the VB100 Compares

[nok]

i was surprised to see Symantec AV second to NOD in the Comparatives. Do they mean Symantec corporate or Norton? I don't see the word Norton mentioned. Could someone clarify this for me?

[Allen L.]

-{ Quote: "i was surprised to see Symantec AV second to NOD in the Comparatives. Do they mean Symantec corporate or Norton? I don't see the word Norton mentioned. Could someone clarify this for me?" }-
With 500MB of program, Norton could get lucky at times!! :D

[bigc73542]

If you will quit bashing norton and actually look at their past detection history you will see that they actually are right there with ESET. And have been for a long time. and the size of the program isn't all that important if it works well and Norton does. Which version did you try that was 500mb??

bigc

[JasSolo]

-{ Quote: "If you will quit bashing norton and actually look at their past detection history you will see that they actually are right there with ESET. And have been for a long time. and the size of the program isn't all that important if it works well and Norton does. Which version did you try that was 500mb??

bigc" }-

I agree with you completely. To answer your question, I can say that SEP 11 is almost there, 400 something megs (very near 500 megs) and that is for the for the standalone client installation only. WAY too many megs, if you ask me.;D


Cheers

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "I agree with you completely. To answer your question, I can say that SEP 11 is almost there, 400 something megs (very near 500 megs) and that is for the for the standalone client installation only. WAY too many megs, if you ask me.;D


Cheers" }-

How much of that 500 megs is multi lang pack. ??? The install client means nothing install it and see what it ends up being. if you look at Eset's website they have all langs split up into single installers, Imagine if they combined all what 30 different installers would be bigger then a 20 meg install. Norton has also been praised on how "light and responsive on system resources" (RECENT VERSIONS 2008+)

[JasSolo]

-{ Quote: "How much of that 500 megs is multi lang pack....." }-

The 500 megs is with english only.


Cheers

[bigc73542]

When I have norton 2008 installed on this comp it is nowhere near 500mbs. But stranger things have happened. But you have to remember that even with a large footprint norton has about the best after malware detection cleanup that is available anywhere. I would sacrifice a little Hdd space(which I have plenty of) for that ability alone. But everyone to their own.;)

bigc

[Arup]

big C,

With all due respect so does Avira, Eset, KAV and others with smaller installer size.

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "i was surprised to see Symantec AV second to NOD in the Comparatives. Do they mean Symantec corporate or Norton? I don't see the word Norton mentioned. Could someone clarify this for me?" }-
I'm pretty sure it is not the corporate version. Ever since I first heard of and started tracking the VB100 results (about eight years ago), it seems to me that the two that were constantly winning the VB100 award were NOD32 and Norton.

[Allen L.]

-{ Quote: "If you will quit bashing norton and actually look at their past detection history you will see that they actually are right there with ESET. And have been for a long time. and the size of the program isn't all that important if it works well and Norton does. Which version did you try that was 500mb??

bigc" }-
In my opinion and with respect to your opinion - that is BS. The tests that are run are not all that *unbiased* and I would think you, as a ' should be informed' ex-mod would know that. Some of these tests can be set up according to what the companies with the most... *you fill in the blanks*. No one was bashing your precious "Norton" - read a bit around what the *true* gurus on AV's say about your great AV - you might learn something. :gack: :thumbd:

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "big C,

With all due respect so does Avira, Eset, KAV and others with smaller installer size." }-

These av's you mention do not have the cleaning ability of norton. They have excellent detection but not nortons ability to cleanup. http://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/product.php?tid=dfgdf$gdhkkjk-kkkk

[Arup]

I dont disagree with the tests you have given but other tests done on Avira and Eset put them at the top in detection and cleaning as well. OTOH I find many infected systems with Norton running.

[bigc73542]

Unfortunatly they all miss to much :'(

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunatly they all miss to much :'(" }-

True enough.

Just my personal take - I think the situation has more to do with the user bases of products vs. the products themselves. While there are Symantec users here who are very knowledgable, there are plenty Moms and Pops whose PC just came loaded with it. Someone running Norton 2003 with IE6 and an unpatched XP system who clicks yes on everything will probably be infected just as often as if they had Avira, for example. The people running "alternative" security systems tend to be people who have more knowledge on the subject, so naturally their machines are safer regardless of AV.

That's not to say some AVs are not better than others - That's certainly true. Just that I give Norton some points in the fact that they will have a larger chunk of that "security unaware" population, so I'd expect them to have more infections regardless of how good their product is.

[eBBox]

-{ Quote: "True enough.

Just my personal take - I think the situation has more to do with the user bases of products vs. the products themselves. While there are Symantec users here who are very knowledgable, there are plenty Moms and Pops whose PC just came loaded with it. Someone running Norton 2003 with IE6 and an unpatched XP system who clicks yes on everything will probably be infected just as often as if they had Avira, for example. The people running "alternative" security systems tend to be people who have more knowledge on the subject, so naturally their machines are safer regardless of AV.

That's not to say some AVs are not better than others - That's certainly true. Just that I give Norton some points in the fact that they will have a larger chunk of that "security unaware" population, so I'd expect them to have more infections regardless of how good their product is." }-

I agree that :thumb: Ive seen that a lot of times sadly ::)

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: " No one was bashing your precious "Norton" - read a bit around what the *true* gurus on AV's say about your great AV - you might learn something. :gack: :thumbd:" }-Who are these "gurus" that you speak of? Having read a bit around I'm sure you could name about six or seven.

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "These av's you mention do not have the cleaning ability of norton." }-

Except that KAV does have cleaning certification according to that link you provided.

-{ Quote: "Just my personal take - I think the situation has more to do with the user bases of products vs. the products themselves. While there are Symantec users here who are very knowledgable, there are plenty Moms and Pops whose PC just came loaded with it. Someone running Norton 2003 with IE6 and an unpatched XP system who clicks yes on everything will probably be infected just as often as if they had Avira, for example. The people running "alternative" security systems tend to be people who have more knowledge on the subject, so naturally their machines are safer regardless of AV.

That's not to say some AVs are not better than others - That's certainly true. Just that I give Norton some points in the fact that they will have a larger chunk of that "security unaware" population, so I'd expect them to have more infections regardless of how good their product is." }-

Very good point, CountryGuy

[steve1955]

Properly configured there is very little difference in protection between the top AV products,as for install size:-does it really matter if a GOOD product takes up 500mb or even a couple of gb given the size of HD's nowadays?I'd be more concerned installing a poor product that ony took up 50mb!

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Properly configured there is very little difference in protection between the top AV products,as for install size:-does it really matter if a GOOD product takes up 500mb or even a couple of gb given the size of HD's nowadays?I'd be more concerned installing a poor product that ony took up 50mb!" }-

Yes but when top-notch avs like kaspersky, avira etc. are less than 50MB and then even multi engine avs like F-Secure are less than 100MB...

[steve1955]

-{ Quote: "Yes but when top-notch avs like kaspersky, avira etc. are less than 50MB and then even multi engine avs like F-Secure are less than 100MB..." }-
I don't suppose the "tag" on the end of your posts is likely to make you have a slightly biased opinion,is it?:-
Kaspersky Lab Personal Security Professional
I don't use Norton or particularly like it,that's a subjective thing,but the current version is a good product,there is no reason to keep having a dig at it and then trying to find reasons to justify doing so,installed size of an app has nothing to do with how it actually performs,you're not still using a 2gb hard drive are you??

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "and the size of the program isn't all that important if it works well and Norton does
" }-

BS. Sorry, when a product turns a quad-core box into Pentium-I, the thing is a piece of junk no matter how many viruses and malware it detects (not that Symantec/Norton would exactly excel at this field). I didn't buy a computer to run Norton on it, I want to utilize it for something more useful... ::)

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "BS. Sorry, when a product turns a quad-core box into Pentium-I, the thing is a piece of junk no matter how many viruses and malware it detects (not that Symantec/Norton would exactly excel at this field). I didn't buy a computer to run Norton on it, I want to utilize it for something more useful... ::)" }-

I personally Don't use Norton but I have tested them out on my test bed computer. 2008 and 2009 are running quite light yes the old versions used to run very very slow. but the new ones are redone to run like this. they do run light. or lighter then they used to. 8)

Just a fyi my test bed is a old duel-core with 4gigs of ram and vista I had no problems with slow downs. when I was trying this or Beta testing the 2009 on it. :dry:

you want slowdown try ZA Extreme beta. then complain about slowdown. :argh:

[Graystoke]

I guess I'm a little confused here. What is 500MB? The Norton installation? I've run NIS 2008 and the now NIS Beta 2009. Both were around 50MB. Am I missing something?

[L815]

-{ Quote: "I guess I'm a little confused here. What is 500MB? The Norton installation? I've run NIS 2008 and the now NIS Beta 2009. Both were around 50MB. Am I missing something?" }-

I may be wrong, but I assume they mean after installation.

[Graystoke]

-{ Quote: "I may be wrong, but I assume they mean after installation." }-


Thanks L815. Not sure if that's a true figure, but I'm not concerned enough to check it out.

[JasSolo]

-{ Quote: "I guess I'm a little confused here. What is 500MB? The Norton installation? I've run NIS 2008 and the now NIS Beta 2009. Both were around 50MB. Am I missing something?" }-

No, Norton is NOT 500MB. Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 is, as i stated earlier in this thread.;)


Cheers

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "No, Norton is NOT 500MB. Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 is, as i stated earlier in this thread.;)


Cheers" }-


correct me if I'm wrong but aint that corporate version ?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "correct me if I'm wrong but aint that corporate version ?" }-

Yeah, it is... SAV CE (Symantec AV Corporate Edition) used to be a nice AV product until ~v9 inclusive. With v10 it jumped on the slow bloated junk track and SEP 11 (which is v10 follow-up) is a huge disaster wrt both quality assurance and performance. You still get SAV CE 10 licenses with and can downgrade at any time, which speaks volumes about vendors confidence in this product.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Yeah, it is... SAV CE (Symantec AV Corporate Edition) used to be a nice AV product until ~v9 inclusive. With v10 it jumped on the slow bloated junk track and SEP 11 (which is v10 follow-up) is a huge disaster wrt both quality assurance and performance. You still get SAV CE 10 licenses with and can downgrade at any time, which speaks volumes about vendors confidence in this product." }-

Kaspersky, Eset and a few others let you do the same thing as Norton and there perfectly good products. just because you can use the older version don't mean its crap. many people use the other versions because of Aging hardware. or simply cant takes the design of the new one. (to set in there ways)

the only thing I can say in Norton's defence honestly is it dont seem to matter what people here or any other fourm think they have there hands to deep in the share of the market to really lose any ground (in the corpate sence) kind of like Mircosoft. they can release a crap fully bugged OS and people just deal with it. and hope for better down the line lol.

[CountryGuy]

-{ Quote: "Yeah, it is... SAV CE (Symantec AV Corporate Edition) used to be a nice AV product until ~v9 inclusive. With v10 it jumped on the slow bloated junk track and SEP 11 (which is v10 follow-up) is a huge disaster wrt both quality assurance and performance. You still get SAV CE 10 licenses with and can downgrade at any time, which speaks volumes about vendors confidence in this product." }-

Actually, it speaks more of having an understand of the corporate market. No IT Manager is going to release a Dot-Zero product to the network if they can avoid it, nor are they going to get budget to upgrade unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

If SAV CE 10 is working fine, why go through the work to upgrade your corporation?

Same applies to any software package rolled out to the full organization: Operating Systems, Office Software, etc.

[trjam]

So, now are these tests accurate?

[L815]

-{ Quote: "No, Norton is NOT 500MB. Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 is, as i stated earlier in this thread.;)


Cheers" }-

Hmm, I wonder if that is the AV my college runs. It's very lightweight, and has caught just about everything I've noticed (infected USB's, script kiddies, etc...).

[JasSolo]

-{ Quote: "Hmm, I wonder if that is the AV my college runs. It's very lightweight, and has caught just about everything I've noticed (infected USB's, script kiddies, etc...)." }-

AFAIK it's a very stable AV suite. Runs on 40+ computers on my work with no hiccups what so ever and kept them free for malware.


Cheers

[trjam]

I see Bitdefender is certified for cleaning also. I think the time has come for me to give this one another hard look. They stay under the radar but always seem to be doing well.

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusMonthlyStats

[s4u]

Curious to hear what you think of BD

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Curious to hear what you think of BD" }-

I could never get it uninstalled easily- but perhaps that has changed?

[Niels]

-{ Quote: "I could never get it uninstalled easily- but perhaps that has changed?" }-

Sorry for the off-topic:
You can easily uninstall BitDefender by first right clicking on the red BitDefender icon near the system tray and press on exit. Afterwards download and run this uninstall tool (http://www.bitdefender.com/uninstall). I never had issues in the past when this tool didn't exist to remove BitDefender. The only thing that was left were some registry entries.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Curious to hear what you think of BD" }-
BD seems to enjoy a good detection rate in almost all tests.
They scored well in VirusInfo,VB100,AV-Comparitives, etc. And are consistently in the top tier of late.

Sure it may not be the best, but they are definitely in contention for the job.:thumb:

[Flava]

i dont know if i can belive on bitdefender.
I know that with bitdefender this month it has the best detection and next month or next 6 month it has the worse detection rate :)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "i dont know if i can belive on bitdefender.
I know that with bitdefender this month it has the best detection and next month or next 6 month it has the worse detection rate :)" }-
Maybe that's because they are improving ....
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.