malware catching ability, since people are buying an AV software), and UI aesthetics (errr... this should come WAY WAY after all other features, as long as the UI is functional)

I do agree that Norton has improved in recent years, but I still find it hard to recommend it over AVIRA, NOD32, etc. if it's an AV software you are looking for.

It is rather unfair to take a product and criticise it because it doesn't fit your requirements, no? NIS 09/10 runs quietly in the background and is very light on resources. Yes, it is rather graphical when it comes to representation of some data, but only if you ask it to show that data.

I'd bet most people who want to buy an AV software would have their primary requirements to be protecting their system as best and silently as possible.

As you pointed out, it's an "if" scenario. Personally, I wouldn't move to Linux/BSD to save money on OS/AV/IS.

My point is that Linux/BSD is not "cheapstake" compared to paid alternatives.

[rawr_boy81]

It seems many Norton fans are also McAfee bashers. Granted I've not used a McAfee product for five months, but for the past three years where the company I worked for used McAfee Enterprise, it's quite solid, and version 8.0 to 8.5 to 8.7 are always improving, and it usually catches more virus (and other suspicious stuffs) than Symantec AV.

Bashing denotes an irrational hatred towards something - McAfee and Norton earned the scorn because for over a decade they've shovelled crap not only on the market as 'the product to have' but also through OEM channels via crapware.

I've got two machines both loaded with Microsoft's own malware and anti-virus installed since it came out - not a single virus I have had and not a single notable situation of slow down because of its presence.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Bashing denotes an irrational hatred towards something - McAfee and Norton earned the scorn because for over a decade they've shovelled crap not only on the market as 'the product to have' but also through OEM channels via crapware.

I've got two machines both loaded with Microsoft's own malware and anti-virus installed since it came out - not a single virus I have had and not a single notable situation of slow down because of its presence.

A lack of viruses on one's computer doesn't necessarily mean the AV is doing a good job; it can also mean the user is intelligent enough to avoid dodgy websites and files which will give them a virus. I know people who click on anything on a website simply "because it was flashing". Using AV software is really secondary to common sense.

I still think McAfee and Norton suck though. And so does AVG these days; it's getting increasingly bloated with each new version.