Symantec (Norton) vs. McAfee vs. Trend Micro

Okay, okay, I understand that most of the users of this forum like the free antivirus software. I'm not looking for any MORE suggestions for antivirus software, just your opinion on which of the three are the best.

So is it Norton, McAfee or Trend Micro?

I don't really mind if the software slows down my PC, I usually just walk out of the room when scanning the computer. What I'm looking for is the one that is most effective, and reputable.

 

Here is a good comparison chart from a pretty reputable web site that shows how they stack up against each other:: Link

 

AVG Free is better.

 

I really like Trend its not a resource hog and I get it free through work if I had to pay for it I would use Avast instead.

 

Norton & McAfee are horrible resource hogs. I have used Trend Micro in the past and found it adequate. However there are better anti-virus/suites available i.e. NOD32, Zone Labs, Kaspersky 6.0.

 

And if it slows down your PC even when not actively scanning (when running in the background)?

As far as I can tell, both of the first two were more or less the first antivirus solutions on the market, and basically haven't improved since then. They've just got more and more resource-hungry, added more and more unrelated features, and slowed your system down more and more.

There are free solutions that are much more effective. I don't have much experience with Trend, but it worked ok when I tried it (years ago)

 

For one thing, Symantec (Norton) is misleading. Symantec Corporate and Norton antivirus are two completely different beasts. Symantec Corporate edition is actually quite nice and very light on resources. It's what I use because my University gives it to us for free. Previously, I used Norton Internet Security 2005. It was not so nice. Slowed down the system, I had troubles with LiveUpdate, and it missed a lot of adware/spyware. Symantec is much better, and generally on par with some of the best that I've seen. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they offer it as a consumer purchase.

 

I use Norton Antivirus 2002 in my laptop.

I don't want to use Norton 2006 cause its just too much. I have it installed by default on my HP desktop and I'm guessing there has to be atleast over 15processes running.

I will be taking a look at AVG and Trend micro. I'm looking for something FREE tho.

With Norton 2002 disc I get one year free. But ofcourse I will fresh install before that year is up.

 

Mcafee all the way.

 

I don't see why you are so closed off to other anti-virus programs. Since you pay for it does it feel like it is better? I mean it should be, but it isn't. I use Avast, used to use AVG free edition.

 

I think I need the answer just as much as the original poster. The reason I prefer McAfee and Norton is that from reviews I've read and experience with them, they were very good at detecting viruses. I'm afraid to try free software because I'm afraid that it won't be as powerful and the interface isn't too friendly for a novice user. Although, McAfee and Norton are resource hungry, I'm fine with it, since I only scan my computer when it's idle.

If someone insists on recommending another product, please recommend base on effectiveness, features, and user-interface. Price isn't much of a problem, since My local computer store offer the new Norton and McAfee free after mail-in-rebates and the anti-virus software are rather cheap.

 

I only have AVG Free to recommend. To put it bluntly, if you have trouble using it, you should think again about using a computer in general. It really is that easy. Does what it says on the tin! Certainly lighter, quicker and better than Norton. How do I know? On my old HP desktop, I did a vrus scan before the trial for NIS expired. I then installed AVG Free. Guess whether Norton missed anything?

In fact I was so impressed with AVG Free after using it now for 3 yrs, I paid £30 for a 2yr licence for AG Pro with firewall. 33mb total ram usage.

If you must pay, there are many other companies ommitted from the poll. Like Microsoft, I don't trust Symantec with my security

 

I would say that out of these 3, Norton is the best for Anti-Virus protection. It is the preferred AV for many IT departments and I've used it in a previous job to help wipe out a departamental infestation. However, it is not my preferred choice and in fact none of them are and I have experience with all of them. I prefer the current crop of freeware and currently using Comodo but can also recommend AVG.

 

I've used it too, and I'm not that happy with it still. True, it's much better than Norton, but still uses more resources than neccesary, and doesn't catch as many viruses as the free alternatives.

 

i tried the norton 2007 and the mcafee and i can say that norton didnt bog down my computer and the mcafee did indeed bog down the computer and it was slow when i try to open its control panel.

 

So Norton AV 2007 didn't slow your computer as much as the previous editions did?

 

The fastest way to make a computer hella slow is to install Norton.

I've had good luck with AVG and Avast! in non-resident mode, set to scan memory and critical system areas every morning at 2am and a full scan once a week on sunday mornng at 2am.

I'm not big on the resident protection of every file any program on your PC opens... it makes it so sloowwwwwwwwwwww...

I liked my KAV trial too, but I'm too cheap to pay for it.

 

i run Norton Anti-Virus, Protection Center, and all the SystemWorks programs (including Ghost w/ regular backups). it slowed down my old M140 a little bit, but doesn't really affect the performance on my new nc8430.

i once used McAfee (about two years ago) when my university launched their free subscription to the service. instead of getting Norton I tried this out. unfortunately, three days later I was re-installing Windows because McAfee failed to stop a ton of stuff from getting on my computer.

that's when I bought Norton. Only had one or two viruses since then, and even Norton caught them really quickly. Most of the time Norton was able to block the install script for them. if there ever was a problem that I couldn't recover from...that's why i have Ghost running regular backups.

 

I just run AVG and manually scan things when I want to. Screw the real-time protection stuff. It's overrated if you browse with some common sense.

 

Ditto what Pitabread says.

Using some common sense when browsing (or file sharing) will go a lot farther in preventing an infection. There are plenty of legitimate, safe ways to do what you want to do on the web (whether it's file sharing, music, gaming, or adult sites). The biggest infections I've seen and heard about are from file sharing (e.g. users of Limewire, etc.). They also tend to be the nastiest to cleanup.

All three of the products work well, but have different effects on your system. If you're a heavy user or gamer, McAfee and Norton will probably really bog you down (you can't even completely shut them down any more). Trend is probably more friendly for the heavy user/gamer.

Even though I've used all 3, I ended up with Kaspersky (paid) on my desktop and AVG (paid) on my laptop. They both work great in their respective environments and are worth the money. No installation problems, no update problems, no intereference with other programs with either one.

 

All are hogs, mine came with norton, dumped it and it cut boot time in half. But if time is no problem, why not? I use freeware.

 

I will echo those that say to use common sense. The best anti-virus is YOU! Good habits will keep your system clean. My vote would be for NOD32 and common sense.

 

I definitely second Nod32 if you insist on going with a paid AV program.

 

I don't who's bringing my thread back to life , but I notice that Trend Micro is starting to gain more votes. Those who voted for it, any reason?

 

None of the above. I use Avira's AntiVir personal edition; works like a charm, and light as a feather...

 

NOD32 used to be good but their latest web scanner has some major flaws. What sucks is that Kaspersky is using NOD32's web scanner and is having some major mail scan issues at the same time...in my opinion Kaspersky is crap.

 

well if i have to choose between these three, i'll choose mcafee. it's better that these two computer hoggers!

 

Quick frankly, all three of these AV prorams are useless, they use up way too much system resources, are a headache to use, and dont do the efficiently.

AV programs specifically targeted at the buisness are coporate market are the best programs, such as Eset NOD32 or Sophos.

 

Mcafee is too heavy for any pc... Norton 2007 seems to be better from this point, not sure as i didn't try it.

NOD is ok, but doesn't catch anything that is not virus/warm, so it is an incomplete solution because you still need to get an Anti-spyware.

Right now i'm running mcafee Enterprise AV 8.5i and seems nice. I tried pc-cilling and it is a full and nice all-in-one application, requires a bit of memory, and a bit slow at startup, but except for this, the firewall and the av are good...

NOD32 is NOT a corporate software, they are Symantec, McAfee Enterprise, Sophos, and others target/named Business/Enterprise/Corporate (all the big AV companies have them, but not all)...

Home users: Norton, McAfee 2007, Pc-Cilling, AVG, Avast, etc...

 

I am currently using Trend Micro Internet Security 2007. Before this, I had McAfee and before that Norton 2003/2004/2005...all on one machine. OK...now...Norton has become progressively worse! There were times, when I would install Windows XP and now Vista...and NOT activate until after Norton was installed. I can remember times when there were registry errors after installing Norton that caused me to wipe and install all again. Norton became more and more demanding on system resources...and frankly...caused a lot of slowdowns and interrupted even video encoding tasks. McAfee was OK...but their Internet Suite had holes all over it. Their firewall is about as effective as Windows firewall...not saying much. Their AntiVirus is OK...but I noticed that the new 2007 version (I tested it)...was more demanding than older versions. Then I purchased a Dell laptop that came with Trend Micro Internet Security for Dell v12. I was pretty impressed. Trend's AntiVirus has a good reputation. I liked their firewall and AntiSpyware as well. Their e mail protection is also strong. Once I got used to having more system resources at my disposal...I removed McAfee from my two other machines and went out and got Trend Internet Security 2007. Granted...the first few iterations of the Program were OK. The AntiVirus was still really stong. Improved Firewall...Vastly improved AntiSpyware / Malware and more. Each build that they release gets tighter and tighter. I feel so secure about all the modules in the program that I uninstalled Spysweeper and let Trend Micro 2007 do all the work. No regrets to this day...and my system resources are still MINE! I like that

Bob

 

Bobmitch, i just tried TM IS 2007 for vista, it takes a lot of memory (over 100MB), is it normal? But agree with you, firewall, av, antispam, antispy, and all other features in a fast program is nice to see... and they are great..

 

Alex...

No, I don't see that much usage. Mind you...my Vista machine is my desktop...which is hard wired to my router. I do not enable Firewall on the desktop because of the router. I only see 28 mb on the desktop. I also installed 2007 on my Dell laptop...instead of the v12 / v14 suite. I still run XP MCE on the Dell, with firewall enabled. Memory usage on the Dell is 52 mb.

Bob

 

I use Norton Internet Security 2007. It is a wonderful program that isn't as resource hungry as you all make it sound. For a SECURITY program to be effective it needs resources to conduct its job. It is fantastic at detecting threats, and it is easy to set it so it doesn't bother you. It always updates on it own. I have had ZERO problems with this program. I am completely satisfied with this product.