You dont really need Mcafee. Avast is soon ready with a new version and so is Microsoft. MS one replaces Windows Defender and adds good old "Antivirus" protection so nope you dont need to pay up. Well you already paid for Microsoft products. Ive not tried Avast yet, still beta, but looks to make a big deal out of shields, as always. Pretty. MS one can be run by your Grandma - and does the same. Both on level or better than Mcafee. Not many tests/"reviews" give much meaning unless you love marketing but perhaps AV-Comparatives is worth a look http://www.av-comparatives.org/
These are paid versions so important to know difference to free - in most cases zero.
If we forget Vistas firewall is enough to block programs and more, and perhaps remember firewall is only top priority for the few, there are also free ones. Often does much more than Mcafee.
Last I tried Mcafee it had many added features to appear more suite-like but same thing applies, there are free alternatives. Still feeling better about paying up then perhaps look elsewhere. If forced I might look at Norton, ESET or Kaspersky. Would end up feeling stupid no matter which though. Suite or not is really a matter of convenience or a question how lazy you are
If not feeling safe using free stuff go ahead. Not like it is a fortune and feelings counts. Industry also need support now Microsoft and Avast is about to take over market
But dont think you are any safer because you paid up. Malwarebytes have saved many butts left out in the cold by paid security products, and is free to use.
Forgot. If you give Avast a try you are still able to use Windows Defender. Up against paid Mcafee they look bad? Dont think so. Actually Ive read on their blog
coming vers. 5 is compatible with new MS av. Does not make sense but nice if they can run together. Using something that allow Defender, new or old, is great but more or less means you are stuck with free AV. Paid usually dont like it too much, conflicts they say.
Edited by Bambo, 11 September 2009 - 01:26 PM.