Symantec Corporation Product Discussion

[Scott-Sutton]

Greetings All,

I'm sure at one time or another many of us will have used Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, or Norton Personal Firewall for our Security. Now, apart from the obvious size of the software in comparison the system resource usage, i'd like to discuss the effectiveness of this package. For the record, my previous Security configuration was Eset NOD32 Anti-Virus System 2.51 and Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.0.5 with Windows Firewall. My Operating System is Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 with all available updates installed along with Microsoft Office 2003 with Service Pack 2 with all available updates. I had no back up software - The Backup software included with Windows XP itself which wasn't suited to my needs, i had no recovery software, and finally i'm a very centralised user.

Im browse the Internet behind a NETGEAR DG834 Hardware Firewall Router with the latest Firmware.

My system specifications are as follows:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 2.08GHz
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-7N400 Pro 2 nForce 2 Ultra 400
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6200 256MB AGP
RAM: 1GB GeIL Dual Channel DDR 400
Storage: 2 160GB Seagate Barracuda (Ultra-ATA) - 1 Used As Back Up

I proceeded to install the following subscription Symantec software:

Symantec Norton Internet Security 2006
Symantec Norton SystemWorks 2006
Symantec Norton GoBack 4.1
Symantec Norton Save & Restore

Now, i'm not someone who simply "jumps" at the chance to buy the latest Norton range of software, and i'm certainly not blind to the fact that
Symantec's software gets flak from users with bad experiences, but for my personal needs, and for the wider needs as advised in the MS Press book Microsoft Windows XP Networking And Security, by installing the above software, i had followed the precautions every user should take - and more. The reason i bought the software was in light of the situation i had before i moved to a situation where the Router was available, in addition i am using an ADSL Connection and not Cable, as i was previously and in which there would be full need for this software regardless as i would have been using a Cable modem with no hardware based protection.

I'm fully hoping to make my Security and Networking enthusiasm become a full time job for a reputable and trustworthy firm such as Symantec or Eset, but i would like to see everyone's opinions on Symantec's software, and if, in all honesty, i've done the right thing and made the right choices relating to my situation regardless of public perception and the stigma that is prevelant against Symantec's software - My girlfriend purchased software for myself therefore I'd also feel somewhat guilty in not using it. The fact is that Security companies are vying for your attention regarding their products, and although certain products are obviously incapable of adequate protection for its users - Where the "adequate" protection definition can be applied in Security I do not know. Symantec is at the very least a very reputable and recognisable provider, they provide powerful protection and confidence for customers.

I fully believe that Security for each individual is a truly unique task, in that each user has specific needs that need to be addressed and catered for, and that in all fairness, each and every vendor is aiming to provide protection from a common threat, regardless of how it is seen by others. Saying that, Symantec promote confidence in Computing, they provide confidence in their products and confidence in the End User that the products they purchase from Symantec can protect their data - Independant testing supports this factor.
I'm not one for believing that Security is a product, it's a process taking multiple factors, for example I take common precautions by concealing my E-Mail Address, using disposable E-Mail Address Services to prevent SPAM and identity theft, I also run my everyday User Account in the User Group which is critical in certain cases to stem malware infections.

I'm reading Secrets & Lies by Bruce Schneier just now and I fully recommend the book to anyone interested in Security, it is expertly written yet in comparion it is a wonderful read that will entertain and inform, it's both educational and eye opening and Bruce has written it in such a way that my parents can quite easily understand many topics.

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[bigc73542]

I am usually at odds with most of the members here in that I don't think Norton security software is bad. Actually I have used it off and on for years and have been well protected when useing it. But I test and check out antivirus programs constantly. Usually install and uninstall on average three security programs a week. So I don't really recommend any one program as there are quite a few programs that do work very well. But back to your question, I don't think you will find any security apps that are much better than norton. Norton antivirus has a very good detection and cleaning rate. But in the end the decision is ultimatly yours to make. If you feel protected and comfortable with norton , go for it. :thumb:

[WSFuser]

if Norton works for you than stick with it. it has good detection rates even if updates arent as frequent.

its not my cup of tea tho.

[Tommy]

I only can agree with @bigc73542. Symantec has a very good product range with very good security aplications. The AV is one of its best without doubt. One reason for sure is that Symantec is constantly buying software house which have/had good product, adapting there knowledge. That's economy and legal.Latest 'Sygate'.
To tell the truth, i don't use Symantec product anymore because they are 'heavy-bloated' and subscribe themself deply into your OS. I prefer lightware with equal quality.

[furballi]

I don't use NAV anymore because:

1.Huge installation. No bloatware in my PC.

2.More difficult to remove than the majority of AV proggies.

3.Online registration.

4.Slower than some of it's competitors.

5.Buggy LiveUpdate.

If I had to pay for an AV, then I would go with NOD32. For the average PC users, Avast Home (free) is more than adequate protection. If you go to malicious websites, then NO AV solution is going to protect your PC.

Finally, SYMC has a lousy history of acquisition. Norton used to be a good application. Drive Image/Partition Magic used to be a good application. I could go on....

Mc Afee 8.0i is well respected in the corporate environment. NAV is popular because it comes pre-bundled with many computers. Most people don't know squat about AV, but they recognize the name SYMANCTEC/NORTON due to the ads in PC magazines and/or internet. I have no doubt that NOD32 would quickly displace NAV if management was to use this FREE bundle strategy.

[bigc73542]

I don't see anything wrong with online registration And I haven't had problems with live update and as far as being a large program, My computer hardly even notices the room it takes. And as far as removal goes, from version 2005 and up there is no problem uninstalling the program. and as far as being bloated, it isn't bloated it is just a large program. Bloated would mean that it is really large and just takes up space. Where as Norton uses what it installs to protect your computer not just to take up space.

and as far as nod displacing norton, don't hold your breath.

[WSFuser]

actually bloated is an accurate description, but it depends on teh user.

bloated (adj) - Much bigger than desired.

some people dont mind a few extra megabytes, others prefer a slim installer/program size.

[Kerodo]

I have NAV 2006 installed on one of my images here and I use it off and on when the mood strikes. I think it's a good solid product and I haven't had any problems with it. Frankly, sometimes I get tired of all the http scanners and such and just want to use a high quality AV like Norton. It is a little "heavy", but I find that it doesn't affect system performance at all like some of the others can (KAV for instance). Anyway, it's popular to bash Norton these days, but I like it.

[Meriadoc]

-{ Quote: "Symantec Norton Internet Security 2006
Symantec Norton SystemWorks 2006
Symantec Norton GoBack 4.1
Symantec Norton Save & Restore" }-


I had Symantec Norton Save & Restore, knocking about on a machine as a friend wanted me to take a look at it and I also added nis2006 because I'm interested to see where symantec is. I do not knock a product unless I have a personal reason to.
NS&R is for the average user, you cannot go wrong with this if you follow the prompts. You can now backup files by selection and filter. S&R integrates with the protection centre which integrates with the antivirus - if a 'serious' threat is detected the protection centre invokes a backup. The cd was very slow and I could not be used to image. It is expensive. +20 than ATI.
NAVs detection, when the user does a scan, and has bloodhound turned to highest protection, is very good. The NPFirewall is very good. NIS integrates into ie therefor you can make rules for sites as you go - NIS2006 I do not like because of NO Stats and NO way of terminating a connection. NIS now runs better taking less resources and the s should now be taken away from the front of snorton.

Scott looks like you have settled on norton -your choice- whatever works for you. Personally I'd explain things to the gf and go back to nod for the av. I'm testing nod at the mo and it has stopped every 'virus' I have.

'Your level of skill and available time will decide which is best.' - a wilders member

[dah145]

I like almost all symantec programs except :-\ Norton AV and IS, it is just too huge and not so good compared to others detection rates. 8)

[Firecat]

Well, while I do like Norton Products quite a bit (and the products do work well enough), I've never had any of my emails about Norton answered by Symantec. No reply at all, not even a reply giving a link to a knowledge base article.

While I shall not slam Norton as a product, since it *is* a good product, I must say that I'm not very satisfied with their support services. :(

[Scott-Sutton]

Greetings All,

Thank you all for your helpful and useful insight,~Off topic comments removed -Ron~ I think Symantec are in a position as Microsoft is, it has a reputation only held up by those who don't understand the technology as "atrocious" when, if you were to be mature in a conversation about such matters, you'd find that through the misconceptions about the software are only fueled by those wishing to fit in with the online community being the "In" crowd and suchlike. Symantec's software is visual, and has one of the best designed GUIs in the industry of Information Security applications. It visually reminds the user to be concious about their Security, that yes, they are protected by a reputable and confident firm. Many people take aim at Symantec's marketing at being overzealous when promoting their products, but isn't that the aim of every vendor?

I can't tell you how glad I am that the industry is finally joining forces to fight malware, it's now going to be a unified and ever stronger force against malware authors and I think it was needed. Personally, and I think this still, there is more comparison of Security software in the industry against others nowadays than there has been in recent years, a case of "If you're not in Camp A, you're worse off." and in all honesty, I'm glad to see the industry is growing up rather than resorting to underhanded tactics of statistics and suchlike to attract a consumers - I used Symantec AntiVirus Corporate while working for an industry support company and it's an excellent and well regarded package. I also think that the GUI promotes an amateur-like feeling however in relation to the package, but this simple fact actually makes it eaiser for the user, and since I'm a very centrally managed user, I couldn't ask for a better inteface. I also think that there is automatic preconceptions about Symantec's engine capabilities. Again, through the crud of the "In" crowd, it is one of the most longstanding the mature engines on the market and isn't in any way to be dismissed, and if independant testing at AV-Comparatives doesn't signal this, then said person is in denial.
I enjoy reading Symantec's Blogs and suchlike, they are very interesting, and although I don't know if Symantec pioneered the feature, Eset and F-Secure are amongst other companies I've noticed hosting Blogs, and this in my opinion brings a confident face to the company and confidence in your Security, in my opinion, is critical. As Security Enthusiasts we need to promote confidence in products and in our knowledge and expertise, we need to give the End User confidence in their Computing. This is critical to their understanding of how they can better their Security and be more aware of the risks and how to mitigate them - Again Security is a process, not a product, incidentally I'm pleased to see that Symantec's 2006 software integrates well with the Groups within Windows XP, again I'm currently in the User Group, a strong attack mitigator which is a simple task to setup. It's simply too much of a "How effective is your engine?" industry nowadays and they are disappropriating themselves with the task in hand, protecting their customers. Frankly, if you want to have as strong a force you can against malware, work together, not apart. More hands, they say, make light work of a task in hand.:)

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the term "What is the best Security package available?" both misleading and false and it quite literally irritates myself, especially in terms of marketing. In my opinion there is not such thing as the best. If there were a best in the industry, everyone I'm quite sure would be using it and that's simply not the case. Every package is effective, it cannot mitigate nor protect against all threats. I should now edit my Signature.

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[YeOldeStonecat]

Was a big reseller of Symantecs product up til about 2 years ago. For their "home" grade products I think the last one I liked was version 2001. Went downhill from there...increasingly downhill.

I stayed onboard as a reseller/VAR selling/installing/supporting their Corporate Edition/Small Business Edition antivirus products on SMBs. (Had been with the product since version 5) Began to dislike it around version 9...noticed it started falling behind others in being able to detect the newer threats..licensing got to be a pain, prices went up, updates not as frequent as others, and it also started bogging down users systems (performance wise)...as historically their business grade antivirus was always lighter than their home products. Once version 10 came out...yuck...pig. I completely stopped selling/reselling it. When a high percentage of end users will complain on how much slower their systems ran when you did a silent upgrade from 9-10 the weekend before...hey, it's not longer just my opinion or imagination.

Still have to deal with the danged thing...as so many brand new systems unfortunately come pre-packaged with it. IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads and HP's Business machines for example..I deploy a lot of them..and have to suffer through the agonizingly long uninstall process of it. >:(

I don't like that tactic at all...of bundling a corporate version antivirus package on a new machine. For home users, for the Dell Dimensions/Inspirons, the HP Presarios, eMachines, all those 1 year home user computers...it's fine. But for business grade machines..like Dell Optiplexes/Latitudes, IBM Thinkpads, HP dc5000/7000 series Business Desktops..etc etc...most business networks already have their business grade antivirus platform in place...it's such a pain to have to clean off new systems.

Also actively seeking a replacement for the Backup Exec product (since they purchased Veritas).

[Peter2150]

As far as the job they do, I don't think Symantec products are bad. I do have two issues, which is why I won't use them.

1. Bloat. But let me define bloat. If all I want is an AV, then I just want an AV. Norton has a tendency to include additional things whose only purpose is to make it easier to add other Norton products. That to me is pure unnecessary bloat. if something is needed for another product install it when I install that product.

2. Support. My experience with Norton support has shown it to be virtually non existant. My last experience with them was spending hours reaching them by phone, only to find out they were aware of the problem and had done nothing to alert the new buyers whom it affected. Gee they had registration emails. Worse still the solution provided was wrong.

Pete

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Was a big reseller of Symantecs product up til about 2 years ago. For their "home" grade products I think the last one I liked was version 2001. Went downhill from there...increasingly downhill" }-your assesment doesn't necessarily fit the facts. Since version 2005 of norton antivirus the program usually runs light on computers less that two years old. user comments on the 2005 and up NAV are almost all positive. There are a few that that still don't like it or it doesn't work well on their computer. But that can happen to any AV. My computer absolutly won't run Nod32. And Symantec doesn't automatically destroy products they buy, I have norton partition magic and it works flawlessly. I really can't figure out how people get such a myopic view of Symantec products. Jealously I guess that they don't own the company.;) But I will admit their support does sucks :thumbd:

[furballi]

There will always be PCs that run NAV without any issue. Let's use common sense before we declare that NAV's size is not a liability. Efficient software coding is very important when it comes to speed and system stability. Why require the PC to deal with 10000 lines of code when 100 lines will do the job? There ain't no free lunch. A larger application will require more HDD activity and CPU clock time. An average user may not see the slowdown if your CPU is faster than a 500MHz PIII.

Shouldn't a good AV be compatible with OLD and NEW PCs? Why limit NAV to computers that are less than two years old? Mc Afee 8.0i, for example, is smooth as butter on my 600MHz PIII.

Is NAV 2006 much better than NAV 2001 when both have the most up-to-date virus definition file?

Want to know how NAV fares in the real-world? Read comments from those who maintain and service PCs. How many are endorsing NAV? How many top-of-the-line custom PCs use NAV?

SYMC's stock price is in the dog house since peaking in 2004. People wise-up when they found out that SYMC isn't the only game in town. Just like AOL users, they are discovering lower-cost alternatives with SUPERIOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT! BTW, I give SYMC's customer support an F.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SYMC&t=2y

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "There will always be PCs that run NAV without any issue. Let's use common sense before we declare that NAV's size is not a liability. Efficient software coding is very important when it comes to speed and system stability. Why require the PC to deal with 10000 lines of code when 100 lines will do the job? There ain't no free lunch. A larger application will require more HDD activity and CPU clock time. An average user may not see the slowdown if your CPU is faster than a 500MHz PIII.

Shouldn't a good AV be compatible with OLD and NEW PCs? Why limit NAV to computers that are less than two years old? Mc Afee 8.0i, for example, is smooth as butter on my 600MHz PIII.

Is NAV 2006 much better than NAV 2001 when both have the most up-to-date virus definition file?

Want to know how NAV fares in the real-world? Read comments from those who maintain and service PCs. How many are endorsing NAV? How many top-of-the-line custom PCs use NAV?" }-


Yes 2006 NAV does give much better protection than 2001. The 2001 version can't utilize the downloads the same as the newer versions as the av engine was not designed to use all of the new definations like antispyware, antitrojan and more. It is always advisable to upgrade to the latest version of any security product so you will be able to beprotected fom the new types of threats that show up every day. There is no way to compare the protection of 2001 with 2005/2006 as the older version just can't detect most of the newer threats. Even though the 2001 version will download the newer definitions it can't use most of it because it's engine can't utilize them. Symantec used to have this info on their home web page bet have since removed it since it is really old news.


And I used to build and maintain PC's when I had my two computer shops for several decades.

[Scott-Sutton]

Greetings All,

Thank you everyone again for replying, if anything I didn't expect there to be a mature conversation about Symantec software, I was quite obviously wrong in my pre-assumption that the World and his Goat would be smiting Symantec's software. In all honesty, I have used Symantec's products from 2002 through 2006 and by far I feel that Symantec's 2006 software is the most effective product they have ever produced. I know many were on the fence regarding Symantec's Windows Vista White Paper, I haven't read it myself yet but I hope it'll be an interesting read, it'll certainly give us an incling into what to expect with Windows Vista when it's finally released in 2007. Windows XP Service Pack 3 is also released next year with rumours of a Service Pack 4 being planned. Either way, I haven't had any issues with Symantec's software at all, in fact I feel confident that I have strong protection and the ability to backup my system as and when I please. Norton GoBack 4.1 is one of the most useful pieces of software I have ever used, the ability to restore files individually is excellent and I think Symantec's decision to buy Roxio, who originally marketed the product as Roxio GoBack, was a wise and beneficial move. For all the supposed issues Symantec's software causes, there can be no doubt that it is the still one of the most effective packages on the market and the AntiVirus engine is excellent.

All in all, if anything, I'm more confident with Symantec's software than I have ever felt although I can't say that Uninstalling Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System didn't bring a tear to my eye. I will use it, guaranteeed, but at this moment it simply isn't the solution I need, I'd spend far more time configuring individual packages for optimum protection in their respected fields than working, and with Symantec's Protection Center I can centrally manage the software. Regardless of the stigma it has, and if you're mature about it, you'll see that Symantec are still a strong force in the Information Security field.

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[furballi]

More reviews from the average PC users...



NAV:

http://www.pcworld.com/product/userreviews/id,27549;c,detail/userreviews.html


Mc Afee:

http://www.pcworld.com/product/userreviews/id,27540;c,detail/userreviews.html


According to these tests, Mc Afee has much better heuristic detection and a faster scan engine. More proofs that bloatware DOES NOT translate to better performance.

[Scott-Sutton]

Greetings All,

I thought I say that although my system performance has somewhat decreased using Symantec's software, I don't play games and suchlike therefore it's not an issue and at the end of the day I still have protection and confident strong protection at that. I think McAfee are atrocious personally and their suite is both somewhat "paranoid" in use. Either way, everyone has their own particular favourite suites and software packages and no-one should be victimised - ~Off topic comments removed - Ron~ I have used Symantec software for 4 years and I know people who have used it for many more years than I with no issues, not one. It simply shows the fact that, unlike what you read on the Internet, and where "All For One And One For All" opinions are concerned, I'm confident and pleased with the protection that Symantec AntiVirus engine gives to users like myself. As has been said beforehand in this thread, Symantec's Norton software, is still an excellent choice and regardless of whether you're a Security Professional or a Home User, I would consider purchasing Symantec Norton AntiVirus regardless of this fact. Does anyone have information on the experiences they've personally had with the software and how many users themselves would use Symantec's software in confidence?

Exactly how does Symantec's Norton AntiVirus BloodHound Huerisitics work in tandem with the engine and are there any areas users feel that Symantec should improve their product in? I would certainly like Symantec to improve resource usage although it's simply not an issue for myself, I'm quite content with my system, I enjoy keeping it healthy and I never have issues with malware, infact my incident this week using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System was the first incident I'd experienced using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System in 10 months of use and the first incident with malware in a year of using Windows legitimately.

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[lodore]

I would like to add my points to this post.

I used to use norton up in till 1.5 years ago which is when i got my new pc.

when ive tryed other antivirus products on it since to try them I have had 200 bits of spyware. like 50 or 60 trojans. so what is it stopping? not much.

my old always crashed never really worked. when i got my new pc i installed f-secure no problems at all. and then a friend told me about spysweeper which i have installed on this pc and this pc is clean of malware. but i thought i would try it on my old pc and thats what found my 200bits of spyware. no wonder it didnt work lol. so i am now thinking of getting kaspersky and outpost because they are better and lighter than f-secure is.

all the 4 years of using my old pc complaining it didnt work and blaming dell for it. since it was a dell pc I was mistaken it seems it was norton internet secuirty not protecting me from the trojans and spyware.
any comments?

[Scott-Sutton]

-{ Quote: " lol. so i am now thinking of getting kaspersky and outpost because they are better and lighter than f-secure is.

all the 4 years of using my old pc complaining it didnt work and blaming dell for it. since it was a dell pc I was mistaken it seems it was norton internet secuirty not protecting me from the trojans and spyware.
any comments?" }-

Greetings Lodore,

The fact is that up until Norton Internet Security 2006, as far as I know of, Symantec didn't including AntiSpyware detection and I would like to make it known that I'm also using Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.0.5 also. Trojan Horse programs, regardless of the detection program being used are very difficult to detect on their own regardless of whether or not you have the a competent and well respected AntiVirus solution. Trojan Horse programs do not have a specific signature unlike Viruses but the main issue with Trojan Horses is that they are often concealed within seemingly benine files and installation programs in which permission is granted by the user to install the program by simply avoiding the EULA and therefore the threat is undetected. This is a reason as to why the End User must read the EULA in order to know exactly what is being installed on your system. It also depends on exactly where you surf. If you surf somewhat seedy websites and the like, the chances of your system being infected multiply greatly. I don't think that the above comment is at all relevant to Symantec's 2006 software and after all, no software can protect your system against all threats therefore, regardless of which AntiVirus, AntiSpyware and Personal Firewall program you use, there is always a window of opportunity to have your system infiltrated by malware.

In comparison, I read the thread regarding Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 BETA. Exactly how does it perform in comparision to the 2006 software, how does it compare resource usage wise and would you say that there is a marked improvement in the quality of the software? I certainly like the GUI with this version of the software, does anyone know exactly when Symantec plan to release the software to the public? I know that it's recently been released as a public BETA so it's not as thought I'm expecting it by the year's end. I look forward to seeing what protection they offer Windows Vista come its 2007 release.

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "I like almost all symantec programs except :-\ Norton AV and IS, it is just too huge and not so good compared to others detection rates. 8)" }-Actually Nortons detection rates are excellent when compared with others. I used it but switched because I wanted a product that offered approximatly equal detection but faster system scans. So I presently use NOD 2.50.25.

[furballi]

NAV 2006 DOES NOT support W98. The minimum requirements for Viruscan 2006 is also lower than NAV 2006.

NAV vs VirusScan:

HDD space...160MB vs 40MB
Processor speed...300MHz vs 150MHz
Physical memory...256MB vs 128MB

From a technical perspective, NAV is inferior to VirusScan.

[bigc73542]

Don't believe everything you read. Norton av is superior to mcafee according to the results at av-comparatives. It is close but it still fares better than McAfee.

[furballi]

Per http://www.av-comparatives.org/

The following products were used in the last comparative (with best possible settings):
Look into the online results to determine the exact version number.



On-demand detection rate on February 2006
-NAV...97.61%
-VirusScan...96.41%
-NOD32...97.89%

ProActive Detection of New Samples on May 2006
-NAV...16% (3rd worst)
-VirusScan...30%
-NOD32...58%

Hmmm...I'd say it's a statistical dead heat between the three with On-demand. NOD32 is the clear winner with the Retrospective test. VirusScan is in the middle of the pack. NAV is near the bottom of the food chain (not much better than AVG)!

Again, numbers don't lie.

[Legendkiller]

Well i am a big fan of norton products,but i do not suffer from bias and believe that 2004 range was a big diss-appointment.
But,largely my experience with norton products(IS,AV) since 2000 have been very good and its only from last 2-3 years that other companies are getting a thumbs-up.
Norton like Microsoft suffers from bad public image and many a times people i found criticising norton hadn't even used it for some time.

For eg,i met a lot of people at a pc magazine forum criticsing norton,but only a few of them had actually used the latest range of 2006.

I don't find any problem with pc mem usage or browsing speeds or anything else.
Norton isn't a bloatware and many companies like f-secure,trendmicro,panda have these 40mb+ package...
Also,i find that norton is the only suite which constantly updates signatures for ads,firewall rules,anti-spam rules etc...
Most other companies largely concentrate on AV signatures..
Norton's firewall,anti-spyware are one of the best(if not the best) in the market between pc-cillin,kaspersky,mcafee,panda etc etc.

Norton's detection rates are among the best and as furballi pointed out its the best.

Also,the product support is much criticised but in my opinion their knowledge base covers almost 90% of the problems encountered.

Also,norton was one of the first to have "Security Threat" corner which gives analysis of threat emergence of different types of threats.

to sum up i find the 2006 range to be very usable and dependable and i maybe the very few who never had a problem with norton products even in 2004!

[ink]

The overall impression is good, for its simplify and stable.
But you should admit that the software is a little slowly for old computers, especially the newest corporate edition.
As a suit, f-secure and kis are much better than it. The combination of kav, nod32 ,za ,outpost is also better if not considering the antispam funtion.
So the experience user here will not choose the suit, but it is ok for most common users.

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "
Norton like Microsoft suffers from bad public image and many a times people i found criticising norton hadn't even used it for some time.
" }-


;D ;D ha-ha-ha ;D Yes , that's true but may be we should ask why ?

Because these two companies are enormoisly big and popular (everyone have heard them) and people are expecting more(max) from them . If(when) they fail on a test or in-real-life , this immediately makes them bad name.

However , when they do something good , nobody is taking care of this good because , you know , they are big/famous/rich so this is normal

Ah , yes , this is all normal for human's nature :thumb: :D (and doesn't apply only for Symantec/Microsoft) :)

[Scott-Sutton]

Greetings All,

I thought I would update this thread and notify everyone that since formatting my Hard Disk this morning, I've decided to go back to using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus with Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.0.5 as they provide somewhat greater protection than Symantec's Norton products alone, I was beginning to get somewhat irritated with the speed impedement on my system and it was using 600MB of RAM idle which is equal to Microsoft Windows Vista BETA 2. I shouldn't expect this would be the case with following Windows Vista builds but it was a comparison that I thought I would draw on. Incidentally my girlfriend, who is studying Computer Science at University this year is also using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System and Webroot Spy Sweeper, infact NOD32 protected her system today as her sister and her fiance "accidently" downloaded malware onto her system but thanks to the protection NOD32 provides and the implementation of BlackSpear's settings, each threat was removed instantaneously and wasn't an issue. Lest to say my girlfriend wasn't and isn't amused towards them both.
Although Symantec's products are of a high quality, with Norton GoBack 4.1 being my favourite Symantec product, I feel that I have more control of my system using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System and I await the release of Version 3.0 with eagerness although I'll wait before upgrading my subscription to the dedicated suite. Please feel free to continue the discussion at will, thank goodness it's mature, not at all what I expected - Wilders' Community is brilliant, you should be very proud Paul. ;)

Regards,

Scott Sutton

[SourMilk]

I've always found Norton products to be effective but very registry invasive. I have forgotten the exact number of registry entries on a windows based OS but I believe it's around 50 or so. If you want to uninstall these programs, make sure you get a good registry cleaner like the ones from Macesoft.

To forego the above, I would rather have Kaspersky on my machine. Just MHO.

SourMilk out

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Per http://www.av-comparatives.org/

The following products were used in the last comparative (with best possible settings):
Look into the online results to determine the exact version number.



On-demand detection rate on February 2006
-NAV...97.61%
-VirusScan...96.41%
-NOD32...97.89%

ProActive Detection of New Samples on May 2006
-NAV...16% (3rd worst)
-VirusScan...30%
-NOD32...58%

Hmmm...I'd say it's a statistical dead heat between the three with On-demand. NOD32 is the clear winner with the Retrospective test. VirusScan is in the middle of the pack. NAV is near the bottom of the food chain (not much better than AVG)!

Again, numbers don't lie." }-



proavtive results would be on the bottom of the list in helping me decide on an av. I just don't feel comfortable in the way they are tested in the proactive test. But an av is a personal decision, so everyone for their self in making that choice.

Numbers don't lie but they can be manupilated to show about any result desired. If numbers were infalible or couldn't be manupilated all of the testing sites would have the same testing results and they don't so that should tell you something.

[midway40]

Last time I tried Norton was when it's IS came with my Dim. 8300-P4 3.0GHz back in May 2004. When I powered up the system for the first time, it was very sluggish and "clunky". When I clicked on the Norton icon in the systray it would take up to 30 secs before the window would come up. I suspected this might had something to do will all the bloat stuff Dell installs. Then, as I usually do with a new computer, I formated and reinstalled XP. I was amazed at the difference in speed from my old Dim. 4100-P3 800MHz. Then I reinstalled Norton IS and once again the sluggishness was back again. The 8300 felt slower than my old 4100. I uninstalled it (which was a feat in itself since Norton insinuates itself everywhere in your computer like kudzu--southern US citizens knows what that is, lol) and tried McAfee which was on one of Dell's disks that came with the computer. It was even worse! Then I put AVG on for a while and then became a TM beta tester and have been using it ever since.

I remember at the time I read in some forums that some of the older Norton users said that 2002 was the last good version. Of course I have not tried it since then so I can only go by what I read from other's experiences of the newer versions.

[furballi]

A high quality AV like NAV SHOULD be able to perform well with ANY TEST, including the PROACTIVE DETECTION test. One should expect much better NAV heuristic when one factors NAV's huge installation footprint and above average memory load. Why waste more HDD space and physical memory when you're not getting a faster AV with better OVERALL detection? Remember what I said about efficient software coding?

Heuristic detection can be very valuable when you access malicious websites. When in doubt, put the file in QUARANTINE! It may not be 100%, but it certaining beats waiting for the NEW AV definition. BTW, Norton is not timely (like KAV and NOD) when it comes to definition update.

I provided the PC World AV tests, but you wanted to use Av-comparatives numbers, so I posted them. Now you're saying that these "numbers don't lie but they can be manupilated to show about any result desired". If you believe that 97.6% is SUPERIOR to 96.4%, then perhaps you need to revisit Statistics 101. There are NO PERFECT tests. With the provided database, a variation of +/- 3% is well within the noise level of most well-controlled scientific experiments. BTW, the PC WORLD tests also support the results in Av-comparatives.

While you declare the 1.2% 'on-demand' advantage between NAV and VirusScan as "superior", you dismiss the 14% 'heuristic' deficit because it does not support your case!

When when ALL ELSE are equal, I would be an IDIOT if I didn't go with the AV with superior ProActive detection.

Perhaps you can provide scientific evidences as to why NAV is better than NOD32 and VirusScan.

[YeOldeStonecat]

-{ Quote: "your assesment doesn't necessarily fit the facts. Since version 2005 of norton antivirus the program usually runs light on computers less that two years old. user comments on the 2005 and up NAV are almost all positive. There are a few that that still don't like it or it doesn't work well on their computer. But that can happen to any AV. My computer absolutly won't run Nod32. And Symantec doesn't automatically destroy products they buy, I have norton partition magic and it works flawlessly. I really can't figure out how people get such a myopic view of Symantec products. Jealously I guess that they don't own the company.;) But I will admit their support does sucks :thumbd:" }-

I don't believe there are any "facts" to backup any assesment when it comes to PC performance..only "opinions" and "perceptions". Both mine...but more importantly IMO (at least...more importantly as far as what actually counts for me)...the views of my clients.

I will agree...their AV products have "lightened up" over the past couple of versions. IMO they still have a bit of "lightening up to do" to catch up with some other products that IMO lead this area, which in prior reply I'm purposefully staying away from mentioning other products...not going to get into a direct comparison battle here...only focusing on observations about Symantec.

Just because I don't resell them anymore as a VAR, doesn't meant I don't still work on them (as I still do with many other brands of AV products..AVG, Kapersky, Trend Micro, CAI, Sophos, etc etc)...I still have many clients that use their products (I'm working on switching them! ;D ) In another week or two...I have another big network upgrade from CE 9 to the latest..I'm not looking forward to it. >:(

It ain't jealousy...else I'd hop in the "Trendy bash Microsoft" threads that are so popular around here. Not going to bash something that makes me money..that I make my decent living from.

[bigc73542]

Now let me make something clear here, I am not useing symantec products at this time. I am useing a much lighter and smaller av. I usually defend norton av simply because there is a lot of bashing of the product and it really doesn't deserve it. Just because a cadillac is twice as heavy as a corvette does that mean that it isn't any good because it is bigger and not as fast, I don't think so. Nav is a good product and tens of millions of users have it installed and are satisfied with it. Nod32 is an antivirus I wouldn't use at all, I have had it installed on three different computers and with three different versions and had nothing but problems with it. But does that make nod a piece of junk? of course not. All it means is that I have something installed that conflicts with nod. The same goes for other people that try Norton, it is not going to work for everyone. But with the size of their user base the complaints that I have heard of or seen are a very small percentage of the installs of norton in the world.

[furballi]

I never said that NAV was worthless as an AV. However, why stick with $25 'AOL' dial-up when you can switch to 'AT&T' DSL for $13?

Microsoft One Care comes with an AV, FW, and licenses for 3 PCs for less than $40. SYMC is living on past glory. Why should the average user stick with a "bigger" and "slower" AV like NAV when its competitors have similar detection capability?

A free AV is perfectly adequate for the average PC users. Why? Because the majority of mainstream websites and mail servers are secured with an AV scanner.

AV vendors thrive on fear. Your best defense is to use common sense when you're connected to the internet. You don't want a stranger to gain access to your home, so why allow others to pull data from your HDD? Free software, free porn, free virus, too. Delete all e-mails from unknown origin.

You would think that the law of probability is not on my side since I do not use a real-time AV scanner. Fortunately, I'm still bug-free after 10 years of .net.