Comcast dumps McAfee for Symantec's Norton security suite

[vanx]

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.

Sure, Norton AV/IS 2010 does that. The "silently" part isn't always a good thing though. You need to bear in mind that AV/IS is a piece of software, not a person who sits there and decides for you how to set things up and whether or not make you aware of something.

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

Whether free or not, Linux/BSD aren't good enough for most consumers and price is always a factor.

[thaphoenix]

Everyone has an opinion and the simple fact is everyone has their own choice and then live with their choice. As I am in the pc repair industry I can say with proof day after day that both norton and mcafee suck when it comes down to keeping a persons pc clean of infections. take any pc with those programs running and install AVG.malwarebytes and see how many items they find that the others did not, the last decent version of norton was 2003, its all be junk since. the majority of the computer users out there have 256 - 512 mb of ram in their pcs and these programs bring those to their knee's. just because my opinion is they both suck is not bashing, its justified through yrs of working with them.

[wellofsouls]

Sure, Norton AV/IS 2010 does that. The "silently" part isn't always a good thing though. You need to bear in mind that AV/IS is a piece of software, not a person who sits there and decides for you how to set things up and whether or not make you aware of something.

so why did you say "it is rather unfair to take a product and criticise it because it doesn't fit your requirements", when my requirement is exactly what most people who want to buy an AV software have as their primary requirements.

Whether free or not, Linux/BSD aren't good enough for most consumers and price is always a factor.

yes price is always a factor, and for the same performance, cheaper is better.

[vanx]

so why did you say "it is rather unfair to take a product and criticise it because it doesn't fit your requirements", when my requirement is exactly what most people who want to buy an AV software have as their primary requirements.

Uh-oh, primary requirement is to protect a computer against bad things. Everything else is a bonus and, as such, cannot be part of primary requirements.

yes price is always a factor, and for the same performance, cheaper is better.

Price and performance aren't the only factors that need to be taken into account. It's rather convenient (read: wrong) to imply that cheap + same performance > expensive + same performance.

[GenBlood]

I've always liked reading the love hate over Norton and mcafee .. I would say try one of these .. KAV or NOD32 ....

I use MSE on one system and NOD32 on other. I have 2 other systems that run gentoo, so they don't really

have any av on them.

If I had to select a av ... my choice is MSE right now. The product got very good reviews and worth the

time to download. Also, Avast just released a new version of their AV too ... it's up to version 5 now ...

Al lot of updates and stuff .. an av worth trying too.

[wellofsouls]

Uh-oh, primary requirement is to protect a computer against bad things. Everything else is a bonus and, as such, cannot be part of primary requirements.

primary requirements for an AV software are :

1) protect the system from baddies

2) don't be a baddie itself

Still remember the old F-Secure and BitDefender days when they had fantastic detection rate but slowed down the system to a virutal halt, making the system practically useless despite not having any malware on it?

That's why the primary requirement is to protect the system as silently as possible, ie. it should protect the system AND it should not affect the normal functionality of the system. Failing either case will make the AV software practically useless.

Price and performance aren't the only factors that need to be taken into account. It's rather convenient (read: wrong) to imply that cheap + same performance > expensive + same performance.

then please provide the "correct" (read : inconvenient) implication on what those factors actually are. What you are saying is basically just a blatant "you are wrong because" and nothing, which is wrong.

[vanx]

That's why the primary requirement is to protect the system as silently as possible, ie. it should protect the system AND it should not affect the normal functionality of the system. Failing either case will make the AV software practically useless.

I'd be willing to compromise on performance if it means that security is intact. I think this discussion evolved from a misinterpretation of "silently". When you talk about "silently", you talk about performance. When I talk about "silently", I mean "user awareness". If a virus is detected, some users would want to know about it and others won't care at all.

then please provide the "correct" (read : inconvenient) implication on what those factors actually are. What you are saying is basically just a blatant "you are wrong because" and nothing, which is wrong.

It's wrong, because what a lot of people do is to apply mathematical rationale to a linguistic equation without considering other factors. Same performance cancel each other out and it comes down to price difference. Yet there is a lot more to deciding whether a product is better or not. Such as level of support, frequency of definitions, additional features. It may vary from case to case, but generally you get what you pay for.