Is the McAfee Security Suite that came with it decent antivirus & firewall?

I've used nothing bod Nod32 antivirus & COMODO firewall for years on my other computers, but my new M11x came with a 15-month free subscription to this McAfee virus+firewall suite. Free is hard to turn down when Nod costs a pretty penny, but I'll delete it if it has a poor reputation for catching viruses and blocking intrusions.

Any opinions?

 

it's crap install Avast AV and Firewall.

 

I just use Microsoft Essentials. Before MSE I used Avast, but it's just too bloated for my tastes. Haven't had a virus since I got Stoned on my 386... =)

 

i use avira antivir.

never had a virus since.

 

I used to use AVG, BullDog, McAfee, Norton, Kaspersky, all have failed me. Both in terms of virus protection and performance.

Accept avast!
http://www.avast.com/

 

It's not crap. It actually works pretty good. Are their better ones? Yes, but maybe not a nice easy all in one program suit.

I run MSE. Non are 100%. A lot will depend on the user.

 

I run MSE because it's free and seems to have a relatively small footprint. McAfee's not too bad though if you don't mind paying for a subscription renewal once your free period ends.

 

MSE + ZoneAlarm free firewall

 

Lots of threads on this topic. In short: they all make crappy stuff from time to time. The industry is very cyclic.

For footprint, I currently like MSE. Biggest protection is your own behavior though.

 

I am genuinely suprised by this as I have found the exact opposite to be true.

I have found Avast very light weight on my R1 whereas MSE would often use 6% of my CPU for no apparant reason.

Very strange as I had used MSE before on a netbook and it was fine.

 

So true.
Imo MSE works better than most of the free stuff out there.

 

No. Avast! and Malware Bytes.

 

Avast all the way. McAfee is one of the worst thing you can put on any computer. But it's better than no protection at all, I guess.

 

McAfee is fine. I ended up with it free and it works well. Are there others that use less CPU cycles? Sure, but what are they doing? Nothing, thats why they don't use cycles. If I install a program like McAfee, I want it to be actively doing something. What do I get out of a CPU that sits at 0% usage? Bragging rights? For what? A CPU thats running at 5% is doing you more good than harm. Granted this is just my opinion, but in using a software, I want it to be actually doing it's job. How many people actually have a 100% load on there CPU so often that a 5% usage will cripple their work? And for what it's worth, my McAfee only uses the CPU when it needs to, otherwise most of the time it's idle at 0%, with 90 process's, but it does constant scans, normally in the evening, and updates definitions constantly, which I don't see as a bad thing. Again just my two $.02

 

That makes no sense. Because a product uses less cycles, it's not doing anything? Poorly written software can consume memory and cycles. When Mcafee lets a virus walk right in, or tells you 'hey, I see this, but I can't do anything with it' you'll wonder just what those cycles were doing.

I've supported Mcafee in a 3,000+ pc environment and I could write a novel on the problems it's caused, viruses it hasn't caught, performance it's dragged down, etc. It came on my Studio 15 because I forgot to uncheck the option when I ordered, and when I removed it, it was like getting a new computer, so I don't have any faith in the home product either.

However, it IS the best cookie scanner/deleter on the market. /sarcasm off

But if it's working for you, great. Like I said it's (marginally) better than nothing.

 

The product is fine, but under certain conditions it is reasonable to have a preference. Me? I currently prefer MSE. This WILL change. If you have any long term experience you will know all the major players will have screwed up an environment somewhere. I used to prefer AVG for much the same reason I like MSE now.

Note: If you dont get CPU cycles used by your protection software it means YOU are not accessing files or have chosen not to scan files on access. "." Maybe you don't use thumbdrives? Where it can be nasty is if you do a lot of remote file access on your network or work in development - scans can really slow you down. DB I would think could take a hit if you didn't have exemptions.

Note #2: MSE does not (or didn't at least) scan removable drives by default!!!!

Near impossible to make a blanket recommendation for all users. User behaviors vary widely with quite a few assuming they can do anything (pr0n) because they are "protected". Not you guys though

 

Been using MSE for about 2 1/2 weeks with no issues and it is free.

 

MSE all the way

 

I'm genuinely surprised at how many people have suggested MSE. I would never in a million years trust my system to that. The first thing I've done with the past three computers I've had is immediately turn off whatever security system Microsoft came up with this time and switch to something better.

A lot of people have been saying they like it because it's "free". Well if money is such an issue, Comodo is free and far better. Just my opinion but honestly, eesh.

 

Tempted to quote myself again.

 

I personally use MSE, though I did have a free subscription to trend's security sweet for a year or so (it was alright but had a huge footprint I found). But honestly like it was said earlier it is mostly down to your behavior, if your really worried get noscript for firefox, if you don't already have it, probably responsible for more blocked issues with me then my antivirus software.

 

I personally use avast, avira, MSE, malware bytes, mcafee (gave me a 15month subscription for free ftw), and windows firewall,
but as said before the best protection is to be aware of what you do aka dont look up questionable sites or download anything questionable especially exe files (DUH!)