McAfee Internet Security 2010
McAfee Internet Security 2010: Nice interface but slow scans
- Good malware detection, well-designed interface
- Worse-than-average impact on PC performance, slow malware scans
McAfee Internet Security 2010 performed well at detecting and blocking malware. However, McAfee needs to improve its scan speed and performance, and to bolster its behavioural malware detection.
Price$ 99.95 (AUD)
McAfee Internet Security 2010 does a good job at detecting malware, its interface is fresh and distinct from the pack, and it has a solid set of features.
However, our tests show that McAfee Internet Security 2010 slowed system performance more than many competing security products did.
McAfee has completely redesigned the interface for McAfee Internet Security 2010, and we like its fresh approach. It's intuitive and easy to work with, and its look is quite unlike any other security suite. Sections are called drawers; click the section, and the drawer opens to reveal the settings and status of each component. The top portion remains fixed, offering a static overview of the entire product.
McAfee Internet Security 2010 proved effective at cleaning up active infections; it detected all test infections, disabled 87 percent, and completely removed 47 percent. That removal rate is about average for the 2010 products we test; the suites we tested were generally effective at disabling infections, but often left malware components behind.
McAfee did well in results for behavioural detection of malware (which detects malware based only on how it acts - an effective way of detecting new or unknown threats) scoring 87 percent for detection, 73 percent for blocking attacks, and 60 percent for removing all traces of infections. This is a good test to tell how well suites can stop brand-new malware threats. Our top performers detected and blocked over 90 percent of samples, so McAfee Internet Security 2010's scores were good, but not outstanding.
In addition, McAfee Internet Security 2010 tied Kaspersky as the leader of the pack in rootkit detection, earning a perfect score for both detection and removal of rootkits (stealth malware used to hide other infections). As for old-style signature-based detection of malware, the McAfee package performed the best of all the suites we reviewed, with a 99.9 percent detection rate. Most other products put up detection scores in the range of 95 to 98 percent. However, signature-based detection isn't as important as it once was. Newer methods of blocking brand-new malware threats, particularly behavioural detection, are becoming more critical.
This suite made for somewhat longer boot times on our test machine. Boot times averaged around 50.6 seconds, nearly 4 seconds longer than the average startup time of the suites we tested. According to our lab speed testing, McAfee Internet Security 2010 was slower in tests overall compared with the other suites we tested. And it had the slowest on-access scan speed: it took 9 minutes, 21 seconds to scan 4.5GB of data; the best performer in this test took only 2 minutes, 51 seconds. (The on-access scan test judges how quickly a product can scan files for malware when they are opened or saved.) In our hands-on use, though, we noticed only slight slowdowns.
Join the PC World newsletter!
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 7 review
- 2 Portable power: Venom Blackbook 13 Zero review
- 3 Alcatel Idol 4S review: King of the mid-range?
- 4 Witness a 241% Australian price hike: Dell Latitude 7370 review
- 5 Is this the best value phone on the market? Moto G4 Plus review
Latest News Articles
- Surveys suss out Windows 10 enterprise migration timelines
- Facebook battles to banish News Feed clickbait
- Will Supreme Court settle network neutrality issue?
- Microsoft’s Iowa data center cluster to reach 3.2M square feet
- Google taps AI to help you bid for digital ads
GGG Evaluation Team
First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.
For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.
The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.
The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.
My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.
- CCContract Analyst Programmer (.NET/SQL Server) 160829/AP/267Asia
- CCSystems Analyst (IT Security/Network & Systems) 160826/SA/652Asia
- CCContract Analyst Programmer (JAVA/Unix/Linux/Web) 160819/AP/173Asia
- FTDB2 Systems ProgrammerWA
- FTMicrosoft Enterprise Project Management - Technical ConsultantACT
- CCSenior / Lead UX DesignerNSW
- CCAutomation ManagerNSW
- FTDefence Network EngineerACT
- CCContract Analyst Programmer (JAVA/J2EE/Oracle) 160822/AP/259Asia
- CCSystem Analyst - NetIQNSW
- CCComms project specialistVIC
- CCActive Directory Consultant/ArchitectWA
- CCData Centre Solutions Architect - Red Hat, Wintel & VMwareACT
- FTIT Security & Risk ManagerNSW
- FTApplication Support ManagerNSW
- FTSAP Ariba Consultant/ManagerVIC
- CCSenior Project Specialist - Network IPVIC
- FTPrincipal Business Consultant- Wealth ManagementNSW
- CCCustomer Service SpecialistVIC
- FTIT Manager - Infrastructure Strategy and OperationsNSW
- FTIT Release CoordinatorWA
- CCContract Programmer (IT Security/Website Admin.) 160824/P/567Asia
- FTDefence Network EngineerACT
- CCSenior Android DeveloperVIC
- FTOperations ManagerNSW