Payware security for extreme n00bs on XP

I'm puppy sitting at a friends. So I'm using/fixing his computer while I'm there.

I'm somewhat knowledgeable about security in XP. So that means I (& just about everybody on these type forums) know more than 99%+ of people using XP.

So out with it already. OK.

I will recommend McAfee Security Center for anyone running 100% legit software who's willing to pay for it. And set it & forget it.

A popup came up with a free upgrade to McAfee Security Center 2006. The thing is it was a couple button clicks & it downloaded MSS2006, uninstalled MSS2005 & installed MSS2006. Then theres the 1 click Maintain Computer button.

This thing was too easy.

I won't use it of course.

But when I run into n00bs who are willing to pay & not learn this is what I'll recommend.

Those that know me will be shocked. I always used to spell McAfee, Mc**f**. Out of disdain. I'm still in shock.

 

The vast majority of users are interested in doing things on their computers, and not trying various security applications. They desire an "install and forget" security package. Many I know do not even know what security they have on their systems.

Accordingly, whatever is easy and not troublesome while having good protection is best for most.

I know some who have used McAfee and have been satisfied with it, and the same can be said for Norton. I must assume that those two suit, and protect many/most users who use them.
With rebates sometimes the cost is very low, and even free. If it works "go for it" is the way I feel. There is a lot of dislike for both, but I do not think most of it justified.

Best,
Jerry

 

I recall someoen on this forum sayign that McAfee automatically cleans infections without permission and doesn't quarantien them either

 

But that's because they have never tried first class products and enjoyed speed and better detection all the time . Why should I use something with worse detection , slower scan time , and something that is as big as elephant when I can use something small sized and more effective than the elephant . Threats aren't scared from the elephant even though it is a big one .

 

QFT

McAfee is such a bloated beast and the detection rate isn't anything spectacular. I had a customer bring in his Dell desktop that was 2GHz & 512MB ram with XP on it. He had just purchased and installed the McAfee 2007 suite, then his system became unusable. IIRC I counted over 10 McAfee services and 5+ startup items. It would literally take 5 minutes for the desktop to load, and it took over 1 min. for something to open once you clicked on it. I told him to chalk it up as a $60+ learning experience, then I used the MCPR.exe removal tool to nuke all of the McAfee garbage. After a reboot it was a night and day difference. I then installed Zone Alarm 2007 AV w/ Kaspersky engine and sent him on his way.

McAfee is a waste of money since there are other "set it and forget it" AV's and suites that do a better job for the n00b and the experts alike. I won't even sell or recommend McAfee to people I dislike.

 

yeah McAfee sucks

 

Yep, McAfee's home user product line is not up to par. But their enterprise AV rox!

Anyway, as for set-and-forget AVs, Panda, NAV and ZoneAlarm are right up there to tell the truth. AVG (paid version) ain't bad either, because AVG's default protection is also damn good.

 

New Comodo BoClean allows for unattended cleanup and removal, is free, has fantastic detection, doesn't require any scanning and is lightweight. This along with windows firewall for inbound protection and a good secure browser/e-mail client combination such as firefox and thunderbird are really all most 'n00bs' should need.

 

yup home users alwasy get ripped off.
enterprize always get the lighter better versions e.g. mcaffee,norton etc
they use mcaffee enterprize at my college and it works fine.
I cant even disable it
i thought it would be easy but its got termination protection would is good
lodore

 

You know this applies only for the so called "big players" . ESET,for example, provides equal protection for both home and enterprise users - the same version/signatures , etc ...

 

very true just like kaspersky,avira eset etc
f-secure still makes different products for enterprize i think anyway.
lodore

 

It may be that the average user doesn't know any better, and has not used light, fast, effective applications.
BUT, they get by without all the problems that we see here. I realize that there are a lot of users, and the (?few?) that have problems post here, but all you have to do is to look at any of the forums, and you will see problems with these light, non-bloated AVs.
Some of the problems seen not to get fixed.

The folks I know that use the "others" do not intend to fool with a touchy AVs, and would ditch Norton, and McAfee if they had problems. My son, for example, got a new computer that had McAfee on it. He used it for awhile, but some pop-ups from Site Advisor, if I remember correctly, bothered him so he ditched it. I think he is using Trend Micro since it runs well for him. He is just not going to take the time to fix a touchy application. His computer is a tool, and not a toy as mine are. He is not going to go the the developers and follow all the instructions to fix things.

My son-in-law tried KAV or KIS, and had trouble with Outlook. It did not take him but a day, with my daughter fussing until he ditched it. BTW, at my suggestion he is using Avira Premium, and it is running well.

Bloated? They don't care, they just want it to run without bothering them. Norton and McAfee seem to do that pretty well, and better than most of our favorites here.

Best,
Jerry

 

And here the problems comes from .

People don't care . Some think for all the names as jusn an antivirus , necessary , set and forget . All the products are just boxes with different colours.

The problems comes from the fact that in 21 centure there are so many threats out there that vendors cannot react to . Not only are there so many threats but some are difficult to remove . Those who "don't care" use the bloated ones , these which "don't bother" them and thus having false sense of security (talking in general)

 

If I remember the last AVC test, Norton rated Advanced, and percentage wise was the same as NOD. I hardly see how one can say that Norton, one which we are talking about, gives a false sense of security.
If one feels as safe with NOD as KAV, then he must also feel as safe with Norton as NOD, and then as KAV.

I fail to see any false sense of security. I might add that I used Norton for about 3 years with satisfaction, and did not notice any slowdown.

Obviously many here will disagree with me, but I think Norton gets a bad rap, and is one of the better ones in the area of protection. I would not feel less secure than with the ones I use.

I think Norton is used as much as it is because it does offer good protection, and is relatively trouble free.
While McAfee has dropped in the area of detection rate, I think it remains a good choice for the average user. The average user has never heard of NOD, KAV, or Avira. In the end I do not think any of the three mentioned, provide significantly better protection than either Norton or McAfee. They just seem to work.

Best,
Jerry

 

big companys get more bad press because of more customers, a big fan base... and it seems only the complainers get into forums to post, as people dont feel the need to enter them etc just to praise the software.

ive used norton, satisfied customer.

 

mainly people use mcaffee or norton because it comes preinstalled on most oem pc's from dell,hp etc and is advertised in the papers and on sale in most shops e.g. comet,pc world etc. also its recccomended by the staf at pc world....
thats why so many people use it.
stuff like avg,kaspersky and nod are advertised in pc mags which the adverage person who brought a pc from pc world would not read.
nod32 are advertisting more and more in pc mag's in the uk recently
lodore

 

AV tests are just one piece of the whole puzzle . But I have never seen and will never see a person who has used "the better products" going back to Norton/McAfee/Trend . This definitely means something .

You use F-Secure and AntiVir . You also used NOD32 , Kaspersky . If you still doubt that "any of the three mentioned, provide significantly better protection than either Norton or McAfee" , why don't you use them ?

 

this is all rubbish talk,

norton 2007 is a fantastic product, with high detection, zero false positives and low ram/cpu usage.

sure, people will say "yes, but thats only the 2007 version" but kaspersky was not always good, nod32 definatly hasnt always been good, and avira didnt have its 'detection boast' as little as 12 months ago.

things change, norton has ALWAYS been a big player in the av market unlike the ones i mentioned above, sure it has been heavy in the past, but now its not.

--------
as for the big companys getting passed on by pc sellers and pc magazine articles/t.v adverts, this is understandable, but does not always work so its not completely to blame for the high users they have, look at me, drweb?... who are they, i doubt they have even advertised in a magazine or on tele before, yet im a happy user here

 

Hi HTB,
[You use F-Secure and AntiVir . You also used NOD32 , Kaspersky . If you still doubt that "any of the three mentioned, provide significantly better protection than either Norton or McAfee" , why don't you use them ?]

I cannnot use them all. I do prefer the ones I use, but for no particular reason. I was not displeased with Norton, but just wanted to try others. If I had to choose one today, I would not dismiss Norton or McAfee.

The fact that I do not use them does not in any way indicate I believe I would be less safe. If I had to choose between Norton and Dr Web or F-Prot I would choose Norton, and assuming it did not cause problems I would continue to use it in preference to those two.

My main point here is that Norton and McAfee work, as shown by thousands of satisfied users. They do not have a false sense of security since I do not now anyone who has been infected. Sure some will get infected, but I could say the same about NOD or KAV.
They come on most computers, and the users are usually satisfied. As long as they keep them up to date they are as secure as any others.

Again, I have asked a fair number of users what AV they have, and at least 50% do not even know, nor do they care. But they do not get infected and their machines do not crash after every umpteenth update. I wish I could say that about some of my favorites.

Best,
Jerry

 

Hi Jerry,
i have had a few problems with kis6.0 and had quite a few problem with f-secure as well.
but i had major problems with norton 2003 internet security
the only av that has worked perfectly in testing all the av's is nod32
nod32 is just install setup and forget about it.
antivir premium works great on my sister's laptop as set and forgot as well thou.
lodore

 

Hi Lodore,
I think I got my first computer in 1999. I used Norton AV for about 4 years. I was not displeased, and got new versions off ebay sometimes. When I started "haunting" these forums I wanted to try others, and for some reason I got irritated at the Norton folks (I don't even remember why.) but not at the AV.

I never used the suite, and I do not doubt that you had trouble. I think I went away from Norton in 2004, but maybe a little earlier.
I have an impression that suites are more troublesome than individual applications, but that is just an impression. The only suites I have used were a trial of Avira beta, and F-Secure.

I am sure that every AV causes problems on some systems. I sure do see all kinds of problems with the favorites here. I also, had zero problems with my trials of NOD, but I also had zero troubles with Norton.

I have used Avast Home for short periods without problems, and I must say that IMO Norton or McAfee are a more secure AVs until the last test when McAfee went down, but I still go to Avast Home because it is convenient and free.

As for problems, here are the least troublesome on my systems in order fo best to worse. NOD and Avast Home (TIE), Avira, F-Prot trial for less than a month, F-Secure, KAV, and Bit Defender.

F-Secure has run without problems on my laptop, and I plan to keep it for the 3 year license. I have high hopes for Kaspersky which for some reason is a favorite in spite of the problems. I would not consider BD.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I wonder if u ask a novice to install NOD32 and adjust its settings without a tutorial. Sure he will feel crazy. Norton is install and forget and does its job for a novice by default. Not bashing NOD32.
Infact all good AVs should have such defaut settings and leave the adavnced settings for the geeks.

 

Exactly my point about MSC.

 

I have owned a computer now for about six years now and have used many different anti virus programs.I still have a license for kis and nod but i choose to use nis2007 on my computer running vista and i have to say it works great.So i am one that run the gauntlet and went back to norton and have no regretts at all.