Norton antivirus is a great product

[Drew99GT]

I've been using Avast free for a few years now and the new version is so bloated and such a resource hog, it was killing my computer performance. I tried Avira free and ti was decent. I've always been a fan of Avira. Comcast/Xfinity gives users a free version of Norton that is roughly the same as Norton 360, so I gave it a try. I'm sold. It uses 2 processes that combined only use about 8,000K of memory! My laptop is also running cooler since it's not bogged down.

Comcast members can download the Norton Security Suite here:

http://constantguard.comcast.net/norton-security-suite

I wouldn't recommend downloading the Comcast Guard Security Suite as it's total bloatware; it was using 150K of memory.

I don't know if I'd pay for Norton, but since it's free, I'll stick with it. I know TimeWarner internet includes McAfee free.

 

[Donald]

ESET uses the least resources of anything I have seen. In the past, I used Norton at work and at times it was the single biggest user of memory in the system. I think many companies go for the best corp. license deal rather than the best product.

 

[UNC151]

I have McAfee on my W8 laptop, but I have not taken the time to see how many resources it uses. We use Symantec in our enterprise and it seems to be a solid product and is much easier to administer versus the old package we used.

I use Kaspersky on all other machines at home (all W7) and I really like the templates that can be created and applied to all machines from a "master" machine. The child protection safeguards are really nice too. In comparison to Norton, Kaspersky uses between 20K and 30K of memory.

 

[Mystic]

I would like to use Norton because it is an American antivirus but I have a few issues with it. But some of the hatred directed at Norton is unfounded.

There are still people claiming that Norton is bloated software that slows down computers and that is simply not true. It has not been true since 2008. So anybody making those claims either has not used Norton since 2009 or else is simply not telling the truth.

Norton is certainly much better than McAfee and probably better than Vipre and Microsoft Security Essentials/Windows Defender.

Probably the major complain I have against Norton is that it is hard to remove completely if you decide to remove it. It seems like there are always a lot of files left behind. And the last time I bought Norton 360 the rescue CD did not work properly.

There is a review of Norton 2013 at Security for Everyone at 7 Tutorials. I like the reviews there because they seem to be very honest and not biased like the reviews are at some of the major computer magazines. Usually they rate Norton pretty high at the 7 Tutorials website but this year Norton received a low rating.

I like the Russian Kaspersky antivirus but if tension ever begins to build up again between the USA and Russia what then? I sort of prefer if possible to use American made software, or at least software from some country that is friendly with the USA, such as Britain or Japan.

One thing I do like about Norton is that you can check online to make sure the antivirus is okay and if not it can be repaired.

As for effectiveness if I was using Norton I think I would always install the free Malwarebyte's Antimalware program and do occasional scans with that. And I would still use the Kaspersky Recue CD that you can download for free.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Donald
ESET uses the least resources of anything I have seen. In the past, I used Norton at work and at times it was the single biggest user of memory in the system. I think many companies go for the best corp. license deal rather than the best product.


Norton in years past was one of the worst products for detection, resource usage etc. but they have completely revamped it. It's light as a feather now.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I like the Russian Kaspersky antivirus but if tension ever begins to build up again between the USA and Russia what then? I sort of prefer if possible to use American made software, or at least software from some country that is friendly with the USA, such as Britain or Japan.

Kaspersky does have holding companies in the UK (if that helps). One of the main reasons that I use it (aside from all of the great features) tends to be a bit opposite your thoughts. I would rather have a non-US AVS due to (and I could be remembering this incorrectly) the issue where the FBI had a program named "Magic Lantern" and some of the US AV vendors stated they would not detect it whereas most of the foreign AV vendors would. Am I really concerned that I would be a target; no, I do not have anything worthy of such, but it is nice to have a AV package that is "objective". Of course, the same could happen in the foreign government so I guess it boils down to who you trust (no one? heh).

 

[wkcars]

I've used norton, mcafee, msse, trendmicro. The base antivirus all seem ok, it's when you install the extras/addons is when it starts to get clogged up.

 

[punisher]

When I work on client systems, Norton and Kaspersky are good to go. It is a hardware problem, not a virus problem on those systems.

McAfee, and MSE have had problems. MSE recently, McAfee for awhile. I get a lot of malware business on McAfee and MSE systems.

ESET, I think I am the only one who even knows about it.

Vipre has been a bit of a letdown since they got bought out awhile back. How more people down here have Vipre instead of ESET I will never know.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Drew, good to hear that Norton has turned things around. It was awful for a long time.

Eset is very good.

I'm a Vipre fan, and have been for 6 years running. It's a great product.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Drew, good to hear that Norton has turned things around. It was awful for a long time.

Eset is very good.

I'm a Vipre fan, and have been for 6 years running. It's a great product.


I read that Lavasoft Adaware's free antivirus uses the Vipre engine plus Lavasoft's antispyware engine. I thought about trying that one out as well.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

There are still people claiming that Norton is bloated software that slows down computers and that is simply not true. It has not been true since 2008. So anybody making those claims either has not used Norton since 2009 or else is simply not telling the truth.


Actually, what you said is very untrue. I personally stopped using Norton long time ago, but symantec is very entrenched in business. One of my work places used it and they also used old Pentium 4 PCs systemwide. It got so bad to the point, that PCs were unusable. Instead of buying new PCs, they removed Symantec and replaced it with some unknown brand light AV. The PCs are usable again (I know, they are that cheap). Now, that happened roughly a year ago, so much for your 2009 claim.

Now, my other workplace also uses Symantec, but newer C2D PCs with lots of RAM, so Symantec is not so much a performance hit anymore (relatively speaking).

 

[Y_K]

There is a bunch of Russians working for Symantec and Computer Associates (McAfee), and Chinese, and Indians, Estonians, Slovaks, Germans, Swedes, etc. There are even Americans among them..

Symantec Enterprise and Consumer are made by different teams. ESET is the lightweight champion.

Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an R&D institute of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB in 1987

 

[DragRace]

People still use AV programs huh?

I've used nothing but Sandboxie.I also use the free version of Malwarebytes and virus total to check downloads and have had no malware,viruses,etc.on my old XP PC.

 

[Mystic]

The antivirus that usually seems to be top rated is Bitdefender. But whenever I have tried Bitdefender it always seems to be kind of buggy. Kaspersky is usually rated near the top also although I had a few problems with it not being compatible with the software for my graphics card. Norton runs great and does not use a lot of system resources. I tried Eset Smart Security recently and it seemed really buggy. TrendMicro seems to be getting better and better all the time. I guess it would be considered Japanese software since the headquarters for TrendMicro is in Tokyo. But the top people actually are from Taiwan and they lived in the USA for a while and may actually be USA citizens. These are pretty much the only antivirus programs I would consider.

I would not use McAfee if it was given to me for free. I like the idea that Microsoft has their own antivirus software but I have questions about how effective MSE/Windows Defender are. Bitdefender has been too buggy so it sort of comes down to a choice between Kaspersky and Norton. Vipre seemed promising at first and after they were bought out they kind of disappeared.

Norton definitely has some good points but like I said I don't like it that so many files can be left behind when you uninstall it. As for effectiveness I simply don't know. 2013 may actually be a bad year for Norton. But with the free MBAM and the free Kaspersky Rescue CD Norton may be okay.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
The antivirus that usually seems to be top rated is Bitdefender. But whenever I have tried Bitdefender it always seems to be kind of buggy.


Looks good on paper indeed. I recently tried BFfree on my kids PCs. Works fine on a Vista laptop, but produced BSOD on a Win7 desktop. Weird.

 

[Mystic]

Well, friendly_jacek I have not seen Norton slow a computer down since 2009. They completely redesigned their software for 2009 and Norton now seems fast and anything but a computer resources hog. That has been my experience. Maybe on an older computer with limited Ram Norton would slow the computer down. But when a computer gets old enough it either has to have a Ram upgrade or else be retired and replaced. I had to buy a new iMac because the software I use now on my Apple Computer would not run on my old iMac. I use Aperture software to work on photos and you have to have OS 10.8 Mountain Lion to run that software and your computer has to be fast enough with enough Ram. Newer software on both Apple And Windows computer usually requires faster processors and more Ram.

So when you say I am being untrue what else did you say? That they were using Norton on older computers. My first Windows computer in 1995 had 8 MB of Ram. Later I upgraded it to 16. Do you think very much software today would run on that computer? You also said on newer computers the Norton seemed to run fine. So where exactly was what I said untrue? You have to have enough Ram and fast enough processors to run any of this modern day software.

 

[PandaBear]

One of my college friends work for Norton's AV division. He said that previously (before 08) the consumer version of it was very bloated and the corp version was very lean and efficient. They fired the consumer version's executive and have a top guy at the corp version came over to lead it, and get us the lean version we have today.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
You have to have enough Ram and fast enough processors to run any of this modern day software.


No, you didn't say that. You said no problems since 2008-2009. I now see that you meant newer PCs (2008+). Agree with that, but that is a different thing.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But when a computer gets old enough it either has to have a Ram upgrade or else be retired and replaced.


Not that simple in the industrial world.

There are a lot of machines that runs on custom software and hardware on Windows and they are not easily replaceable. Like oscilloscope, bus analyzer, cash registers, and many machine on the assembly lines. Some of them have custom PCBs (i.e. PC104) or older ISA slot cards that they cannot easily drop in a new machine just like that. Even if they are broken they are replaced with the same old machine priced from 10-20 years ago (i.e. a $400 486 motherboard).

So what do you want them to do when they are running old software? If there are different version of AV and I have one of these machine I'd definitely take the faster lighter one.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

There are a lot of machines that runs on custom software and hardware on Windows and they are not easily replaceable.


Very true. We just discontinued $200,000 instrument controlled by PC with Windows 98. The instrument itself was nearly 20 year old and PC was upgraded in year 2000 from DOS to Win98. Could not be upgraded any more. The replacement is brand new but operated by Windows 2000.

Both workplaces run XP otherwise. Not sure what will happen next year? Maybe windows 7 with XP virtualization? They invested many millions in information systems that run on XP.