Norton & McAfee TODAY = any better than 10 years ago?

[zenrunner92]

I've been reading claims that current versions of McAfee and Norton anti-malware software are now much lighter on system resources than in the past, when they were notorious for pretty much crippling many people's computers. True or false? Or have I just been reading shill reviews?

I've been using free AV like Avast, Avira, Bit Defender, etc. for ages now, but am currently trying to persuade my employer to drop our Norton subscription because our current PCs are a couple generations old (Sandy Bridge) and running only 32 bit Windows 7 so I think the less extra memory load, the better.

Thoughts? I found this article singing the praises of Norton, but am not sure how trustworthy PC Magazine really is:
http/www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469519,00.asp

 

[elbert]

I've not found anything better than Avast with boot scan option.

 

[drtweak]

AVG, Avast, Avira, Nod32, TrendMicro, Clamwin, MSSE, Defener >>>>>> Norton/MacAfee (Except Norton Endpoint Protection)
That is my 2 cents. Use to be a big AVG fan. But had it fooling too many clients to upgrade to 30 trial.
Avast, at least the last time i checked which was long ago, required an email and a renewal every year for free version
Avira is good but more annoying on pop-ups but at least they aren't misleading like AVG