Exactly, it was the first version I used. I told @Sorrento, but I don't know if he saw my post or if he was already leaving. It used a floppy disk with an interface very similar to Norton Commander, if I remember correctly. Thanks for reminding me. Well, folks, I have to go now. Good night, good morning, or good afternoon, @simmerskool. I already said goodbye to the others. 🖐Now I'm off rest.
Best regards to all. 
Fairly often they would make some changes to how definition updates were delivered and when they happened, it would no longer receive updates. Not only would you no longer receive updates, you wouldn't get any notifications indicating that updates had failed. In a week or two, Windows would alert you that Norton had out of date signatures. The solution to this would to be run Live Update and it would download and install some product updates that would fix the signature update issue for the time being. These updates would only be installed if you manually ran Live Update, as Norton would only automatically check for and download new signatures, not product updates.
Many years ago Norton was often extremely heavy, making computers run very slowly. I remember doing a fresh install of Windows 7 on on friend's computer after replacing a failed hard drive and then installing the latest version of Norton 360. It made the computer, which had pretty powerful CPU, run very slowly, so I uninstalled it and replaced it with the free version of Avast, which ran much better. But around twelve years ago, they make it a lot lighter and it went on to became one of the lightest antiviruses.
| Detection Name | Final Detection Source | File Location/Name | Date Time | Comment |
| Trojan:Script/GenericYJ.BBC | neo | ///redacted///r189722c5-ba5c-4822-ab5d-7359af018697r.js | 2025-07-15 09:42:56 | Modified script (dropper). McAfee detected pre-execution no matter what modifications I did. |
| ti!6981D8702172 | hti | ///redacted///6981d8702172dc39f302bdeb4917c0eb49f7c37b2a90bee41f64ccecc7e9497d.exe | 2025-07-15 09:45:12 | Pre-execution detection |
| ti!9B757A3DBB96 | rp-s | ///redacted///9b757a3dbb96ff7cbea3853bdea20cbf954add2f6a2f6cebb2d0d5f0c137c0d8.exe | 2025-07-15 09:53:13 | Pre-execution detection |
| ti!968396EE196B | hti | ///redacted///968396ee196be287ac6de30d897f7e84570eb5a297642a32d7300826241349bb.exe | 2025-07-15 09:58:38 | Pre-execution detection |
| ti!0CBCDA1CFD01 | rp-s | ///redacted///968396ee196be287ac6de30d897f7e84570eb5a297642a32d7300826241349bb.exe | 2025-07-15 09:59:50 | Pre-execution detectiom |
| ti!8C874AE8B5B3 | rp-s | ///redacted///x.exe | 2025-07-15 10:01:55 | Modified script. It was detected pre-execution and a message was displayed that script cannot execute due to antivirus block. |
| ti!8C874AE8B5B3 | rp-s | ///redacted///x.exe | 2025-07-15 10:03:05 | Another modification, still blocked |
| ti!8C874AE8B5B3 | rp-s | ///redacted///x.exe | 2025-07-15 10:03:49 | Third modification, still blocked |
| ti!404F55E7AA85 | hti | ///redacted///404f55e7aa854f7df700f2b93b4a31d0f13dde464e74985ca9bc98ba6224cc93.exe | 2025-07-15 10:16:26 | Pre-execution detection |
| ti!95829D5ACF78 | hti | ///redacted///tier0.dll | 2025-07-15 10:21:38 | Malicious file-pumped (inflated) dll with size over 200MB. mcAfee detected pre-executon |
| hti!968cc448 | hti | ///redacted///968396ee196be287ac6de30d897f7e84570eb5a297642a32d7300826241349bb.exe | 2025-07-15 10:22:07 | Pre-execution detection |
| VBS/Generic.c | av | ///redacted///b501e17e249221d34a618e288e0e9a75933cea9894ec11fdcd45c0663d95eeb6.vbs | 2025-07-15 10:23:08 | The scripts was modified. McAfee detected and removed the script post-execution. |
So basically McAfee is now one of the most solid ones out there?
It’s definitely not the worst and it’s usable. Customers who have licenses can use McAfee without worries.
I would never go for GData so definitely McAfee.
An old-school antivirus with 2 engines, 1.5GB definitions (roughly). Not for me. It’s like an old Golf 3.
Do you consider Eset some sort of a reference in the cyber-security world? You need to increase your horizons a little bit if so.Is McAfee better than ESET now?
I wonder what will be the next one 
No, that wasn't implied or alluded to in this thread, it's just improved.Is McAfee better than ESET now?
The hashes (mostly) are up there in the table. Anyone with Eset can double check whether their solution detects.
Many others?
