Plusnet Protect

[#1]

The £2.00 covers up to seven computers apparently.

[#2]

Is it free or is it £2/month?
My portal told me it was free initially.  It then told me when it was available for download that it would cost £2/month.

[#3]

It's showing as free on your account. Can you advise exactly where it shows as chargeable?

[#4]

It was on the announcement on the portal once it was "ready".
Obviously having subsequently clicked on the link, that announcement has now gone.

[#5]

I'll try and replicate it on a few test accounts.
The component on your account is definitely free though, so rest assured you can download it and not be charged.

[#6]

Hi Mand
I had this as well.  I put a few details about it on the thread on the PUG forums this morning.
Phil

[#7]

Quote from: Be3G

The £2.00 covers up to seven computers apparently.

Where did you get info on 7 computers? My understanding was it covered 3 computers...
Mike

[#8]

here
Although I am a bit puzzled as the McAfee Network Manager seems to be totally different http://www.topantivirusreports.com/mcafee-total-protection-page.html

Quote

McAfee Network Manager Network Manager presents a graphical view of the computers and components that make up home network. The user can use Network Manager to remotely monitor the protection status of each managed computer in the network, and remotely fix reported security vulnerabilities on those computers. :

[#9]

Ha!
PUG were told it was only basic AV protection (no firewall etc) and also that it was licensed for 3 computers! That was pre-launch though... good to see that the final product is a bit more substantial though, and covers so many machines. Our complaints about the £2 a month aren't so valid if you are going to cover so many machines, (not that I am a fan of McAfee!!!), but still, it isn't such a bad deal if you will use 3 or more licences. Certainly top value for free on the higher packages!
Thanks for keeping me in the loop...
Mike

[#10]

xpcomputers,
A few things did change as mentioned on pug between the initial proposal for this project. I'm sorry you guys found out late (could be worse could have been 2 lincences ).
I would only advise taking what is officially announced on here as the absolute gospel when it comes to new products and services.
Adam.

[#11]

Changes at the last minute (especially ones to make the offering better) are very welcome!
As I said, we had been a bit critical on PUG about the plans to charge the lower accounts £2 per month for basic AV for up to 3 machines. However, as I said above, now you are offering a more "Internet Security Suite" type product with 7 licences, as you now are, that shifts the value of the offering considerably for the better, and I'd say for most users that is a reasonable offer worth taking up if they have 3 or more computers to protect (or at least an offer worth considering!).
The only remaining grumble for me is the choice of "McAfee", but I understand the economics of these deals, and know enough to be able to see that McAfee are probably pretty much the only company who could probably make the maths work out to be able to run this deal at all, and therefore if the choice is McAfee or nothing, I think choosing McAfee was the right choice and is well worth offering. Of course, it is up to customers to choose if they want to take the offer up, but reviews suggest the latest versions of McAfee are much much better than there have been for many years... even if the "experts" here might be a little scathing and still choose to use another product themselves.
So overall, I am very happy with the final offering, and see the great value this has brought to the customer base.
Mike

[#12]

Well put XP,
In all honesty (and at the risk of sounding Naive) I really didn't know that Mcafee had such a bad reputation.

[#13]

Adam.. yes, McAfee did have a terrible reputation especially with their security suite as it effectively became bloatware and caused major slowdowns with machines, which is why I moved to Kaspersky, but upon the advent of Vista, I had to move to Norton (Symantec) because that was the only thing available at the time.
To this day I still don't trust McAfee cause they failed to cancel a auto-renew which resulted in a charge to my credit card.. but that's a seperate matter entirely.
At the end of the day, it's horses for courses, but even though it's free, I still won't be using it. I'll be going back to Kaspersky this year.

[#14]

I've used Kaspersky for a few years now, and they've strauss been excellent, but this latest release seems slower, bug ridden, and with a few features nobbled for no apparent reason (i.e. you can't do a manual install leaving off components you don't use as you used to be able to do, and if you try to disable them instead, you get warning messages repeatedly!). Grrrr! They have fixed lots of the bugs, and are working on the missing features, but the software still seems slow. Not sure whether to stick or jump ship. I'll be watching Kaspersky closely in the next few months before deciding what to do next year!
In the meantime, I might give McAfee a whirl on machine to see how it measures up, but doubt I'll use it long term, since the trust just isn't there for me.... Yet!
Mike

[#15]

Strange but findings on Kaspersky don't match my experience.  Have it installed on Windows 7 (2010) and it is fine.
Just put 2011 trial version on my Vista laptop and fully expected it to slow down (it had been using MSE) but there seems to be no difference at all.
It has 2GB RAM but is a basic range machine.
I won't be taking advantage of McAfee as I have only installed it once on a friend's computer and found it too complicated, although I did not really persist with it. 
I am biased but I think that PN would have been better going with Kaspersky.