A simple question

[Nullvoid]

Assuming your only two choices for an antivirus were: Norton and Antivir Classic, giving a reason why, which would you use?

I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's and I personally believe that the protection he will get from Antivir classic will be just as thorough, not to mention that it is free. Sadly he doesn't believe me on very many topics :o

[n8chavez]

-{ Quote: "Assuming your only two choices for an antivirus were: Norton and Antivir Classic, giving a reason why, which would you use?

I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's and I personally believe that the protection he will get from Antivir classic will be just as thorough, not to mention that it is free. Sadly he doesn't believe me on very many topics :o" }-

I would absolutely use Avira before Norton. Symantc products are not good, with the possible exception of Norton corporate. But even then it's reach. Norton uses too man system resources, too much hard drive space, and will bog down your system. Also, the heuristic engine is terrible; it relies too heavily on signatures.

A good rule of theumb when dealing with Norton is....run, run for your life!

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Assuming your only two choices for an antivirus were: Norton and Antivir Classic, giving a reason why, which would you use?

I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's and I personally believe that the protection he will get from Antivir classic will be just as thorough, not to mention that it is free. Sadly he doesn't believe me on very many topics :o" }-

norton 2007 is better than antivir in my opinion

[Tarq57]

I've had both. Avira is vastly preferred over Norton. Noton is deeply embedded, buggy, slow, confusing, and hard to uninstall. Avira uses so little resource, you'd barely notice it. AV comparatives show that Avira is right up there with protection, and unusually good (for an AV) with trojans.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "I've had both. Avira is vastly preferred over Norton. Noton is deeply embedded, buggy, slow, confusing, and hard to uninstall. Avira uses so little resource, you'd barely notice it. AV comparatives show that Avira is right up there with protection, and unusually good (for an AV) with trojans." }-

norton 2007 has improved on all:

nortons full suite only uses 36mb if i remember
norton have fixed their un-installation problems
norton have fixed their update problem

its not buggy nor slow, although other versions were.

[bigc73542]

I will have to disagree with the people that don't think Norton is a good product. Recent testing and my personal experience with norton tend to show it is a good product and I would choose it over antivir anytime.

[lodore]

well I have heard its improved but I still wouldn't use it lol.

I dont use anything from big brand names e.g. syamantec,macafee etc.
half of symantecs site is what to do if it goes wrong and will.

kaspersky,nod32,antivir and most other av's tell you about the product and not what to do if it goes wrong because most of the time it dont. just my opinion.
not enough options for people who know what there doing. the interface is a marketing devise saying if you dont have all the Norton stuff your not protected but even with all of it your not.



I dont recommend products i would use myself so i simply cannot recommend it to anyone cos I would never use it myself.

just my 2 cents.

[disinter1]

I think the bigger question is will Antivir protect against the same or better as Norton?

[WSFuser]

between the two id choose antivir classic. it has excellent detection, great heuristics, its free, it runs light and the scans are fast too.

[trjam]

Yes and no depending on the function. Either one is great. I saw discounts today on the web where you can get NIS for like 10 bucks with mail in rebates. Try Google. And at that price, any of us would be fools not to buy it. I bought a license. Google NIS 2007 COUPON CODE.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's" }-
That's not a good attitude, being a sworn devotee. It affects your objectivity and judgement towards softwares. Softwares are just tools with advantages and disadvantages to do something on your computer, not something that needs to be worshipped or idolized and you can't sleep with softwares, so there is no love for softwares either. :)

[C.S.J]

well actually......

norton may just look pretty to lure you in, but i cant fault the new 2007 version of the suite.

no options what-so-ever are needed to change once its installed, and you will get no false positives and the 99% detection rate or whatever is.

they may want £50 for it, but im sure you can get it on ebay for about £25, definatly worth it.

i agree with bigc, that its a great product, although i didnt like norton 2006, because of the poo-poo interface and the awkward use of the settings, the 2007 version is totally the reverse of that.

if i really did want to pick a fault for the new norton, it would only be the time it takes to install it, takes a while, but once its in... its in. ;D

--------
for people who think im just a norton-lover could not be sooo more far from the truth, i have been known to keep away from them, i personally like trend micro, f-secure and NOW.. my latest liking is the avg suite, but i am impressed with this new offering from symantec.

[Alphalutra1]

Not being a really big norton basher (or Symantec), but I would choose antivir free over it. Why? Fast updates, many updates, good signature based detection, quick span speed, excellent heuristics(I would rather have a fp then miss something), good deal of configurability, and light on CPU and RAM (in addition to being free and not sucking money out of me every year for the latest and greatest av and new definitions). Just an opinion though...

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[C.S.J]

if you look at nortons detection rate... its almost there with antivir, but norton has been more consistant with their antivirus, some tests on antivirus it got 100% norton, whereas antivir have only had the ONE single good result, the rest were poor.

also, dont forgot... norton also got 10 / 10 polymorphic aswell.
so its not a poor performer

[farmerlee]

I'd go with norton as it also has malware detection which antivir classic does not.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: "if you look at nortons detection rate... its almost there with antivir..., whereas antivir have only had the ONE single good result, the rest were poor." }-Some may call it improvement and/or product development. But to be more accurate, AntiVir has beated Norton in THREE recent tests from 2 different independent testers.

http://www.av-comparatives.org

10. Retrospective/ProActive Test

11. On-demand comparative

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2023127,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000614

The most important figures were, not what these proggies were detected, BUT what these proggies were MISSED. As a summary, Norton missed 1.8 ... 19 times more than AntiVir, that's all what counts.

In my personal experience, AntiVir hasn't missed a single nasty I have met so far, where even Kaspersky, NOD32, Norton were all missed about 10...40 % of them. But yes, Kaspersky has always detected my nasties scanned in VirusTotal within 12 hours, the same I can't say with those other two. Quite good with a free av-program, AVIRA AntiVir 7 PE Classic. And it has very low impact to your system as well.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[C.S.J]

:thumb:

if you say so......

i think the last few months is not another proof ... and even on the other test, only beat norton by 0.9% in detection, but id rather have nortons firewall / spyware, their software is just a whole much better than antivir.

nobodys perfect, i expect some people to buy the antivir suite, but its at a very poor standard and only has the latest detection rates from antivir for it, there is nothing else good in it.

only in the last few months has antivir been getting a good detection rate, whereas norton has been more consitent, its still only one good result on av comparatives.

and ... detection rate means SQUAT to me, i mean .. it does count to a point, but after that .. its pointless.

all this gdata 99% detection, its the worst software ive ever used, and i wouldnt 'infect' my machine with that slowest software in the world.

whereas antivir has this 'latest' detection rate scores, there just isnt enough inside the whole package for it to 'put up a fight' with other vendors, fact!

i hear some threads and websites "antivir isnt getting the credit, maybe it derserves", my first reply to this would be... wonder why?

i remember when kaspersky was a 'risk' to have when norton were blooming in the market sooo much, and now they have added more features, there suite has sooo much more than the antivir one, i dont think they can call it a suite.

i think the user in question should 100% buy norton 2007 over antivir, but i would recommend him to get the suite of norton 2007, compusa are selling it for just $9.99 for a short while, grab it now.

[Banshee]

C.S.J, I am 100% with you there.

[lodore]

I still would never use norton again IMO.

kav,nod32 and dr web are better options.

[Firefighter]

-{ Quote: " whereas antivir has this 'latest' detection rate scores, there just isnt enough inside the whole package for it to 'put up a fight' with other vendors, fact!" }-Now you are talking about properties concerning suites, not av:s only. When I'm using AVIRA AntiVir PE 7 Classic together with AVG AntiSpyware 7.5 licenced version, BOClean 4.22 and Free Comodo Firewall 2.3.6.81, I just can't find a single part where NIS 2007 or what ever is superior to me, but on the contrary... 8)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

Btw, even that AVG AntiSpyware 7.5 free version in this combo is enough to make this the almost "invincible suite". :)

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "if you look at nortons detection rate... its almost there with antivir, but norton has been more consistant with their antivirus, some tests on antivirus it got 100% norton, whereas antivir have only had the ONE single good result, the rest were poor.

also, dont forgot... norton also got 10 / 10 polymorphic aswell.
so its not a poor performer" }-

That's not right at all.
Anyone that has followed the av-comparatives tests knows that AntiVir has shown a steady positive trend!They have had good results.More than a few actually!

Norton's polymorphic results were applaudable.
And the program's detections have improved.
But it still wouldn't be my choice.
I wouldn't distort test results because it's not my favorite though.

[larryb52]

norton 2007 , runs lighter than 06 & is very good , spyware is improved over 06 as well...& also does rootkits...

[Nullvoid]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess the consensus is that if he is going to use Norton then it should definitely be the 2007 version? I'm somewhat heartened that it isn't a bad choice per se...just I think considering he has a relatively weak laptop, he might benefit from something lighter on resources. As to how to solve his devotion to all things Norton...I guess, short of his whole system being taken down by some harsh infestation, nothing I can say would change his outlook.

[C.S.J]

norton doesnt use mnuch memory, yes i would suggest he gets the 2007 version.

my laptop isnt HIGH spec, ive had the norton suite on my laptop, and ive only got a 36gb HD / 1.6 GHZ cpu / onboard graphics and it runs fine i assure you.

[trjam]

not to go off topic but why not Kasperskys Internet Suite. Very light, great detection rate and one of the best firewalls.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "not to go off topic but why not Kasperskys Internet Suite. Very light, great detection rate and one of the best firewalls." }-


erm no thanks... the firewall has issues, not going to go into them on here, but google it or check other related threads, feel free to use kaspersky antivirus though, good software.

[trjam]

The firewall was just rated the best, so all I can say to that is,"Sic-um Don-o"

And that little green man who floats around here thinks the world of Norton. I downloaded 2007 the other night and he is right. God knows, I would ever say this, but Norton is back. I bought one of the 10 bucks licences. Got to go, before he shows up.:)

[C.S.J]

rated the best, by who?

its one of the worst in the suites for sure, its buggy too ... doesnt even pop up to allow quite a few programs, manual insertion is needed.

panda has the worst firewall in a suite.

[trjam]

sorry, our battles are going to get us in trouble here, and I really like this place, so good bye.

[C.S.J]

what battles?

you said it was just rated the best firewall and i asked by whom?

as the thread states: its a simple question ;D

[Nullvoid]

-{ Quote: "not to go off topic but why not Kasperskys Internet Suite. Very light, great detection rate and one of the best firewalls." }-

I just stipulated antivir as the sole alternative to keep things simple. And to demonstrate that even a free antivirus program can be very good. Obviously there are paid alternatives that he might find far more tempting such as nod and kaspersky, if only I could broaden his horizons.

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "Assuming your only two choices for an antivirus were: Norton and Antivir Classic, giving a reason why, which would you use?

I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's and I personally believe that the protection he will get from Antivir classic will be just as thorough, not to mention that it is free. Sadly he doesn't believe me on very many topics :o" }-

I used both programs on my laptop and both did not detect a trojan that got installed on my PC, so given that scenario, I wouldn't pay extra for the same results, but that is just me. ;D

[dah145]

-{ Quote: "what battles?

you said it was just rated the best firewall and i asked by whom?

as the thread states: its a simple question ;D" }-
Well maybe he was talking about the fact it passes almost all leaktests from firewallleaktester.com and also it won against the process termination methods, I am talking about KIS, it is just a "different firewall" but is pretty good.

[bryanjoe]

for paid antivirus, i suggest NOD32.:thumb:

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "The firewall was just rated the best, so all I can say to that is,"Sic-um Don-o"

And that little green man who floats around here thinks the world of Norton. I downloaded 2007 the other night and he is right. God knows, I would ever say this, but Norton is back. I bought one of the 10 bucks licences. Got to go, before he shows up.:)" }-


what little green man 8) ;D

[yaggy]

-{ Quote: "Assuming your only two choices for an antivirus were: Norton and Antivir Classic, giving a reason why, which would you use?

I just ask because my brother is a sworn devotee of Norton's and I personally believe that the protection he will get from Antivir classic will be just as thorough, not to mention that it is free. Sadly he doesn't believe me on very many topics :o" }-

Hmmmm A FREE , Light weight AV with good detection rate VS a Paid For AV with good detection......

Seems obvious to me.

[aigle]

I will prefer Antivir just due to heuristics otherwise if Norton is improved as some are saying it will be better choice but as I said currently Antivir is better.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "what battles?

you said it was just rated the best firewall and i asked by whom?

" }-
By: http://www.firewallleaktester.com/termination_overview.php

Top 3 FWs:
1. Outpost
2. KIS 6
3. Comodo

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "By: http://www.firewallleaktester.com/termination_overview.php

Top 3 FWs:
1. Outpost
2. KIS 6
3. Comodo" }-

ha ha, another person who buys a firewall off what firewallleaktester says, well good luck is all i can say, those results aint even right, ive tried those 3 and they aint right.

trend micros firewall did better in the tests than kis and comodo, but failed 1 extra one than outpost did not.

i dont find f.w.l.t very good for judging a firewall, also grc is poor too .. as if you run being a NAT firewall, the results will always be stealth.

but if people will continue to buy a firewall on f.w.l.t and an antivirus on av-comparatives, then good luck to you.

im not denying the av comparatives is a good site for detection, but there are other things to consider, but f.w.l.t is just flawed for testing out a firewall, my opinion though. :)

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "ha ha, another person who buys a firewall off what firewallleaktester says, well good luck is all i can say, those results aint even right, ive tried those 3 and they aint right.

trend micros firewall did better in the tests than kis and comodo, but failed 1 extra one than outpost did not.

i dont find f.w.l.t very good for judging a firewall, also grc is poor too .. as if you run being a NAT firewall, the results will always be stealth.

but if people will continue to buy a firewall on f.w.l.t and an antivirus on av-comparatives, then good luck to you.

im not denying the av comparatives is a good site for detection, but there are other things to consider, but f.w.l.t is just flawed for testing out a firewall, my opinion though. :)" }-

Well Chris Jackson, I think most would disagree about Trend. But we have already been their, done that.::)

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Well Chris Jackson, I think most would disagree about Trend. But we have already been their, done that.::)" }-

yep we have been there, done that.

but i was replying to the so-called firewall testing, giving those 3 firewalls as top 3, is absolutly rubbish and was only stating that the trend micros firewall, beat both kaspersky and comodo in those tests. (there are others that beat them aswell), i say this because people are sooooo bothered by what they say, that they will believe what they say and buy that recommended software.


im sure you have been a user of look n stop eh? *laughs*


good luck

[trjam]

No, actually I havent. Still waiting on Eset. Being behind a router, firewalls just dont happen to be on my high list of priorities.

[C.S.J]

good, they shouldnt be i dont think.

a good router firewall and antivirus is all thats needed really.

[Get]

-{ Quote: "those results aint even right, ive tried those 3 and they aint right." }-
What's wrong with Outpost?

[C.S.J]

you mis-understood me...

kis and comodos firewall is not in the top 3, i assure you.

but outpost is ;D

[Get]

Ok, so they were partially right. I understand now.8)

[C.S.J]

in a way they were with outpost....

but leaktests are not the only way to test firewalls.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "ha ha, another person who buys a firewall off what firewallleaktester says, well good luck is all i can say, those results aint even right, ive tried those 3 and they aint right.

trend micros firewall did better in the tests than kis and comodo, but failed 1 extra one than outpost did not.

i dont find f.w.l.t very good for judging a firewall, also grc is poor too .. as if you run being a NAT firewall, the results will always be stealth.

but if people will continue to buy a firewall on f.w.l.t and an antivirus on av-comparatives, then good luck to you.

im not denying the av comparatives is a good site for detection, but there are other things to consider, but f.w.l.t is just flawed for testing out a firewall, my opinion though. :)" }-
FYI I'm not using ANY firewall, except for the XP's built in, I have a adsl NAT router..

Sorry I'm not one of those guys who guides their lives by reading and obeying whatever... unlike others ::)

Don't need a FW, I consider myself smart enough 'n experienced knowing what's happening inside my P4 at every time ;D

And in case you try to ask... No, I'm not worried about outgoing traffic from my machine.

btw, I use Kaspersky AV 6.0.0.303 :thumb:

Have a good day!

[one111]

Norton has always been a top of the line anti-virus and the 2007 version is even better. Consistently high detection rates, ease of usage, and lack of confusing and damaging false positives make it the best choice.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Norton has always been a top of the line anti-virus and the 2007 version is even better. Consistently high detection rates, ease of usage, and lack of confusing and damaging false positives make it the best choice." }-


well i havent liked it since the symantec takeover. i am using f-secure atm but thats to bloated so im moving to nod32. i found norton 2003 a problem so i moved to f-secure and now im moving to nod32 i move on and dont go back.

[iNsuRRecTioN]

Hey,

I think this should really answer your question: http://www.spybot.info/en/news/2006-09-29.html

Think about it and avoid usage of symantec products..!

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Hey,

I think this should really answer your question: http://www.spybot.info/en/news/2006-09-29.html

Think about it and avoid usage of symantec products..!

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON" }-

great article love it!

[iNsuRRecTioN]

Hey,

that's good to hear :)

So pin/bookmark it, spread the word and let everyone vote in their forums ;D :P :shifty:

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

[DVD+R]

I found some weirdness left behind, after I tried AntiVir Premium, I noticed that after I uninstalled it, Windows Security Center was still reporting it to be installed, and said it was out of date, yet I looked in the registry for any key that could be related to avira and there wasnt one, also I cleared the prefetch folder, but it still said it was out of date. Some strange little file is lurking on my system that reports it to be out of date, where can it be?

On the other hand, when I installed my New AV it went away, but I know its in there somewhere :lurking:

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I found some weirdness left behind, after I tried AntiVir Premium, I noticed that after I uninstalled it, Windows Security Center was still reporting it to be installed, and said it was out of date, yet I looked in the registry for any key that could be related to avira and there wasnt one, also I cleared the prefetch folder, but it still said it was out of date. Some strange little file is lurking on my system that reports it to be out of date, where can it be?

On the other hand, when I installed my New AV it went away, but I know its in there somewhere :lurking:" }-


its a problem with the windows rubbish security centre someone on this forum made a reset tool but you have to uninstall your current av first.

[bs259]

-{ Quote: "its a problem with the windows rubbish security centre someone on this forum made a reset tool but you have to uninstall your current av first." }-

do you happen to know where to find that windows reset tool, I also get something to the affect that KIS firewall is inactive averytime I uninstall and then reinstall new beta version.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "do you happen to know where to find that windows reset tool, I also get something to the affect that KIS firewall is inactive averytime I uninstall and then reinstall new beta version." }-

here ya go read that post and it shows a screenshot of it and a link to download it
remember you have to uninstall your current av run the tool then reinstall and should work
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=145412
tooks about 10minutes searching but at least i found it
hope this helps
lodore

[WSFuser]

the fellow behind that reset tool is RejZoR. heres the thread (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=145412) with the download links

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "the fellow behind that reset tool is RejZoR. heres the thread (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=145412) with the download links" }-
seems just about beat you to it but oh well at least he can get it now.

[the Tester]

That's one of the reasons that I disabled the Windows Security Center on my box.
It not reliable and it causes confusion.

[bs259]

-{ Quote: "here ya go read that post and it shows a screenshot of it and a link to download it
remember you have to uninstall your current av run the tool then reinstall and should work
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=145412
tooks about 10minutes searching but at least i found it
hope this helps
lodore" }-

Thanks lodore and WSFuser for your responses

Billy S.