Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2005, 05:36 AM   #61
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

Well, my reviews were of the 2003 edition. I'm looking for reviews of later.. but haven't been able to track much down. For one, I can use my own personal experience and say it is good. Also this is about Norton and whether it is good. McAfee is junk and I don't see why people talk about it. You are the one who isn't a debator, tokinbudz. Don't come in here insulting long time members. I do have knowledge. Norton is a better piece of software and actually detects viruses well, while McAfee doesn't.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:37 AM   #62
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,007
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
You have never posted more then me. I outsourced you and defeated you because my sources are better and my posts are better. I'm tired of you. I easily uninstalled norton in the past (when I switched to Avast and later, AVG).
Credible link number 1 -Or iginally posted by Giancarlo
In major flaws section
Quote:
Difficult to uninstall without manual intervention, involving cleaning up the registry (experts users only) and deleting leftover files
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
But I came back to norton. Norton is not resource hungry and has no noticeable gaps in its protection.
Credible link number 1 (again) -Or iginally posted by Giancarlo
in the major flaws section
Quote:
Inadequate detection rate of backdoors and trojans (misses 1 out of every 4 viruses
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I think the people who like norton outnumber the people who don't.
There are no links to back this up, so we'll discard this comment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Your sources are not professional. They are unprofessional. The sources I provided that spoke well of norton are professional. Again, you need to understand the facts. Forums aren't good sources, nor are anti-norton sites.
the sources I provided were the same sources you provided the only difference being I actually took the trouble to read the sources whereas it seems you didn't anyone can check this by comparing the links we've both now posted and actually reading the pages they link to...
Furthermore you posted dead links!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
You ever try to make me look a dumbass, I swear... you will regret it.
I don't need to try, you do all the hard work yourself.
frankly I'm pissing myself with laughter at this argument...
I was accused of providing no evidence, and now that I have it's still not good enough? despite providing more specific links, (and no dead links up to this point)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I provided links to the quotes I made. I don't get discredited by anything you posted. I never have, and never will because you are not credible to begin with.
I'm as credible as anyone else around here, but since you doubt my credibility I linked sites that backup my opinion... heck even you linked sites that back up my opinion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
You post some better evidence. You can't defeat the master of debates on this forum, not now or not ever. Maybe if you would actually come to the realization you can be wrong, you would see the light.
You truly are the masterdebator around here... but seriously, how can you even claim to be providing a good argument/debate, you are only stating opinion over and over again. your facts later turned out to actaually disagree wit you and critisise norton, whilst praising a product which you decreed was crap! -Now who is the one without credibility? you are going to have to decide whether you are more credible than the peole writting the sites you are linking to as evidence...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I can't stand liars and people who throw straw mans like you.
Face it your facts are flawed, your evidence is weak (half of your eidence actiually contradicts what you've been saying.)

your arguments and evidence is so weak that in your last post you actually linked to norton internet security (which only mentioned AV once, and that was only to say it could be loaded as a plugin...)

what evidence have you provided, which (upon closer inspection) hasn't been disproved...

no new external links have been added to this thread as evidence, I've taken all my evidence from the same sites you have this morning, so why is it I have all the quote saying norton is crap, and you are linking to sites whihc barely even mention the product? (except for in their sponsored ads!)
__________________

root is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:40 AM   #63
Baseband Member
 
Tokinbudz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Never said i was a debater. Did I? I never insulted you either unless youre that easily insulted which would be unfortunate. Ive talked to ppl whove used both and lots prefer Mcafee. Again Mr i know everything tell me wtf is better about Norton then Mcafee, back your statement up.
__________________
Athlon 64 3500+ / Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
1gb Corsair DC Twin-X (512x2) Pc3200 LL
2x Asus EN6600GT w/76.10 Forceware (It Helps)
Sony DVD RW DRU-710A / Toshiba 16x DVD-ROM
Thermaltake Shark Aluminum Case w/Asus 4 in 1 Cool Ice CPU Fan
Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS
3DMark 2003 ~ 14682
Tokinbudz is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:47 AM   #64
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

Learn how to properly quote.

Quote:
There are no links to back this up, so we'll discard this comment
Actually we will discard your opinions, since they are nonsense.

Quote:
the sources I provided were the same sources you provided the only difference being I actually took the trouble to read the sources whereas it seems you didn't anyone can check this by comparing the links we've both now posted and actually reading the pages they link to...
Furthermore you posted dead links!
I made the mistake on that one link.. but the rest were just fine. Especially the PC Magazine source, which is most notable. Unlike you, I actually did read my own sources. That one link that was dead had a space in it you can easily take out. You need to stop and think about the reality! Your ideas are flawed and insane. I did f--king check the pages (and I provided that first one to balance things out).

Quote:
I don't need to try, you do all the hard work yourself.
frankly I'm pissing myself with laughter at this argument...
I was accused of providing no evidence, and now that I have it's still not good enough? despite providing more specific links, (and no dead links up to this point)
You don't provide evidence. You go around being root, and twisting words. I'm the only one pissing myself with laughter because of your abhorrent arrogance. You are the one who is making yourself look bad. Withdraw from this argument. And what is with you and this non-existent dead link? The link had a simple space in it you could easily delete. It was more of a copying mistake then anything.

Quote:
I'm as credible as anyone else around here, but since you doubt my credibility I linked sites that backup my opinion... heck even you linked sites that back up my opinion...
Nope. The sites that I have posted (except that first one, and that was a mistake).. have backed myself up.

Quote:
You truly are the masterdebator around here... but seriously, how can you even claim to be providing a good argument/debate, you are only stating opinion over and over again. your facts later turned out to actaually disagree wit you and critisise norton, whilst praising a product which you decreed was crap! -Now who is the one without credibility? you are going to have to decide whether you are more credible than the peole writting the sites you are linking to as evidence...
This is the ad hominem style of argument from root, who argues in total logical fallacies. I'm actually backing myself up, root. Whereas you have done one bad job at it. My facts don't f---king disagree with me, root. I'm sick of this. What the hell is wrong with you? Can you read?

Quote:
Face it your facts are flawed, your evidence is weak (half of your eidence actiually contradicts what you've been saying.)
You are the walking contradiction here. My facts are never weak. you are weak and so is your sorry argument. Now you are starting to piss me off. You have one weak argument behind you and I suggest you back off now.

Quote:
your arguments and evidence is so weak that in your last post you actually linked to norton internet security (which only mentioned AV once, and that was only to say it could be loaded as a plugin...)
My evidence isn't so weak. Again kick yourself in the head repeatably to get your brain functioning again. Norton Security reviews goes towards the credibility of norton as a whole, and it is relevant.

Quote:
what evidence have you provided, which (upon closer inspection) hasn't been disproved...
nothing I claim can be disproved by root. Somebody with a bit more common logic can do argue with me, but the great little root can't because he doesn't know how.

Quote:
I've taken all my evidence from the same sites you have this morning, so why is it I have all the quote saying norton is crap, and you are linking to sites whihc barely even mention the product? (except for in their sponsored ads!)
You again are not reading properly. You are not looking at my sites either. You are braindead.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:51 AM   #65
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1372675,00.asp

"With Norton AntiVirus 2004 (NAV), Symantec adds new touches to a familiar face, keeping NAV atop our A-list. It can now scan your system for installation-stopping viruses before installation, instead of using the old DOS boot CD and a slow command line scanner. It also prescans at setup and scans within ZIP and other archive files by default.

Keeping up with the times, NAV now finds and removes spyware, adware, and dialers. Also new is protection for instant message–borne threats in Yahoo! Messenger, MSN/ Windows Messenger, and AIM. NAV performs automatic updates by default, and you get a systemwide warning when your virus pattern files are out of date.


Installation now includes a product-activation scheme that the company hopes will keep illegal copying of its software under control. This requires you to connect with a server at Symantec to get an activation code to use NAV. Activation is anonymous, and registration is not required. You can reinstall as many times as you like on the same machine, and you have the flexibility to upgrade to a newer machine without buying a new copy.

Spyware, adware, and dialers, while not technically viruses, are threats to your privacy and finances. Like McAfee VirusScan 8.0, NAV now scans and removes these threats. In our testing, NAV found most of our adware, though it missed some spyware and dialers and had difficulty removing others. Symantec claims that NAV will stop incoming spyware and adware received via instant messaging or e-mail but not from Web sites.

This version of NAV has improved default settings. The installation wizard walks you through the options, which include automatic updates, a full initial system scan, weekly system scans, and real-time scanning of compressed files. The status screen shows green, yellow, or red icons to indicate your protection level. In previous versions, if you let your updates lag, only the Update icon turns yellow or red. In NAV 2004, if you bypass an update, the program displays yellow and red icons across the board, indicating that auto-protection is out of gas.

With a 6.4 percent slowdown, NAV came in last on our performance degradation tests, though the hit wasn't significantly worse than VirusScan's 5.9 percent. We think this minor performance impact is a good trade-off for the protection you get. As with VirusScan, NAV has conservative defaults that provide excellent protection. With better defaults and easy updates, Norton AntiVirus once again gets our Editors' Choice nod."

This is on Norton Anti-virus 2004. Not 2003, and not 2002

Damn, you've been smashed root.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:57 AM   #66
Baseband Member
 
Tokinbudz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Ok man stop watching Queer as Folk and read the 14 reviews of the people that read that and/or bought it. Who are you smashing? No one.
__________________
Athlon 64 3500+ / Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
1gb Corsair DC Twin-X (512x2) Pc3200 LL
2x Asus EN6600GT w/76.10 Forceware (It Helps)
Sony DVD RW DRU-710A / Toshiba 16x DVD-ROM
Thermaltake Shark Aluminum Case w/Asus 4 in 1 Cool Ice CPU Fan
Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS
3DMark 2003 ~ 14682
Tokinbudz is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:59 AM   #67
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

14 reviews could of been anyone... I'm reading the accurate review done by the people at PC Magazine. A highly prestigious source. I'm smashing the opinions of root and yourself. And why bring in a TV show I don't even watch into this? What does that have to do with anything, mr irrelevant?
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:00 AM   #68
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,007
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

I've sorry...
I took the space out of...
http://antivirus.about.com/library/ reviews/winscan/aaprnav2002.htm

and the link is dead and redirects to

http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivi...gr/nav2002.htm

which is the link I posted, which in the CONS section clearly states
Quote:
Requires extensive system resources
Lengthy installation and setup
Slow scan speeds
(which I said earlier)

the only pros for norton are

Live Update feature to keep definition files automatically updated
-(available on almost all AVs, with the exception that most AVs don't require a seperate package to do it)

Rescue disk creation during installation
-(great a pro is that you can create a rescue disk in case it breaks yoursystem (hardly working in it's favour))

Repair Wizard to handle hard to clean files
-(the only actual usefull pro they had to say!)

the review goes on to say things like...

Quote:
users might be better off with some of the less intrusive products on the market.
Quote:
adverse performance impact was quite noticeable
with the previous evidence that norton only detects 3 /4 virii is this performance impact really worthwhile when you can get a smaller footprint scanner such as AVG or NOD32, which won't impact peformance?

(with NOD32 being the agreed best on the site that is linked)

I'll say again...
your evidence is flaw, your argument is flawed...
My argument is that norton is not the best scanner, and there is plenty of evidence, (provided by you and myself to back that up).

your argument is the norton is the worlds best scanner and everything else is just crap, yet you've found no evidence that actually 100% backs you up!

I'm waiting for this evidence, THEN I'll step down...
Untill then this thread still has most evidence (professional review and user opinion) to support that norton is not the best, and does have a few short commings...
root is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:02 AM   #69
Baseband Member
 
Tokinbudz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Yes those 14 people could have been anyone. Such as readers of that site who all seem to disagree that Norton is as great as the site says it is. Dont forget its people like that who are most commonly using those security systems. That much negative feedback from so many people and you still think youre sooo right. Open your eyes.
__________________
Athlon 64 3500+ / Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
1gb Corsair DC Twin-X (512x2) Pc3200 LL
2x Asus EN6600GT w/76.10 Forceware (It Helps)
Sony DVD RW DRU-710A / Toshiba 16x DVD-ROM
Thermaltake Shark Aluminum Case w/Asus 4 in 1 Cool Ice CPU Fan
Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS
3DMark 2003 ~ 14682
Tokinbudz is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:03 AM   #70
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Mcafee VS. Norton VS. ZoneAlarm

Evidence is PC Magazine.. furthermore my arguments can't be flawed. Not ever. And did I say everything else was crap? No.. based on my own personal experience.. I can say AVG and Avast are crap (they let through a trojan horse...).
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0