NIS 2010 PCMag.com review

[Victek123]

The review is very detailed, and positive. Here's a link:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349865,00.asp

[zfactor]

reading it now... they really raved about it

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "reading it now... they really raved about it" }-

Given it's PCMag, that's not surprising. :D

[Ade 1]

-{ Quote: "Given it's PCMag, that's not surprising. :D" }-

True but even so it is a 'top drawer' product.

[meschubert]

I hope matousec runs a full firewall leaktest on NIS 2010 soon. I switched from NIS to KIS a few years ago due to the performance issues. I might try NIS again if they have improved their leaktest results. In the past, KIS has been much better rated.

Another factor will be compatability with Prevx. I've been using with KIS and it works as a nice combination.

[xdot]

-{ Quote: "I hope matousec runs a full firewall leaktest on NIS 2010 soon. I switched from NIS to KIS a few years ago due to the performance issues. I might try NIS again if they have improved their leaktest results. In the past, KIS has been much better rated.

Another factor will be compatability with Prevx. I've been using with KIS and it works as a nice combination." }-

Regarding prevx, i've been using the free version w/ nis 2010 and haven't had any issues so far.

[Defcon]

Not that this means its not true, but hasn't pcmag raved about prety much every Norton product? I fond the user reviews a lot more valuable since youhave to read through the marketing buzzwords in the real review.

[meschubert]

xdot - Thanks for the information.

[Legendkiller]

well here we go again.............
i really don't understand the need for posting PCMag's reviews,when nobody wants to believe them.......
It has happened time and again and the whole activity has become dull and boring...
I personally find their reviews trustworthy and honest....esp. when nobody has ever published a link on their part to prove their assumptions....

[sun88]

I've been using NIS for 3 years at an average cost of around $25 per year. That's a tough price to beat for all the excellent features you get, including a smart firewall that doesn't require you to make difficult decisions. Their Safe Web feature is quite nice. Real time and on-demand scanning. In an integrated package that can be updated by Symantec as new threats are identified.
None of the new sophisticated anti-malware products has identified a single active malware on my system. And I do live dangerously, so I know Norton is doing an excellent job.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Given it's PCMag, that's not surprising. :D" }-
Actually, I thought they were hammering the product ::)

this mag is a joke

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "
this mag is a joke" }-

Gotta love affirmation like that without backup reasonning. Just like people saying NIS is a ressource hog based on their experience of 5 years ago.

I read all their reviews for the 2010 product they've done so far and found them all pretty much on the spot and very informative. They disclose all their testing methods, shows all the charts and have no problem stating some less known product is better at detecting threat X when it is so. What more do you ask for?

[Legendkiller]

-{ Quote: "Gotta love affirmation like that without backup reasonning. Just like people saying NIS is a ressource hog based on their experience of 5 years ago.

I read all their reviews for the 2010 product they've done so far and found them all pretty much on the spot and very informative. They disclose all their testing methods, shows all the charts and have no problem stating some less known product is better at detecting threat X when it is so. What more do you ask for?" }-
exactly my point,if i am correct no software testing team has ever invited any third party to see how they test the security suites,apart from stating their review methodology.......

[Patrician]

-{ Quote: "... What more do you ask for?" }-

A review that is unbiased would be a good start. This reviewer has been raving about Norton all through it's beta.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "A review that is unbiased would be a good start. This reviewer has been raving about Norton all through it's beta." }-
.
What is your definition of "unbiased"? Did you read the review? Is there something in it that you feel is factually inaccurate, or do you just object to the reviewer's enthusiasm?

[Pleonasm]

-{ Quote: "I really don't understand the need for posting PCMag's reviews, when nobody wants to believe them" }-
What specific aspects of the testing methodology do you find unacceptable?

Personally, I believe the testing procedures of PC Magazine come the closest to simulating and assessing real-world performance, and therefore are worthy of serious consideration.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "What specific aspects of the testing methodology do you find unacceptable?

Personally, I believe the testing procedures of PC Magazine come the closest to simulating and assessing real-world performance, and therefore are worthy of serious consideration." }-
.
Actually, I think you misread LegendKiller. It seems to me he likes the pcmag.com review. He just thinks it's a waste of time talking about it here since there are a group of people who object to the reviews without really reading them. Did I get that right LegendKiller? :)

[Pleonasm]

-{ Quote: "Actually, I think you misread LegendKiller." }-
Actually, upon closer inspection, I think you’re right! :)

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "A review that is unbiased would be a good start. This reviewer has been raving about Norton all through it's beta." }-

So anyone that participate in a beta and actually like what he is seeing cannot write an unbiased review on the final product?

Reviewer, be warned, stay away from beta that looks good! ::)

[TrojanHunter]

Quoted from PCMag review
-{ Quote: "Norton Internet Security 2010 remains the best overall security suite on the market" }-

I strongly disagree with the above statement, but I'll refrain from breaking the vs debate forum policy.

I know PC Mag is entitled to their opinion, but they are blatantly in favour of Symantec. It's for this reason I don't take any of their reviews that seriously. Symantec could sell a dog turd and PCMag would say it was great ;D.

On a personal note I wouldn't touch anything Norton again, even if their main selling point is being lighter these days.

[iwod]

-{ Quote: "Quoted from PCMag review


I strongly disagree with the above statement, but I'll refrain from breaking the vs debate forum policy.

I know PC Mag is entitled to their opinion, but they are blatantly in favour of Symantec. It's for this reason I don't take any of their reviews that seriously. Symantec could sell a dog turd and PCMag would say it was great ;D.

On a personal note I wouldn't touch anything Norton again, even if their main selling point is being lighter these days." }-
-{ Quote: "Norton Internet Security 2010 remains the best overall security suite on the market " }-

At least I share the same conclusion after beta testing it for 3 months. PCmag may rave about every Symantec Products they release. But NIS 2010 really is THAT good. ( I would love they could sell me a version that doesn't come with or has Identity Theft features turned off by default. )

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Quoted from PCMag review
I know PC Mag is entitled to their opinion, but they are blatantly in favour of Symantec. It's for this reason I don't take any of their reviews that seriously. Symantec could sell a dog turd and PCMag would say it was great ;D.

On a personal note I wouldn't touch anything Norton again, even if their main selling point is being lighter these days." }-
.
IMHO there is only one way to effectively determine if the review is accurate and that is to install the NIS 2010 30 day trial-ware and experience it first hand. I understand that for personal reasons you won't do that, but unfortunately that doesn't add much to the discussion. Many of us had bad experiences with pre-2009 Norton products. They also haven't had the best customer service track record, but things change.

[Ade 1]

So I've been using NIS2010 since the day it was released and really don't have the time or patience anymore to try or use any other product. I'm very happy with it.

With regards to PCmag's review, I hold my hands up as one of those who has made comments in the past as to the reviewer's blatant love for Symantec and this in turn obviously causes disfavour with users of other products he has reviewed that don't get full marks. People joke about the fact that no matter what Symantec product he reviews it will always be 'editor's choice' and the number of Symantec ads which are littered about the site.

But at the end of the day, we're all entitled to our own opinion and to use the products we're most happy with. It just happens to be that NIS2010 gets a rave review.

Perhaps we need to look at the other reviews of NIS2010 throughout the web but then again they seem pretty impressed with it too!

[Graystoke]

Does anyone ever look at the user's comments at the bottom of the reviews. I always read them, and compare what users think to that of the reviewer has to say. NIS is getting favorable user reviews. Of course there is always the possibility the user comments are being bought and paid for too. :lurking: ;) ;D

[eBBox]

-{ Quote: "Does anyone ever look at the user's comments at the bottom of the reviews. I always read them, and compare what users think to that of the reviewer has to say. NIS is getting favorable user reviews. Of course there is always the possibility the user comments are being bought and paid for too. :lurking: ;) ;D" }-

And all the users giving 1 star (negative) eventhough they have never tested the product ^^

[Zombini]

-{ Quote: "And all the users giving 1 star (negative) eventhough they have never tested the product ^^" }-

Dude that is so true.

[Graystoke]

-{ Quote: "Dude that is so true." }-



Ditto.

[Joeythedude]

Its funny the way all the security apps converge in the 2010 releases.
The layout of NIS 2010 GUI is a lot like KIS 2010 , in how it splits up threats.

I must say it looks like a very good app. Esp like the tech support angle ..

[mvdu]

Well, I still trust Kaspersky and Avira more for the latest threats. The new download protection in NIS is interesting, but I don't think I'll use NIS.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Gotta love affirmation like that without backup reasonning." }-
Starting from its "well known" reviewer :dry: I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from this magazine. But if you (and others) do.....well, God bless you all.

I personally found funny how Norton fanboys get so heated when someone tries to point its fingers at their totally biased "reviews".

-{ Quote: "People joke about the fact that no matter what Symantec product he reviews it will always be 'editor's choice' and the number of Symantec ads which are littered about the site." }-
No, i'm not joking at all.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: ".
Many of us had bad experiences with pre-2009 Norton products. They also haven't had the best customer service track record, but things change." }-

I am one of those that had bad experiences with pre-2009 Norton products. I understand things change, but for me it is a matter of principle. For me it was kinda like buying a new car from company a that turned out to be a lemon, yeah for the most part company a makes really fine cars nowadays, but I'll never buy from them again.

[Legendkiller]

-{ Quote: ".
Actually, I think you misread LegendKiller. It seems to me he likes the pcmag.com review. He just thinks it's a waste of time talking about it here since there are a group of people who object to the reviews without really reading them. Did I get that right LegendKiller? :)" }-
yup,you did.well it seems i don't wanna be labeled a Norton fanboy or PcMag's fanboy...
But truth is i find their review a decent indicator for selecting a product....anyway to each his own...:thumb:

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Starting from its "well known" reviewer :dry: I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from this magazine. But if you (and others) do.....well, God bless you all." }-I don't particularly trust the reviews of this magazine, but try to correlate what they say with the general consensus here and elsewhere bearing in mind that every system is different.

It seems the current version of NIS is running much better than previous incarnations; if the userbase were still complaining generally then I think we'd have more reason to moan about this magazine review.

[berng]

I don't get this love fest for Symantec's product considering the abysmal performance shown by A-V comparitives and by the Virus Bulleting RAP tests.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Starting from its "well known" reviewer :dry: I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from this magazine. But if you (and others) do.....well, God bless you all.
" }-
.
The point is not to "trust" the review. The point is to actually read it along with other reviews and try to evaluate the product for yourself. The best way is to install the trial-ware so you can see how it actually works on your system. It's not about being a "fanboy". It's about taking a logical approach.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "I don't get this love fest for Symantec's product considering the abysmal performance shown by A-V comparitives and by the Virus Bulleting RAP tests.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml" }-
I believe they used the corporate edition of Symantec's antivirus, which doesn't include the latest technologies of their consumer counterpart. Also, the latest AV-Comparative report is not out yet, and if you're talking about the Feb 2009 results, then Symantec (using the Norton product line) did fairly well. The overall percentage, however, is indeed quite low (~80%).

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "Starting from its "well known" reviewer :dry: I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from this magazine. But if you (and others) do.....well, God bless you all.

I personally found funny how Norton fanboys get so heated when someone tries to point its fingers at their totally biased "reviews".


No, i'm not joking at all." }-

I give no weight to "editor choice" or other awards, those are always given by the marketing department, no objection there. But the review itself was pretty much detailed, very infomational about the technology inside the product(and not just NIS, but other AV review are very informative too about how they do things), all the methodology explained and they had no trouble naming other products that delivered better result than NIS in some category.

I'm still waiting for what you found so bad in it. What was false, please do tell. You haven't said a thing bout that so far.

As for the fanboy comment, I noticed it's the usual exit someone takes when he has no good argumentation and try to save face.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "I'm still waiting for what you found so bad in it. What was false, please do tell. You haven't said a thing bout that so far. As for the fanboy comment, I noticed it's the usual exit someone takes when he has no good argumentation and try to save face." }-
Poor malware detection rates :thumbd:

I did try their 2009 AV-only version months ago and, even though I agree it has had a big improvement regarding to the 'lightness' of the program compared to previous versions, its detection capabilities are still poor the same as its older heavy brothers. From time to time, I perform my own 'minitests' against new AV versions of the most popular brands.

Definitely Norton still su**s in this department and probably always will :thumbd:

(virusbtn.com posts above, anyone?)

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "Poor malware detection rates :thumbd:

I did try their 2009 AV-only version months ago and, even though I agree it has had a big improvement regarding to the 'lightness' of the program compared to previous versions, its detection capabilities are still poor the same as its older heavy brothers. From time to time, I perform my own 'minitests' against new AV versions of the most popular brands.

Definitely Norton still su**s in this department and probably always will :thumbd:

(virusbtn.com posts above, anyone?)" }-
In my opinion, Symantec's detection rates are just fine. Sure, they may not be the highest, but they aren't the lowest either. As the latest AV-Comparatives have shown, they are right their at the top when it comes to reactive detections.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Poor malware detection rates" }-And yet, the latest version seems to have done well against AV-C's sample set of over 1.5m malwares by detecting overall at 98.4%.

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "And yet, the latest version seems to have done well against AV-C's sample set of over 1.5m malwares by detecting overall at 98.4%." }-

Tests aren't everything; each person has their own experiences to go by. I would have dropped my AV already after AV-C if I thought it was the only indicator of stopping the newest malware.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "Tests aren't everything; each person has their own experiences to go by. I would have dropped my AV already after AV-C if I thought it was the only indicator of stopping the newest malware." }-
That is true; however, the guy was arguing about poor detection rates, not the overall effectiveness of the said security software.

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "That is true; however, the guy was arguing about poor detection rates, not the overall effectiveness of the said security software." }-

He didn't dispute the tests; he was just saying he doesn't believe the AV is that effective.

[TechOutsider]

PCMag rated Norton Internet Security two stars one time. Neil J. Rubenking reviewed it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1829254,00.asp

And another time:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1650544,00.asp

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "And yet, the latest version seems to have done well against AV-C's sample set of over 1.5m malwares by detecting overall at 98.4%." }-
Then again I also don't understand what Mcafee (98.7%) is doing there :D But well, good luck for all of you that are using the Norton products then.

As far as I am concerned, I only trust my only experience.

[wat0114]

If it's anything like their NAV 2010 product, it's a huge improvement over their mid 200x (2004 - 2006?) versions. One thing I didn't like with my av trial were the very attempts to phone home very early during the install procedure, although it may have been nothing serious; perhaps just to look for updates? Still, there was no option offered for this during the install.

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "Poor malware detection rates :thumbd:

I did try their 2009 AV-only version months ago and, even though I agree it has had a big improvement regarding to the 'lightness' of the program compared to previous versions, its detection capabilities are still poor the same as its older heavy brothers.[/SIZE]" }-

Symantec has never had poor detection rates . Where have you seen extremely/badly infected computer with Norton/SAV running ? Poor detection rates means that their protducts would miss quite a lot of samples (mostly such that make obvious problems and in-the-wild).

In my experience , they are a bit slow in additing signature detection for new variants of rogue applications . Perhaps it is because of their policy about spyware/adware detection. However , they are pretty fast with some other samples (trojans/backdoors/worms) .

With Insight and SONAR2 these problems would be set to minimum, I think.

[Zyrtec]

Hi all,

It loos like not everybody raves about Norton Internet Security 2010.

Please, read this preview by remove-malware.com and you'll see NIS 2010 fared poor against rogue “antivirus” : http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/


I know there are many other AV's that also fail detecting these kind of threats but for a product that is nearly perfect like PCmag's reviewer wrote, this is quite disappointing.

Regards,

Carlos

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "Hi all,

It loos like not everybody raves about Norton Internet Security 2010.

Please, read this preview by remove-malware.com and you'll see NIS 2010 fared poor against rogue “antivirus” : http://remove-malware.com/antimalware/anti-malware-reviews/norton-internet-security-2010-and-rogue-antivirus-fail/


I know there are many other AV's that also fail detecting these kind of threats but for a product that is nearly perfect like PCmag's reviewer wrote, this is quite disappointing.

Regards,

Carlos" }-

What strikes me most (I've read that post by Matt previously as I check his website from time to time) is that the software seems to not really miss the rogues, but malfunction (!). If you read the post carefully, Norton has detected those rogues as "bad", but still let them run! :blink: :-\

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "What strikes me most (I've read that post by Matt previously as I check his website from time to time) is that the software seems to not really miss the rogues, but malfunction (!). If you read the post carefully, Norton has detected those rogues as "bad", but still let them run! :blink: :-\" }-
I guess this is by design. Symantec probably thinks that when a user learns that a file is untrusted, they would not run it.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "But well, good luck for all of you that are using the Norton products then." }-We may as well wish everyone the best of luck with whatever anti-malware product they use. There's no point in singling out Norton. It's kinda relative whether they'll be hit by a virus and alerted by the vendor that has detection for it dependent on what they've been doing online. We see it all too often. This is, of course, ignoring the fact other technologies these vendors may utilise can come into play to prevent such infections in addition to signatures.

The on-demand tests we see are testing signature detection alone. The retrospective tests are just as important to look at, and the AV-C's follow-up to this latest crop of tests in December should be just as interesting. Perhaps more so.

[zfactor]

nis 2010 has stopped many rouges so far for me.. it says it was caught by sonar and it was trying to run a malicious program.. i have tested this on every rouge i could find... sonar is very active i am seeing now.. with 2009 i hardly saw it come up with 2010 i see sonar detections a lot now. also if you watch many of mat's reviews MANY av's miss rouges including some of the best out there

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "av's miss rouges including some of the best out there" }-

Yes , they do . This is a Symantec problem , too.

The fact is that they might not be actually malicious , sometimes require user consent to be installed . It is actually a problem that SafeWeb reported safe site when it isn't safe to purchase from.

As for the SONAR2 , I agree with you

[smage]

-{ Quote: "also if you watch many of mat's reviews MANY av's miss rouges including some of the best out there" }-

Yet by some magical ways, these AVs still do extremely well in AVC and keep winning the VB100 awards!

[mvdu]

I tried it for a little while. The pulse updates are nice, and had no performance problems. However, it would mark some files as safe which were not. And Sonar worked better in my experience for non-rogues that made more system changes.

Overall, pretty nice, but I think I'll go for something less expensive or for something I have a license for.

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "Yet by some magical ways, these AVs still do extremely well in AVC and keep winning the VB100 awards!" }-

There is nothing magical about it. It can be explained by the fact that VB doesn't put rogue applications in their test, only virus/trojans and the such. A rogue apps doesn't qualify as any of those.

I guess it might be the same with AV-C. (not sure for AV-C)

Also, rogue apps are still few, so even if a test like AV-C include them, they would be but 0,01% of the total sample base.

[smage]

-{ Quote: "There is nothing magical about it. It can be explained by the fact that VB doesn't put rogue applications in their test, only virus/trojans and the such. A rogue apps doesn't qualify as any of those.

I guess it might be the same with AV-C. (not sure for AV-C)

Also, rogue apps are still few, so even if a test like AV-C include them, they would be but 0,01% of the total sample base." }-

Ok thanks for the explanation.

[Lohnegrin]

Hi everybody,

I stumbled across this thread and after reading it all I thought I'd share my opinion and experience with NIS 2010 so far.

I never been a Symantec fan, actually I pretty much bashed their products in every chance I got because of lets say problematic past experience with their older products. But starting from the release of NIS 2009 I started to read some positive feedback from various sources so I started to keep track of the product updates and user reviews and it seemed that Symantec was actually getting things right after all this time. Then a while ago I found out about the release of NIS 2010 and was very intrigued and starting poking around and also found even better feedback from users and then read the PCMag review and then I decided that I had to test it for myself and see what's the fuzz all about.

I installed it on 2 low-end PCs (Celeron D/Pentium 4 with 512/1024 MB RAM respectively).

The setup was easy, perhaps way too easy for my taste, sure would've liked more options to exclude certain modules for instance, but it's no big deal.

The interface is pretty clean, and easy to understand/navigate, although the settings can seems a bit odd for someone who didn't use Symantec products in a while (like me ::) ).

I can confirm that NIS 2010 is NOT a resource hog, on the contrary it's actually pretty light even on these old PCs, hell even my Firefox consumes more resources than this :argh:

Now, regarding the security, NIS anti-virus engine/module may not be the best, products like Avira or NOD32 probably are better, that being said it's still offer pretty good detection, but as someone once said that the era of signature-based detection is fading because of the sdvancement of new threats that are constantly changing, and here is where NIS 2010 starts to shine, the combination of the anti-virus, SONAR2, and Insight modules makes it a very capable product in detecting new threats. Now, that doesn't mean it's perfect but it's most certainly an excellent product.

I hope you find this mini-review helpful and although I can't guarantee that it's 100% accurate (after all it's only based on my experience) but I do guarantee that it's 100% honest and unbiased.

~Yaser (aka Lohengrin)

[steve1955]

Norton are affected by the same type of problem that affects Microsoft:-no matter how good a product that they produce some people will always knock it just because it is produced by them!(bit of a no-win situation for them really!)

[Lohnegrin]

-{ Quote: "Norton are affected by the same type of problem that affects Microsoft:-no matter how good a product that they produce some people will always knock it just because it is produced by them!(bit of a no-win situation for them really!)" }-

Good point, it's hard to break free of past reputations I guess.

[icr]

Well I believe in my own review and it is just coincidence that PCMag's editor's choice is same as the suite that I am using.

As far as norton is concerned in fighting with rouges it does a good job I tested some rogues(secure warrier,AV 2010....) and it blocked them accessing the internet successfully.

And come on people we are not that dumb that cannot differentiate between a fake application and the real one. Your security product will only warn you rest depends on which option you click with your mouse Install or Cancel.

[Lohnegrin]

-{ Quote: "Well I believe in my own review and it is just coincidence that PCMag's editor's choice is same as the suite that I am using.

As far as norton is concerned in fighting with rouges it does a good job I tested some rogues(secure warrier,AV 2010....) and it blocked them accessing the internet successfully.

And come on people we are not that dumb that cannot differentiate between a fake application and the real one. Your security product will only warn you rest depends on which option you click with your mouse Install or Cancel." }-

So true, some people fail to realize that the first line of defense in fighting malware in general should always be your BRAIN!

[ASpace]

Earlier today I tested two AVs against 7 new variants of rogue applications. They both missed them because they were very fresh rogues . However , installing a rogue is not an easy task . Additionally , removing them ( including all these 7 I tried) is generally not a hard task . Installing a rogue requires a user consent most times . Installing on Vista/7 is even harder (note that UAC and Windows Defender will notify twice about admin privilages , different changes that occur...) . The web sites I got the rogues from are tricky but one must be a complete dull to trust even a single word.

[zfactor]

nis2010 just got rid of pcmightymax on a customers system...

[EliteKiller]

How well does NIS2010 deal with CLB rootkits? ;)

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "How well does NIS2010 deal with CLB rootkits? ;)" }-

Is this a regular question or ... " ;) "

[Defcon]

Is NIS 2010 (or the regular antivirus) easy to uninstall, does it leave behind traces?

[norky]

-{ Quote: "Is NIS 2010 (or the regular antivirus) easy to uninstall, does it leave behind traces?" }-

Easy to uninstall, doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe a folder or two but that's about it.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Easy to uninstall, doesn't leave anything behind. Maybe a folder or two but that's about it." }-

well thats good, norton used to be notorious for being harder to get rid of than most malware ;D

[DVD+R]

Is there really any need for the extra balony thats provided in this suite? I mean who the heck cares about norton processes, and cpu monitoring etc.., If its catching trojans worms and viruses, does it really matter ???

[icr]

-{ Quote: "Is there really any need for the extra balony thats provided in this suite? I mean who the heck cares about norton processes, and cpu monitoring etc.., If its catching trojans worms and viruses, does it really matter ???" }-


According to the specs of your computer shown in your signature yours one is a beast!! I don't think it will cause any slowdown even you use the most heaviest suite and for norton, it catches fairly good amount of viruses,worms.....

[Lohnegrin]

-{ Quote: "Is there really any need for the extra balony thats provided in this suite? I mean who the heck cares about norton processes, and cpu monitoring etc.., If its catching trojans worms and viruses, does it really matter ???" }-

I'm afraid it's no longer that simple, the "extra balony" you're talking about is EXACTLY what helps catch new malware that the signatures didn't caught up with yet!

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "Is there really any need for the extra balony thats provided in this suite? I mean who the heck cares about norton processes, and cpu monitoring etc.., If its catching trojans worms and viruses, does it really matter ???" }-


This all "extra balony" is not necessary for the protection . It is there to help the company get out of the hole they used to be in . They must show the public - "hey , we are renewed , we are no longer that resourse hog we used to be"

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Is there really any need for the extra balony thats provided in this suite? I mean who the heck cares about norton processes, and cpu monitoring etc.., If its catching trojans worms and viruses, does it really matter ???" }-
.
Can you be more specific about what constitutes "extra balony"? :) I agree that the CPU monitoring applet is irrelevant, but most of what I see in the suite seems appropriate. If asked I think most of us would say that the ability to detect and block/remove malware is the only thing that really matters, yet many of us also get excited about GUI upgrades, tray icons, etc. It doesn't hurt that Norton 2010 is nice to look at (IMHO).

[virtumonde]

PC Mag is always generous with Norton,u can see all of their reviews to the years.
It happened that 2009 ,and probably 2010 line of products,really are what described,excellent software on most computers,ease of use -install and forget,low system footprint,some advanced features to tweak for those who know and want especially in the suite and good detection.
With Norton Antivirus 2010 after i uninstalled it 'on xp i've got chkdsk running so i won't be using again to soon.

[AbbyJack]

FWIW The local Staples store had a sale on NIS2010 and yesterday I decided to give it a try. I've used NIS in the past and dumped it because it was a real resource hog. I've been very happy with ESET for several months now and wanted to know how the latest version of NIS compared.
All I can say is that the new version is really slick. So far it works just as advertised but I'm not about to give up on ESET just yet. :)
Overall I'm quite impressed with the new version. It is certainly a big improvement of their earlier version.

[xandros]

i like to heare about it from the people who try it, and the test site, av test
but i hear that nis 2010 excellent now and its working light on the pc, i will try it soon maybe after one week, but realy i love avast pro , its very light on my pc

[LittleDude]

I switched to NIS 2009 after getting infected while running ESET. No changes in speed of my system. No problem uninstalling when I did a clean install of NIS 2010. It can always be purchased cheaply by finding old versions which are usually heavily discounted. You only need the serial number from these to run the latest version. Here in New Zealand I can easily purchase NIS for 3 pcs for half the price of ESET for 1pc.