McAfee versus Norton

[TomJoe]

This may be a personal preference question, but I have two subscriptions which are about to run out on my laptop. The laptop came with both McAfee SecurityCenter and Norton Internet Security. As far as I can tell, they both do the same thing, so I want to uninstall one and renew the other. Price wise, they're both in the 30-40 dollar range, so money isn't an issue. They both seem to have similar ratings (though Norton gets a slight nod in most head to head comparisons I've read), and I as I already mentioned they both seem to do the same things. I'm leaning towards Norton Internet Security, as it's not as damn annoying at asking me to update and stuff ... what would the people here go with?

Also, do I really need to install Ad-Aware, because it appears that both McAfee and Norton now have anti-spyware features (though McAfee insists I get a new subscription for that, on top of SecurityCenter) available.

[JoeP]

I don't about the latest versions of either. When I've been on contracts with big companies I've gone with what they provide - currently Trend Micro. For the intervening period I had Norton and renewed it once or twice, but I was beginning to get fed up with them; I wasn't happy with the feeling I got - which was that they were getting more and more invasive (design-wise) and resource-hungry (technically). Also, it was impossible to get anything out of them when I had a billing question.

I also rely on ZoneAlarm and I've realised I get a lot of value from the built-in virus checking that my ISP performs.

So, while it may not be purely a matter of preference, I think the differences are partly future (who can predict the direction a company will take?) and partly ymmv (it may depend on your ISP, your other software, and so on).

Not much to go on, really ... Joe

[viscousmemories]

For anti-virus I've been using a freeware product for the last 6-7 years called AntiVir Personal Edition (http://www.free-av.com/), made by a German company called H+BEDV. They often update the virus definitions multiple times in a single week, and it's all completely free. I highly recommend it, especially if you don't need any of the additional overhead (or expense) of Norton or McAfee.

I just installed AdAware personal and SpyBot, but I'm not sure how critical they are. I rarely get troubled with Adware or Spyware even when my computer is unprotected. I don't really even know where it comes from.

[livius drusus]

I've got Norton built-in on my home laptop and it seems okay. I've got McAffee at work and it's a pain in the ass, but that might be more of a work configuration issue than anything else.

Honestly, I'd go with freeware if I were you. When my Norton expires I'm going to switch to Avast! (http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html) for anti-virus, plus the usual Spybot and Ad-Aware combo.

[TomJoe]

Next question ... what do people use for disk defragmentation? I'm not sold on the Disk Defragmenter that comes with XP.

[John Carter]

It's been so long soince I used McAfee that I can't comment. Norton certainly works well, but there is one major problem I see with it. If, for whatever reason, you need technical support, they charge $25 per call over and above the subscription fee.

I use a freeware anti-virus product called AVG (http://www.grisoft.com) by a company called Grisoft. Like the product vm mentioned, the database is updated several times a week. I've been using it for about 5 years now, and it works very well. I highly recommend it.

As far as the spyware detectors, you shouldn't rely on just one. For some reason, none of the ones I am familiar with finds everything, and they tend to overlap what they do find. IOW, adaware will find things that spybot does not, and vice versa.

[viscousmemories]

I'm notorious for never defragmenting my disks. I've just almost never seen any noticeable improvement from it.

[John Carter]

I'm notorious for never defragmenting my disks. I've just almost never seen any noticeable improvement from it.

Your disk has to be pretty badly defragmented before it becomes a serious noticeable problem. I know a lot of people who waste a lot of time defragmenting disks that don't need it. It really depends on how you use your system, but for most people once every 3-6 months is more than enough.

[livius drusus]

XP's defrag utility is as I understand it a stripped down version of Executive Software's Diskeeper (http://www.executive.com/defrag/defrag.asp), which offers far more extensive options, especially in self-maintenance. The most remarkable difference is speed. The pro version of Diskeeper can defrag and compact even a deeply fragmented HD in minutes, unlike the hour(s) it can take the Windows utility.

My favorite is Raxco's PerfectDisk (http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/). It's pricey, but that's because it's the best. Great features, and a kickass display. :D

[freemonkey]

I also use Grisoft's AVG for virus protection. It works great, automatically checks for, downloads and installs updates every morning, and runs itself every day. It also does a virus check on start-up. I don't think I've ever had a problem with it.

[viscousmemories]

Your disk has to be pretty badly defragmented before it becomes a serious noticeable problem. I know a lot of people who waste a lot of time defragmenting disks that don't need it. It really depends on how you use your system, but for most people once every 3-6 months is more than enough.
Yeah, I think my problem is when I was working in IT I would rebuild my computer every few months anyway, so it never really became an issue. And since then I just don't think about it.