Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

McAfee Antivirus versus Microsoft Security Essentials


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Warthog-Fan

Warthog-Fan

  • Members
  • 293 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Endicott, NY
  • Local time:01:28 PM

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:15 AM

Guys & gals,

 

I would like your opinions on McAfee Antivirus and Microsoft Security Essentials.

 

I get my antivirus programs, free, through my ISP, Time Warner Cable. Up until about a year ago, Time Warner supplied antivirus from California Associates (CA). While running this suite of software, there were a couple of occasions when I got alerts from CA, (during normal operaton or when doing a system scan) that a virus or trojan had been detected and removed. The performance of the computer seemed to be pretty good.

 

Then Time Warner switched to McAfee and I downloaded and installed it. Immediately, I noticed a significant decline in performance of the computer. It sometimes will take over half a minute to download a dozen emails. Other operations seemed to slow down as well. Also, in the year or so that I have been using McAfee, I have never gotten an alert, at any time, that viruses or malware have been detected. I've either been real lucky during the past year, or McAfee isn't doing it's job.

 

My next door neighbor also was using McAfee through Time Warner. She had a problem with her computer and had to call Microsoft for help. During the course of the conversation, the Microsoft tech told her that Microsoft Security Essentials was a better program set than McAfee, and he had her uninstall McAfee and download and install MSE.

 

Given my dissatisfaction with the way that McAfee has slowed down the computer, I am not adverse to switching to another suite of programs like MSE, as long as they are better than McAfee. May I please have your opinions on these two program suites or other suggestions for  better AV software.

 

Thanx in advance,

 

Bob



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 noknojon

noknojon

  • Banned
  • 10,871 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:03:28 AM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:48 AM

Hello -

Personally only, my version -

 

(Note that any ideas put forward will be personal ideas only and not from Bleeping Computer)

I have found that Microsoft Security Essentials is well ahead of McAfee these days.
CA would be a good option, but I do not think they have a full free version to use.

 

Thank You -



#3 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,471 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:01:28 PM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:03 AM

I agree with noknojon, especially for the home user.

Although McAfee is as good as any other well known anti-virus program, it requires numerous services and running processes that consume a lot of system resources and often results in complaints of high CPU usage. Anti-virus software components insert themselves deep into the operating systems core and create files/folders/registry entries in various locations. If you do a Google Search you will find there have been numerous complaints about it affecting system performance. Those issues plus the cost factor are the primary reason many folks look for a free alternative as a replacement. McAfee is better utilized in an Enterprise system environment protecting many client computers.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#4 Warthog-Fan

Warthog-Fan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 293 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Endicott, NY
  • Local time:01:28 PM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:10 AM

Guys,

 

Thank you for your input. I'm not adverse to spending some money if I am getting a product that is effective. But if a free product, like MSE is just as good or better, then it only makes sense to use it.

 

On the other hand, noknojon stated that CA is a good program. Would it be worth the money to buy it, rather than trying to use MSE?

 

Bob



#5 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,471 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:01:28 PM

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:32 PM

You ask a common question for which you will receive varying opinions and recommendations. There is no universal "one size fits all" solution that works for everyone. Please see Choosing an Anti-Virus Program.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#6 slgrieb

slgrieb

  • Members
  • 270 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas Panhandle
  • Local time:11:28 AM

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:17 PM

I agree with noknojon, especially for the home user.

Although McAfee is as good as any other well known anti-virus program, it requires numerous services and running processes that consume a lot of system resources and often results in complaints of high CPU usage. Anti-virus software components insert themselves deep into the operating systems core and create files/folders/registry entries in various locations. If you do a Google Search you will find there have been numerous complaints about it affecting system performance. Those issues plus the cost factor are the primary reason many folks look for a free alternative as a replacement. McAfee is better utilized in an Enterprise system environment protecting many client computers.

More to the point, about 3 years ago, McAfee released an update that broke a lot of Windows systems, including many of Intel's own systems. Truly ironic since Intel had recently acquired McAfee. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/mcafee-update-breaks-windows-xp-systems-6594 If you do a search for "mcafee breaks windows" you'll find some interesting reading. Those reports, along with my personal experience, are likely to keep McAfee on my "must avoid" list for a long time to come.


Edited by slgrieb, 26 June 2013 - 10:18 PM.

Yes, Mr. Death... I'll play you a game! But not CHESS !!! BAH... FOOEY! My game is... 
WIFFLEBALL!

 


#7 saint satin stain

saint satin stain

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL and Greenwich Village
  • Local time:12:28 PM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:42 PM

First, I dont use the same antivirus as my ISP; if a baddies gets past them, well.

So ask your ISP which antivirus (es) they use, then use something different.

 

There are good free ones, avast1 and AVG; for paid I recommend Webroot SecureAnywhere, BitDefender, and Norton.  I dont like McAfee. I've had to clean some computers that had McAfee, a few.  If you are care and use any of the five I recommend you probably won't be infected.

 

Layer your defenses. I have two modems, a security modem, regular one, then my router; desktop level I have Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete (protects 3 desktops and 2 smartphones in my family - a relative in FL, one in NYC, and I'm in AL. Dont have to be in same house. The other two just as good. I chose the one I like best.

 

Cyber Ghost VPN

GMER

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware

Sandboxie

SpywareBlaster


saint satin stain
Responsible for what I say,
not for what you understand.
www.leftinalabama.com


#8 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,471 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:01:28 PM

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:31 PM

GMER is a stand-alone tool that will help investigate for the presence of rootkits. It will not actually tell you if you are infected or not unless you know what you're looking for. If you're unsure how to use a particular Anti-rootkit (ARK) tool or interpret the log it generates, then you probably should not be using it. Some ARK tools are intended for advanced users or to be used under the guidance of an expert who can interpret the log results and investigate it for malicious entries before taking any removal action. Incorrectly removing legitimate entries could lead to disastrous problems with your operating system.

Why? Not all hidden components detected by anti-rootkit (ARK) scanners and security tools are malicious. It is normal for a Firewall, some anti-virus and anti-malware software (ProcessGuard, Prevx), CD Emulators sandboxes, virtual machines and Host based Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS) to exhibit rootkit-like behavior or hook into the OS kernal/SSDT (System Service Descriptor Table) in order to protect your system. SSDT is a table that stores addresses of functions that are used by Windows. Whenever a function is called, Windows looks in this table to find the address for it. Both legitimate programs and rootkits can hook into and alter this table.

API Kernel hooks are not always bad since some system monitoring software and security tools use them as well. If no hooks are active on a system it means that all system services are handled by ntoskrnl.exe which is a base component of Windows operating systems and the process used in the boot-up cycle of a computer. ARK scanners do not differentiate between what is good and what is bad...they only report what is found. Therefore, even on a clean system some hidden essential components may be detected when performing a scan to check for the presence of rootkits. As such, you should not be alarmed if you see any hidden entries created by legitimate programs after performing a scan.

In most cases further investigation is required after the initial ARK scan by someone trained in rootkit detection or with advanced knowledge of the operating system. Report logs need to be analyzed and detected components identified in order to determined if they are benign, system critical or malevolent before attempted removal. Using an ARK scanner without knowing how to tell the difference between legitimate and malicious entries can be dangerous if a critical component is incorrectly removed.

There are many free ARK tools but some of them require a certain level of expertise and investigative ability to use. GMER is one of those advanced tools and it is not recommended for the novice user.

Note: saint satin stain the above comments are directed toward others who may read this topic and not know anything about GMER.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users