Norton is the best Antivirus-Do you think about this?

[TAP]

Hi,

I've heard and seen what people say " Norton is the best Antivirus " so many times from many people. The reason is that Norton is the most trust AV in the world, Norton looks trustworthly, Symantec is the big name compaby, Norton has the best detection rate, Norton is widely used, Norton is used in every big corporate, Norton is everywhere, you will see Norton in every security forums, you will see Norton in every virus news, and if you talk about AV with your friends the first name they will recognize is Norton. This is the reasons to prove Norton is the best AV in the world.

Do you guys agree with that? I don't agree. I don't understand why almost people that I know think this way. They want to see only Norton name on their computer and think they're safe and don't even try try other AV.

My friend has an old-slow computer with expired Norton 2002 and he gets infected again and again because he cannot use Live update he must update manually and always too late. I suggest him to try avast! home edition with automatic update if he doesn't want to buy one. But he tells me that he trust Norton only Norton is the best AV and other AV is stupid. I'm sorry I can't help him because lastnight he gets infected by Beagle.AF.

Personally, I think there's no best AV. You should use the one that suits your needs.

[Dazed_and_Confused]

{QUOTE-> Personally, I think there's no best AV. You should use the one that suits your needs. <-QUOTE}
Agreed. So what's your question again? ;)

[bigc73542]

Norton is a good antivirus but there are a few other very good ones out there also. It just depends what your requirments are as to which av might suit your computer best. Some have good file scanning others have good unpackers and so on. But I agree with you that there is no one "best" antivirus. ;)

[flyrfan111]

I have to agree with D & C, I don't see a question in your post. It seems to be a statement to me.

[bellgamin]

I have a fairly old & slow computer, but it does everything I need it to do. I have lots of programs, games, etc. plus I maintain my several websites. I can run all those excellent programs OR I can run NAV. Why? Because, if I run NAV, it uses my whole bloody CPU & half a HD for its oversized butt. That's why.

[bigc73542]

I agree norton is a large program

[Ailric]

I'll say that there is a best anti-virus... Kaspersky. KAV usually beats the daylights out of any other AV. Very few are even close.

Norton is good but if you can't update it, it's useless. An updated Avast! is better than an old Norton.

[RejZoR]

Well,i recommend avast! and AntiVir over Norton. Norton's time has pased. Unless they'll show something radically new in NAV2005.

[nadirah]

I think symantec released a beta version of NAV 2005. Wonder what's new in it. I find NAV 2004 a terrible system resource hog already.

[Rita]

{QUOTE-> Hi,

I've heard and seen what people say " Norton is the best Antivirus " so many times from many people. The reason is that Norton is the most trust AV in the world, Norton looks trustworthly, Symantec is the big name compaby, Norton has the best detection rate, Norton is widely used, Norton is used in every big corporate, Norton is everywhere, you will see Norton in every security forums, you will see Norton in every virus news, and if you talk about AV with your friends the first name they will recognize is Norton. This is the reasons to prove Norton is the best AV in the world.

Do you guys agree with that? I don't agree. I don't understand why almost people that I know think this way. They want to see only Norton name on their computer and think they're safe and don't even try try other AV.

My friend has an old-slow computer with expired Norton 2002 and he gets infected again and again because he cannot use Live update he must update manually and always too late. I suggest him to try avast! home edition with automatic update if he doesn't want to buy one. But he tells me that he trust Norton only Norton is the best AV and other AV is stupid. I'm sorry I can't help him because lastnight he gets infected by Beagle.AF.

Personally, I think there's no best AV. You should use the one that suits your needs. <-QUOTE}Hi there
i agree with you--there all good if you keep them updated.i have norton on one computer and a free antivir on one and i like them both
Rita

[Rita]

{QUOTE-> I agree norton is a large program <-QUOTE}
Hi Bigc
yes it is for sure-i had one program with 3 or 4 programs on it like norton ghost etc and i installed it and it crashed my computer and i had to take it to the shop where they only installed the virus part of the disk--my computer didnt have enough ram to run them all--but i have been satisfied with it since then and it updates itself every day --does good--i guess anyway lol :-\
Rita

[Chuck57]

I used Norton av for 3 months. It came with a 3 month trial when I got this pc a year ago. When the trial was gone, so was Norton. Over the years, I've used many antivirus programs and in the past couple of years have found myself always returning to Kaspersky.

I now use Kaspersky 4.5 and, since I've finally got it set the way I like it, will stay with Kaspersky for as long as the 4.5 version is supported.

Norton is probably a good antivirus. I never had any virus problems during the few months it was on this machine, so can't comment on its effectiveness. I have a fairly powerful machine and 512RAM and still it noticeably slowed my computer down.

For me, it is Kaspersky all the way.

[f123]

Norton is a bloated PIG. Slows down hard drive transfer speed. Inferior scanning speed. Plus the Liveupdate program can go bad, so you may not get new AV definition update. If this person does not want to use Avast, then he could alway remove NAV2002 including liveupdate and livereg and reload the software again.

The reason why NAV is widely known is because it comes prebundled with the Dells and HPs. Once NAV is installed, you might as well keep it, because it is very difficult to remove this c_rap. Novice users would rather fork over the subscription $ because they don't know how to completely remove NAV. Plus, they aren't aware of the many excellent free alternatives...like Avast Home. NAV is 90% marketing. BTW, I've seen many McAfee products in use at large companies.

[coppertrail]

Does anyone use CA's eTrust EZ Antivirus? It's a great product, and less intrusive than Norton. Sigs are updated almost daily, and the update process is invisible to the user. You download a trial copy here (http://www.my-etrust.com).

[Eldar]

I've used NIS2004 before, but didn't like the resources it took, as well as the non-existant support & price. After that I tried Avast, but due to my spam blocker I really had nightmares setting this up. I dumped Avast and for now I use Bitdefender SE. I'm glad to have found an antivirus, where you don't have to fiddle a lot. :D Sigs are updated instantly.
My advice is dump Norton, it takes over your system. :-\
There are antivirus who do the job better & cheaper & quicker.

[lynchknot]

Norton is the best Antivirus-Do you think about this?

No, I don't think of this. Although I have used SAV corporate and think it's a decent AV.

I have used many of the well known AV's (NAV, Panda, SAV, Etrust, AVG, NOD32, ExtendiaAVK, KAV5.0, KAV 4.5 - I have settled on KAV 4.5 until they improve 5.0 - for my PC's configuration (it behaves well with other apps I use)

[SmartyX]

{QUOTE-> The reason why NAV is widely known is because it comes prebundled with the Dells and HPs. Once NAV is installed, you might as well keep it, because it is very difficult to remove this c_rap. Novice users would rather fork over the subscription $ because they don't know how to completely remove NAV. Plus, they aren't aware of the many excellent free alternatives...like Avast Home. NAV is 90% marketing. BTW, I've seen many McAfee products in use at large companies. <-QUOTE}

f123, I agree with you.
Avast! Home edition is a great program, and easy to use and (un)install. I recommend it to many novice computer users.
For me personally: I am very happy with McAfee, also because I have a free license, like every member of the best ISP in the Netherlands: XS4ALL. ;D
I used NAV for nearly two years, and it gave me many conficts with other software. Haven't had any of such problems with McAfee yet.

[f123]

McAfee 8 has too much advertising for my taste. The program uses active X to update the AV definition file. Version 8 does not permit a lot of personal tweakings. I guess that's probably OK for 90% of PC users. Also notice 3 to 4 McAfee startup items. However, the program it not a huge resource hog. And it does not significantly reduce the throughput speed of the hard drive. It's a solid product but I would prefer version 7.

But you still cannot beat FREE Avast Home. Avast does not negatively impact the speed of my HD. And new AV definition file is lightning fast...50K or less most of the time. Perfect for dial up users. If you practice good PC housekeeping, then the chance of a virus infection by any of these AVs is very slim.

F.

[SmartyX]

{QUOTE-> McAfee 8 has too much advertising for my taste...........It's a solid product but I would prefer version 7. <-QUOTE}
Lucky me > I have version 7. ;D
They probably don't want XS4ALL members to have their latest version for free.

[xflat]

Norton has one of the best marketing departments in the history of man. I do beleive the same guy who sells cow poop in a plastic bag and calls it Organic Fertalizer is the same genius who markets Norton cuz there is no difference of what is inside the package between the two. Norton and McAfee for that matter...both cut deals with retail ooutlets/PC manufacturers etc. so they have acheived name recognition....doesn't mean their product is worth a spit. I use AntiVir and have been virus free for a long long time:)

[bigc73542]

Norton and mcafee may be good advertisers but they do make a good antivirus product either one is better than any free one. just go to VB and check their detection historys out. VB (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml)

[xflat]

{QUOTE-> Norton and mcafee may be good advertisers but they do make a good antivirus product either one is better than any free one. just go to VB and check their detection historys out. VB (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml) <-QUOTE}
Having been in the IT business for over 30 years I have learned not to put significant weight with these "ratings" and pass/fail labs. Quite often they are loaded with pre-released virus scripts to be utilized during the "test"...I also noticed in your link AntiVir and AVG both received the same rating as McAfee and Norton....

[bigc73542]

mcafee 15 passes 17 fails
norton24 passes 6 fails
avg 5 passes 20 fails
antivir 2 passes 8 fails.

That is quite a difference in performance. and I also have been around computers awhile. Had my own shop for ten years until I retired.

[Pigman]

Norton is a good AV in the virus detection department - newer versions have scored constant 100%s in all categories on VB tests. On the other hand, it's bloatware...

[bigc73542]

There is no doubt that norton and to a lesser degree mcafee are bloatware.

[kloshar]

{QUOTE-> mcafee 15 passes 17 fails
norton24 passes 6 fails
avg 5 passes 20 fails
antivir 2 passes 8 fails.

That is quite a difference in performance. and I also have been around computers awhile. Had my own shop for ten years until I retired. <-QUOTE}


Use F-secure. ;D 15 passes 12 fails
or
Sophos 24 passes 11 fails

I don't understand why all these creatures on this forum take a care of resourses so much. I prefer antivirus which is seen. If I install it, computer has to be little more slower so the effect is seen and you have a feeling that antivirus is working. All that NOD32, Avast and other crap make me feel unsecure.

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> Use F-secure. ;D 15 passes 12 fails
or
Sophos 24 passes 11 fails

I don't understand why all these creatures on this forum take a care of resourses so much. I prefer antivirus which is seen. If I install it, computer has to be little more slower so the effect is seen and you have a feeling that antivirus is working. All that NOD32, Avast and other crap make me feel unsecure. <-QUOTE}

Most people prefer to run software that does not slow down their computers. If you have a newish computer then your choice of running most software, including AV software, is not limited by resource/memory usage.

However, if your box is a little older, the choice of AV becomes more of a balance between protection and performance/stability. Not everyone can run F-Secure, or AVK Pro for example as their primary scanner because of system slowdown.

As for NOD and Avast, I would not quite describe these AV's in your terms, but one reason why many people have chosen one of these excellent AV's, apart from offering good protection, is their relatively light footprint.

[RejZoR]

If you prefer slowdowns Norton is AV of your choice :P

[sard]

How about they reduce the bloat so it slows your system down less, and instead bundle a huge flashing red light and fog horn with Norton that you can plug into a USB slot. These could activate when virus stomping is in progress so you feel secure and know it’s working, but the PC would still run acceptably. It's a win win situation I say. :D

[AMRX]

dear Acadia, stopping a virus doesn't necessarily mean you have to use a resource hungry AV. NAV is a decent piece of software thats all. its certainly not the best. now P4 systems are here but it doesn't justify coding an AV which will keep it on its toe almost all the time. LOL sard has a good point.

[sard]

{QUOTE-> I adhere to that old fashioned philosophy that says, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!" :)

Acadia <-QUOTE}

I prefer the "If it aint perfect, don't stop improving it" philosophy myself. Otherwise we’d still be living in caves ;D

[f123]

Some people prefer to go from point A to point B with a tank. Others do it on a bicycle. I only use an e-mail AV scanner and a firewall. The virus definition file is updated manually twice a week...more if there is an outbreak of PC gremlin. Not a single infection since 2000.

Norton 2004 will reduce the throughput speed of any hard drive...even with the latest high-end set-up. That's why very few PC enthusiasts will load NAV.

Freeware like Avast Home provides an excellent balance between value and performance.

Symantec is the KING of software hype. PartitionMagic to partition the hard drive. Drive Image/Ghost to image data in the hard drive. You can spend $100 at the local store for these programs, or download Bootit ng (600KB) for $35. Sure, bootit ng lacks those nice graphics, but it will do much more for less $. Bootit ng does not have the visibility because it does not advertise on computer magazines.

I suspect that Symantec paid Dell and HP to bundle the NAV program with all new PCs. These companies include a lot of crappy free software like Real, AOL, MSN, etc. Why not include FREE AV proggies like AVG and Avast? It's all about $$$.

[VikingStorm]

Well of course Symantec pays HP and Dell, it's basically an ad payment. After all, they only include a 90 day trial. Symantec is what we call: good at marketing.

[Pigman]

NOD32: 27 passes - 3 fails. 100% detection in every category on all of the more recent tests.

(Of course, it also has sub-par trojan detection and isn't very good at unpacking executables... what can I say, no AV is perfect.)

[Pericles]

{QUOTE-> I adhere to that old fashioned philosophy that says, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!" :)

Acadia <-QUOTE}

Unfortunately, with NAV, it could in fact be broken, but you wouldn't know about it.

[router]

Norton is not the best. It's very close to being the worst. Horrible product. It used to be a trustworthy and reliable software, but nowadays it's plenty bloatware and it will hog all your system resources. They spend millions in advertisements and in bribing people working at cnet, pcmagazine and so on. That's why you only see good reviews telling you how "wonderful" this software is. They would do much better by investing those millions in developing a software that actually worked. Too bad for you Symantec, you're going down. It's a pity you haven't broke down already. Kaspersky Antivirus Personal 5.0 all the way for me. :)

[f123]

It's difficult to be 100% independent if you accept advertising $.

F.

[router]

{QUOTE-> You have proof of this statement?

Acadia <-QUOTE}

Oh Please, you don't need any proof. Don't you see this Antivirus is so lousy and still gets the highest grade in these magazines/sites ? If these magazines were independent they would give the highest grade to other antivirus softwares that really deserve it, like Kaspersky or NOD32, but Norton ? lol, it makes me laugh, you know I'm right. This antivirus is going nowhere and so the people who use it. If you use this antivirus, then don't complain when your system gets infected ;)

[kloshar]

router:

I agree with you!

[router]

{QUOTE-> router:

I agree with you! <-QUOTE}

Thank you :) I'm sure most people do

[lynchknot]

Sorry OT for a second - Nice avatar Acadia - here's another for you http://www.quickbase.com/up/8q9jbnau/g/r8c/eg/va/throbber.gif

[Acadia]

Thank you very much. The Acadia region of Mount Desert Island, where my wife and I hope to retire some day, actually has 5 or 6 lighthouses, I forget now how many.

Acadia

[f123]

There are many other variables that determine the actual performance of an AV software. People love to see 100% because it does not require any prior knowledge about the product. As a former rocket propulsion engineer, I know that some companies will spend a lot of resources to make sure that they pass test XYZ.

We have a customer with NAV...so far she has been hit twice by PC gremlins. Yes, NAV is up to date with the latest definition file. NAV isn't bullet proof. Its real-world failure rate is about the same as McAfee, CA, Kaspersky, etc.

What do I look for in a good AV?

-timely virus definition update during period of peak infection
-better than 85% detection rate
-small hit on system performance
-speed
-price
-ease of installation and removal

NAV gets 2.5 out of 6 stars.

[dangitall]

Hear, hear, Acadia! I've been using NAV forever (or so it seems), and I've never been bitten by a virus. From my own experience, NAV works, and I'll not switch to another AV while it continues to do so. And, as for all of you you who comment on NAV's 'heavy' footprint, it runs just fine on my Win98SE P3 machine.

[f123]

If you value detection, with the understanding that NO AV is perfect, then NAV may be in the top 2. If you factor in the load on the PC, price, and support...well let's say no higher than 7. Magazines do not directly publish good report in exchange for advertising $. However, you must be an alien if you think that prolific advertisers like SYMANTEC do not swing the vote.

If you start a post asking for the most WELL-ROUNDED AV program, I believe less than 5% of the vote will go to NAV. And most folks who visit this forum are semi-informed about PC security and computer hardware/software.

F.

[mvdu]

KAV 4.5 has a bigger database of overall malware and quicker updates it seems, so I feel that that one is better. But I still think NAV has good detection. LiveUpdate with NAV annoys me.

[dangitall]

You may be right, friend, about Symantec swaying the votes and stats with the almighty advertising $$$ they wield. All I am saying is that, for me and on this machine, NAV works, and this is all that matters ... to me.

[f123]

Automatic LiveUpdate has a tendency to go "bad" and not update when the PC automatically adjusts for time change. Did anyone noticed this behavior? Currently, Liveupdate will use 150K to check for update, and another 200KB to update the virus definition file. Definitely a bummer for dialup users.

Speaking of update, Avast Home is very good in this department. The timeliness of the release of new virus definition could stand some improvement, but the program is lightning fast when it comes to updating the AV definition file...50 to 70KB...max.

[router]

{QUOTE->

...If you start a post asking for the most WELL-ROUNDED AV program, I believe less than 5% of the vote will go to NAV. And most folks who visit this forum are semi-informed about PC security and computer hardware/software.

<-QUOTE}

I totally agree with this. A person who really understands about security issues would never pick up Norton as his/her antivirus solution.

[f123]

Sure, NAV will run with a PIII CPU. Only problem is that your hard drive's throughput speed will be reduced by 20 to 30% with NAV automatic full-time protection ON. NAV 2003/2004 will result in a bigger hit on PC performance. You can quickly verify this if you have more than one partition in your hard drive. Reboot NAV with full-time protection ON. Copy a large folder (500MB to 1GB in size if possible) from one partition to another and record the transfer time. Delete this newly created folder. Turn OFF NAV automatic full time protection from the NAV main menu. Reboot PC. Make sure NAV full time protection is off. Copy the same folder and record the transfer time.

Go to PC Pitstop and run a complete test of your system with NAV full-time protection ON. The performance of your system will be subpar, especially when it comes to the speed section.

I'm using free AV with only an e-mail scanner and still no infection since 2000. Kinda hard to beat that safely record, especially when we are dealing with FREE software.

[Comp01]

Well, I had Norton System Works 2003 on this PC (400Mhz PII, 128MB RAM) and it slowed it down quite a bit, after uninstallation, it broke my internet connection (Totally killed the DHCP service.) And had a heck of a time getitng that back, I really don't like Norton that much personally, even though it does have some good detection rates, I like a very light AV.

[router]

{QUOTE-> ...I really don't like Norton that much personally, even though it does have some good detection rates, I like a very light AV. <-QUOTE}

In fact, it doesn't. Symantec corp, they are expert at advertising **************, not at antivirus and security software development.


edited for TOS 7/21/2004 - BlueZannetti

[Eldar]

{QUOTE-> What is wrong with simply saying that there are several excellent products out there and that you should use that is best for you? <-QUOTE} I concur. ;)

[AMRX]

dear Acadia, i agree with you completely when you say "what works BEST for you is the BEST". if in anyway you found NAV to be working nicely with you then its best for you. there is no need to pay any heed if someone else is trying to force his/her opinion into you. just make sure you're safe and secured. i always say this again and again, as long as you know what you're doing you're better off even without an AV.

please don't start bashing the product ladies and gentlemen. specially don't make comments such as "A person who really understands about security issues would never pick up Norton as his/her antivirus solution". i know some virus experts using this product and i do have respects for their choice.

[nadirah]

The problem with Norton is its memory usage and system resource utilization.
Once i installed Norton, regardless of what Norton product it was, it ate my whole CPU. I saw 100% CPU usage in the XP task manager! :o
Symantec is making their products eat up more CPU power than saving it for other programs.
Anybody using Norton on P4 CPUs should upgrade to at least 1GB of RAM and higher. Or if you are a power demanding computer user, get a P4 CPU with HT technology!
what works BEST for you is the BEST

[Pigman]

Agreed with Nadirah - there is no "best" antivirus. They've all got strong points and weak points - NOD's sub-par trojan detection, Avast's lack of heuristics, AntiVir's false positives, Norton's excessive bloat, etc.

[kloshar]

Do you think that Norton has really the best description or removal tools for viruses? Is there any better company?

And how much memory does norton take?

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> as long as you know what you're doing you're better off even without an AV. <-QUOTE}

Probably correct if your AV is slowing down your computer but not recommeded for a layered defense ;)

More importantly, Amrx, we would have much less to discuss here ;D

[nadirah]

Norton will eat up all your CPU power, its a real monster.

[rbw91]

I use AVG and I think it is a fine virus killer.

Easy to update, a scan is only 8 mins long and I have very rarely been infected, and never seriously.

I suppose it is the same as anything really -- if you go looking for viruses you will find them.

The best way to not get infected in the first place is to exercise a bit of common sense.

Watch where you go, what you download, check file extensions before you double click, if you don't trust it don't open it and make sure you update on a daily basis - a 2 minute task. Periodically get a second opinion from Housecall or Panda Activescan. Set Windows to auto-update on critical updates.

That's probably as effective as any AV tool.

[dangitall]

{QUOTE-> Norton will eat up all your CPU power, its a real monster. <-QUOTE}

Granted, it's a Symantec app, but the CPU usage monitor in System Doctor reports an average of less than 20% usage with NAV running on my W98SE system.

[RejZoR]

Well in general Norton is ok antivirus,but nothing more. Uses way too much memory/CPU time,loads 10 services/processes (usually AVs use 2-4 processes max),has huge problems with its update part called LiveUpdate and its almost impossible to remove it entirely from the machine. Its detection capabilities ae also very low. It can detect majority of current ITW samples,but older ones and trojans are usually not detected at all. There is lots of free AVs that offer much better characteristics then Norton (AntiVir,avast!,AVG,Panda Platinum 7(Free one)) and many more better commercial AVs like Kaspersky or F-Prot.

[kloshar]

Can someone answer me on my question?

{QUOTE-> Do you think that Norton has really the best description or removal tools for viruses? Is there any better company?

And how much memory does norton take? <-QUOTE}

[RejZoR]

Well specific removal tools are basically all good. I prefer avast!-s Virus Cleaner because it can clean several infections with one utility. There are also others similar (McAfee STINGER,Panda QuickClean). These clean a very specific things so if they say they clean MyDoom they will all do the same job. Even Norton Removal Tools are nice and they are also very simple to use. These are probably the only programs worth using from Symantec...

Virus descriptions are also detailed enough so they give you enough informations. Also very good.

Yes,there is many better companies then Symantec. ESET,Frisk,McAfee,Kaspersky and many others that offer free AVs like avast! (their commercial one is very good too),the same is with GriSoft and their AVG.
H+BEDV AntiVir is also a very good AV if we don't think about update system which is awful.

Norton Antiirus 2003 was probably the best of all NAVs. 2004 was the most terrible. NAV2005 is coming back on track,but its still full of problems (too much running processes and pretty high memory usage,30megs and more)

[kloshar]

Thanx, and which company has the best virus description?

[RejZoR]

Symantec has quiet good descriptions,but i usually prefer http://www.viruslist.com also found on my webpage. It has probably the largest virus database with a search engine.

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> Can someone answer me on my question? <-QUOTE}

I don't know how much memory Norton takes but it is a huge program on the hard drive, something like 40mb. NOD, on the other hand is only about 4-5mb and I can vouch is quite light on the resources. With this Forum you might find better Tech Support for NOD then you would contacting the Norton site for Norton support. Good luck.

Acadia

[Dazed_and_Confused]

{QUOTE-> Can someone answer me on my question? <-QUOTE}

Yeah. You could do a lot better with either NOD or KAV. It's been my experience that both Norton and McAffee use quite a bit of PC resources. KAV isn't too light in that regard either, but with KAV you get something in return - excellent virus and trojan detection. ;)

[kloshar]

I have to answer someone who's saying that Norton uses just 8 mb and has the largest virus web database and description and the best removal tools.

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> I have to answer someone who's saying that Norton uses just 8 mb and has the largest virus web database and description and the best removal tools. <-QUOTE}

If you use Nod you shouldn't need removal tools.

On the other hand if you are looking, Nod also has FREE removal tools, see:

http://www.nod32.ch/download/tools.stm

Good virus deffinitions can be found also at Sophos:

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/

Cheers ;D

[Blackspear]

Also see the following thread, posts 5 and 6:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=223821#post223821

Here you have 2 resellers of Nod32 (myself being one) that give their opinion of Norton and why they have that opinion...

Ultimately, if you are trying to convince someone, they equally can be convinced into something else, they have to do their own research and make their own decisions, unless of course they are already in the middle of a mess and are being pig headed, see the following thread and post #14:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=42183

Cheers ;D

[kloshar]

I use F-secure.

[AMRX]

dear kloshar, if someone said Norton uses just 8MB then probably he/she is using a very very old version, which i don't remember. i agree with RejZor, that Kaspersky site has a huge database and your F-Secure has a nice one too.

[kloshar]

{QUOTE-> dear kloshar, if someone said Norton uses just 8MB then probably he/she is using a very very old version, which i don't remember. i agree with RejZor, that Kaspersky site has a huge database and your F-Secure has a nice one too. <-QUOTE}

Isn't the Sophos's and F-prot's the largest database?

By the way:

Thanx for all answers!

[Pigman]

RAV, for one, has a larger database than F-Prot's. KAV might as well, though I'm not sure about that.

Sophos I don't know about, but it probably has a huge number of signatures...

[VikingStorm]

{QUOTE-> RAV, for one, has a larger database than F-Prot's. KAV might as well, though I'm not sure about that.

Sophos I don't know about, but it probably has a huge number of signatures... <-QUOTE}
It also depends on how they count viruses. KAV and McAfee have around 93-94k, but detect more (atleast in most unofficial tests) than RAV and F-Prot with databases over 100k.

[bigc73542]

Command has a pretty good chunk of def files

[Barney]

I absolutely do not like Norton at all. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say "My computer is locked up, help me fix it". I take a look at their system and Norton isn't working at all, it's completely disabled and inop. I can't uninstall it, I can't reinstall it, tere is no choice left but to reinstall windows. I will never, never, never put that program on my computer. There are only 4 antivirus I use. They are DRWEB (the best), KAV, Nod32 and F-prot.

Barney

[RejZoR]

And avast! and AntiVir. Never couse problems and are easy to remove. No complications,easy and efficient. Um and free :)

[mVPstar]

Avast is really good. I have it running on a computer I just got for free from my school. Here are the specs: ;D
P3 500MHz
10GB HD
128MB RAM
Windows 2000 Pro

My computer is still running at nice speeds, despite the fact that it is at 500MHz. My memory hasn't dropped down once. Consider Avast!

My other computer with Norton Internet Security 2003 runs slow at times. Surprisingly, here are the specs:
P4 1.9GHz
256MB RAM
80GB HD
Windows 2000 Pro

My comp is rather slow logging in and opening files and NIS takes ages to load. Of course, there are other factors like my HD is bigger than the other comp, thus making it harder to find system files.

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> ...avast!... Never couse problems and are easy to remove. No complications,easy and efficient. Um and free :) <-QUOTE}

Free is not always good...

I had a customer in one of my shops the other day with 44 viruses who insisted her free "avast" virus protection was good, and that it had come recommended by a “Microsoft shop” from the country she used to live in. That she didn't want to purchase a actual virus program that worked. Two of my team tried to say she needed it, to no avail. I stepped in when she arrived to collect her now clean PC and said she was here because her virus protection did not work, and that she would be reinfected again, that she was spending money on removal and would continue to spend even more money on removal, instead of prevention. It is beyond me as to why people will spend good money on removal of viruses, but won't spend the same amount of money on protection...

She finally saw the light and purchased a good anti-virus program.

Cheers ;D

[Pigman]

44 viruses?

As far as I know, the only way to get that sort of massive infection is to be click-happy beyond belief...

Then again, I ain't seen nothin'. ;)

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> 44 viruses?

As far as I know, the only way to get that sort of massive infection is to be click-happy beyond belief...

Then again, I ain't seen nothin'. ;) <-QUOTE}

Sure, however 99% of the time we are talking about the average public walking through my shops, we set them up like a fortress and yet I have still had 2 customers return within months having been “click happy”, well someone within their family anyway. They haven't learnt the first time round, money will make them learn the second time around...

Some people get hit and don't want it to happen again, they seek a solution, and yet others seem to like being hit, and are continually dazed as to how or why it happened... doh, bashing my head against a brick wall hurts, why won’t the bricks move, why does my head hurt…lets try it again, I’m not sure if it does hurt… owww, must try that again… owww…

It's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

Cheers ;D

[Tinribs]

I have used many versions of symantec's offerings, varying ove several operating systems.
I do find the offerings alot less memory intensive than many complain of (this I am sure is due to excesive start components/programs)
Virus bulettin does give a glowing record and this cannot be ignored, so if you have a fast pc,(or sanely configured) then you should be fine as I have always found.
Nortons detection is fine, many will find a reason to knock it but amongst a fiercly fought competition then Norton stands its ground, and I am not a fan!

[f123]

Avast was not capable of intercepting 44 bugs? Hard to believe. You wouldn't happen to have a list of those gremlins? Perhaps the progam was not working. It happens to many novice PC users, including Norton and McAfee.

Those in the business of selling AV software would want the consumers to believe that paid AVs are MUCH better than free AVs. IMO, free AVs are at least 85 to 90% effective. Even the BEST AVs are only 95% effective in real-world application. Just remember that YOU are the best AV program.

F.

[Chuck57]

44 viruses with Avast is a surprise. I wonder if she ever updated it. Personally, I've never cared for Avast. Not because there's anything wrong with it. I think it's probably the best of the free av's. I just didn't like it.

I used AVG for a couple of years and it saved me several times. I now run Kaspersky 4.5 and though I haven't been hit with anything, I feel I've got probably the best all around antivirus/trojan/worm software available in one package. I had Norton on this machine briefly. It came with the machine. When the 3 month trial was up, I removed it as fast as I could.

Virus programs are, I guess, like word processors. You either like them or you don't. Just as I prefer WordPerfect over Word, I like Kaspersky over any other antivirus I've tried.

[f123]

You would think that after the first 3 bugs, the user would know that there is a problem with the PC and seek help. Most PCs would have a difficult time linking with the internet to pick-up the other 41 bugs. Hehehehhh.

I'm cheap. If the free products work for me since 2000, then why mess around with a good thing? Some people must have the very best of XYZ. Others prefer bells and whistles. And there are those who cannot sleep well at night because they didn't spend $40 to $60 on an AV program.

Like they said in Wall Street, that's what makes the market!

F.

[mVPstar]

44 viruses? How long ago was this?

[AMRX]

could be the same bug infecting 44 files or maybe 4 or 5 bugs infecting 44 files. not a big deal to find such cases if you're in this field. depends on what AV was used to detect those bugs. its possible that those bugs were rare and hence AVAST missed it. could be the other way around also.

i'm not selling any products, still i think there is a major difference between freeware AVs and commercial AVs. its childish to compare them IMHO.

[RejZoR]

Now we got to second conlussion. Read my signature. If you are a moron,even a 20 engined AV cannot help you.

Btw Home Edition is free and uses the same defs as Pro Edition. There is slight update speed difference since PUSH update system(avast! Pro) is much faster then standard interval one...

[Pigman]

RejZor, these people aren't morons, they're humans with human frailties. Don't be so bloody harsh. :P

About the business with the click-happy Avast-user, maybe she didn't realize that no updates = no security... (Then again, perhaps this was one of those situations where heuristics is useful. You listening, RejZor? ;) )

[RejZoR]

Hm i DID mentioned AntiVir there too btw... :P And no,i you have at least 1g of salt in your head you cannot get 40 malware files. Unless you still use FastTrack network based P2P programs...

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> Avast was not capable of intercepting 44 bugs? Hard to believe. You wouldn't happen to have a list of those gremlins? Perhaps the progam was not working. It happens to many novice PC users, including Norton and McAfee.

Those in the business of selling AV software would want the consumers to believe that paid AVs are MUCH better than free AVs. IMO, free AVs are at least 85 to 90% effective. Even the BEST AVs are only 95% effective in real-world application. Just remember that YOU are the best AV program... <-QUOTE}

You have some very good posts f123, are you going to join us as a member some day?

Yes indeed it was 44. I have never used Avast myself, I did try AVG, and when that failed on a known .scr virus, it annoyed me to the extreme, so that I went hunting for independent testing sites, and found www.virusbtn.com Over the coming 5 months I had 5 or so friends that also became infected while using AVG. I now use Nod32 as do they, and have done for 2 years now.

I agree with you, the very best AV is still the one that sits on your shoulders... Unfortunately not everyone takes the time to educate themselves to a point that it is of use… they just want a product to work and if it doesn’t through their own habits, tend to blame the product, unless someone can get to them and show them the error of their ways…

Cheers ;D

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> 44 viruses? How long ago was this? <-QUOTE}

3 days ago.

Cheers ;D

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> Hm i DID mentioned AntiVir there too btw... :P And no,i you have at least 1g of salt in your head you cannot get 40 malware files. Unless you still use FastTrack network based P2P programs... <-QUOTE}

I don't know what she was using, we just cleaned up the mess and set up a little fortress for her, gave her instruction on its use and then backed it up with an email with step by step instructions on what we had just shown her...

There is still only so much we can do, ultimately it comes down to the individual user...

Cheers ;D

[WilliamP]

The best AV is the one that works on your system and does it job. I had Norton for a couple of years. It was supposed to update itself. It didn't, so I kept it updated. Then it started disabling itself. It would have the little red X I tried everything Symantec spelled out. Nothing would keep it enabled. If you rebooted it was down,and you had to jump through hoops to get it going again. Now I have NOD. It updates allmost daily, sometimes 2 or 3 times. Getting back to which is the best, who knows?

[f123]

No need to tweak F123 guest. Running a PC with 44 bugs is like driving a car without tires, windshields, and steering wheels. At some point, you would think that the driver would pull over and fix the first flat tire. Hehehehhh.

I sense that this person does not have a lot of important data in the hard drive. The best option would be to save a few important folders on CD-Rs, format the HD, and reload Windows. I'd also burn her an image file of the tweaked OS for future restoration.

F.

[f123]

Yup, LiveUpdate is crap! The neighbor installed NAV2003 last year. Found out in May of 2004 that there was no new virus definition update since the program was first installed. Replaced NAV with Avast. So far so good. The Avast virus definition update subroutine is one of the best in the business. Average update size is under 50KB...ideal for those with 56K dial-up.

F.

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> ...Running a PC with 44 bugs is like driving a car without tires, windshields, and steering wheels. At some point, you would think that the driver would pull over and fix the first flat tire... <-QUOTE}

LMAO, that's what pulled up outside my shop... damn, you must have esp ;)

For someone that is security conscious, you could almost say any anti-virus would do, so long as it was updated regularly with definitions for the latest variants and had a reasonable heuristic engine to catch the newbies.

Still, some like to drive a Ford, others like to drive a BMW. Yet others like to try and take their Ford sedan off-road, and others know they like off-road so they purchase a 4x4 that is designed for the job. Unfortuanely some of the average consumers out there try to go flat out with a sedan while 4x4ing and find they crash and burn. You always have to think of safety, otherwise it will remind you and it won’t hold back in doing so... it's a bit like gravity, very unforgiving ;)

Cheers ;D

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> Most people prefer to run software that does not slow down their computers. If you have a newish computer then your choice of running most software, including AV software, is not limited by resource/memory usage.

However, if your box is a little older, the choice of AV becomes more of a balance between protection and performance/stability. Not everyone can run F-Secure, or AVK Pro for example as their primary scanner because of system slowdown. <-QUOTE}
Earlier versions of NAV are still available on the Net. I run these versions:

NAV 2004 {part of NSW Pro 2004} on WinXP {2.4 GHz CPU, 1024 Meg RAM}
NAV 2002 {along with NU 2000} on Win98SE {200 MHz CPU, 128 Meg RAM}
NAV 2001 {along with NU 4.5} on Win95C {133 MHz CPU, 64 Meg RAM}

So you see I run the latest NAV on my fastest box, and earlier versions on my older slow machines. NAV 2001 has a quite small footprint, only few Megs in RAM used by the Auto-Protect. NAV 2002 is little more, and I think the biggest jump in RAM usage came with NAV 2003 {which I don't run}, and carried over of course into NAV 2004.

For free AVs, the lightest on resources whilst providing decent protection is Grisoft's AVG. AVAST has better unpackers and probably little better detection but uses more resources. There is a tradeoff between having a nice GUI and feature-rich product, and having light demand on resources. As has been commented here already, for newer machines this isn't so much of a critical decision criterion for software, as it is for older machines.

Bottom line, find the AV that provides good protection and plays well with your system, it's installed hardware and software. Everyone has a different "mix" of those, so one size does not fit all, and YMMV with any given product. Hope that helps. Thanks for an interesting discussion which, with exception of a few mildly bashing comments, has remained refreshingly civil.

Warmly, Ran

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> I totally agree with this. A person who really understands about security issues would never pick up Norton as his/her antivirus solution. <-QUOTE}
Ahem .. no need to make insulting remarks like that my friend. I have 17000 posts at DSLReports Security Forum and am Wilders contributor too, and slthough I'm no expert, I do think I've learned some things in the Security area. And I use NAV on all my machines at home. Perhaps you didn't mean to say: "A person who really understands about security issues would never pick up Norton as his/her antivirus solution" ?? Isn't that a tad extreme? :o

[Randy_Bell]

{QUOTE-> Symantec has quiet good descriptions,but i usually prefer http://www.viruslist.com also found on my webpage. It has probably the largest virus database with a search engine. <-QUOTE}
You're kidding, right? No offense but you can't find much on that Site, compared to the other major Vendors: Symantec, TrendMicro, Computer Associates, Sophos, McAfee/NAI, etc. I don't mean to offend, but am a bit surprised at this statement ... take care RejZoR, I realize you dislike Norton, many do, and that's fine you're entiitled to opinion just like everyone else. ;)

EDIT: Perhaps you were speaking of the large size of Kaspersky's database {signatures}, in which case I agree with you. I thought you were saying the VirusList Site documents more malware {virus, worm, trojan} than say, Symantec or Trend or McAfee sites do. That is patently inaccurate, I often cannot find anything at VirusList when doing comparative Vendor writeups on a given worm or whatever that is documented at these other sites. Others have found this to be true. But hopefully you were referring to the size of KAV's database {signatures} in which case I agree with you on that point. Take Care .. {forgot to mention Panda and F-Secure, they also have excellent virus encyclopedias}. ;)

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> Bottom line, find the AV that provides good protection and plays well with your system, it's installed hardware and software. Everyone has a different "mix" of those, so one size does not fit all, and YMMV with any given product. <-QUOTE}

I agree with you 100% Randy, unfortunately your quote above just doesn't fly in this forum. I said the exact same thing a couple of times and got flamed to Kingdom Come and back, and throughout it all I NEVER slam dunked another posters AV choice. To play it safe in life these days I guess it's best never to discuss religion, politics, or anti-virus. :-X

Acadia

EDIT: Oh yeah, and some of the insulting posts in these threads were really meant by the posters, it came from their hearts, well, it came from somewhere. ;D

[RejZoR]

@Randy_Bell
Facts my friend,facts,not opinions :P And we don't thin just about detection. There is lots of other very important factors for selecting AV software...

[AMRX]

dear Acadia, you have my support. its true sometimes people forget their manners but the Administrators are doing a good job.

dear Randy, you are partially right about Viruslist. no encyclopedia is perfect but the information in Kaspersky's site is a lot better than other sites. i'm not talking about virus descriptions only.

dear RejZor, you should be more polite. a person maybe a little ignorant regarding computers but who knows he/she might be a high flying doctor or something like that. just keep in mind that we are not experts on every field. i hope you'll show your good side in your next posts.

[Acadia]

{QUOTE-> the Administrators are doing a good job. <-QUOTE}

At Wilders they always have. Between Paul and them is why this Forum has always remained for the most part so civil and when you consider how this place has grown that is quite commendable. :)

Acadia

[RejZoR]

C'mon,like i said anything offensive?

[dangitall]

{QUOTE-> To play it safe in life these days I guess it's best never to discuss religion, politics, or anti-virus. <-QUOTE}

Yep. Just like the first two, AV is a matter of personal choice. For me, NAV works just fine ... but you won't see me bashing another person's choice of AV under any circumstances, or trying to get them to change to NAV. Once the NAV-bashing starts, I tend to leave. Cowardly? Perhaps, but I've got a short fuse, and I prefer not to be in a situation where I might start 'doing unto others'.

[D0WNtheDRAIN]

N0rt0n is the sl0west pig s0ftware I can think 0f. S0rry but my oh key d0esn't w0rk well.

[goldberry]

I bought my first computer 3 years ago and have been learning the ropes thru hard knocks and wonderful forums such as Wilders Security. About a month ago a web page tried to download something as soon as I surfed to it. The Avast which I installed about a month prior showed the following in it's log. So I have spent this month trying to figure out if I am safe or not. Anyway, I have spent hours as a silent observer just pouring over the forum posts and trying to follow the suggestions of others. But one place I haven't posted at is the Avast forums because of remarks similar to, "If you are a moron,even a 20 engined AV cannot help you." To me as someone just beginning it seemed the attitudes at the Avast forums were very intolerant and unaccepting. In fact, out of mere principle, I am thinking of uninstalling and trying something different. The posts here have helped me so much in learning how to protect myself in this ever worsening battle against "The Baddies". I was so glad when I saw how you guys here stood up with statements such as "A person maybe a little ignorant regarding computers but who knows he/she might be a high flying doctor or something like that. just keep in mind that we are not experts on every field." When you are just now realizing how the many viruses, trojans, worms, and malware seem to be never ending it is a light in the darkness to read the posts here at Wilders made by good people. I am including a bit of log here just to show an example of an avast log. I'm not really sure what it means but this particular trojan is in the chest so I geuss I'm OK. I have installed all kinds of programs that I found suggested here at Wilders though.
6/28/2004 9:15:24 PM NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM 1208
Sign of "Win32:Inservice [Trj]" has been found in "C:\Documents and Settings\Debra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WNX766N9\download_plugin[1].exe" file.
6/28/2004 9:25:16 PM SYLVANGLADE\Debra 3116
Sign of "Win32:Inservice [Trj]" has been found in "C:\Documents and Settings\Debra\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WNX766N9\download_plugin[1].exe" file.
7/1/2004 4:54:49 AM NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM 1208 Function setifaceUpdatePackages() has failed. Return code is 0xC0000142, dwRes is C0000142.
7/1/2004 4:54:50 AM NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM 1208 An error has occured while attempting to update. Please check the logs.
7/1/2004 9:01:26 AM NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM 1208 Function setifaceUpdatePackages() has failed. Return code is 0xC0000142, dwRes is C0000142.
7/1/2004 9:01:27 AM NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM 1208 An error
Thanks so much to all for just being yourselves and for creating an environment where I will feel safe here to watch and learn.

[Blackspear]

{QUOTE-> I bought my first computer 3 years ago and have been learning the ropes thru hard knocks and wonderful forums such as Wilders Security... <-QUOTE}

Welcome to Wilders Goldberry, hope your stay is long :)

Some here do get a little passionate, and are then asked by moderators to rein it in a bit. You have chosen to jump into one of those areas where passion abounds...

If you see the following link it will have some answers to your logs:

http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/t/trojandownloader_win32_inservice.asp

Cheers ;D

[Acadia]

Welcome, Goldberry, ENJOY! :)

Acadia

[AMRX]

dear Goldberry, welcome to the forum. don't just be silent watcher. please contribute your thoughts and opinions here, we are looking forward to it. some sites try to make us download some plugins so that they could provide us with more service. don't download ANY of such plugins.