Symantec antivirus coporate edition (New version)

[chaos16]

http://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com/products/products.cfm?ProductID=155

[rdsu]

Did you test it?

[chaos16]

nop

but
i would like to know if its any good??

[rdsu]

I can say to you one thing: It's much better that Norton...

When I used it, it uses less resources than Norton and it's very configurable.
The detection rate is very good, so you can test it and see if is nice to you ;)

[Blackcat]

Some of our IT people have tried this on some of our "test" workstations.

Apparently they have found it to be much "heavier" than McAfee Enterprise.

They are still testing but at the present time it looks like they will be staying with McAfee.

[chaos16]

i will stay with KAV then ;D

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "i will stay with KAV then ;D" }-
If KAV works well on your system, it's better continue to use it instead of changing to Symantec ;)

[dan_maran]

I received this from work last week, and I finally installed it today. I must say my system is a little bit sluggish, not like eXtendia slow or anything, but still VSE8.0i w/AS Module is so much lighter on here.
I attached a screen so you may see the usage hog, now keep in mind with VSE I usually use about 170-180MB total. Look at the Rtvscan OUCH!
http://www.zer0-tec.net/likuidkewl/SAV10Usage.PNG

[rdsu]

It seems that this version use a lot of resources... :(

I don't know why they made something like this...

[se7engreen]

I had similar results using ver 10.0.359.0...
10 days till the corporate licenses expire; renewal is not looking to good.

[rdsu]

:o :o :o

[Diver]

No problem, just get the latest dual processor CPU and 2 gigs of memory, and you will not even notice it:)

[iwod]

When get better hardware when there are better software for lower price?

Reading from some other sources also confirm this similar situation. I don't think the added Antispyware worth this much of resources usage. Granted they don't have any thing new on the AV engine side.

No wonder why Sophos is walking through the industry like storm.

[Edwin024]

I installed it to do sa small test. And that was over swift... SAV made my icons for email notifying, outpost firewall, Counterspy and ewido dissapear. Immediatly after the de-install they were all back. And the pc worked sluggish to a terrible point too. And I use a 1gig machine with a Pentium IV 300MHz.

No SAV for me. NOD32 is back again ;)

[no13]

-{ Quote: "I installed it to do sa small test. And that was over swift... SAV made my icons for email notifying, outpost firewall, Counterspy and ewido dissapear. Immediatly after the de-install they were all back. And the pc worked sluggish to a terrible point too. And I use a 1gig machine with a Pentium IV 300MHz." }-THERE's your problem ;)

[Unity]

i've never seen a P4 300 mhz , that's probably a typo :o

[YeOldeStonecat]

-{ Quote: "THERE's your problem ;)" }-

LOL...probably meant 3,000...dropped a zero. Pentium 4 started at 1400.

Wow that's quite a jump in the real time engine....used to be around 16 megs. For my business network clients, this past year I've pretty much transitioned from Symantec CE/SBE to NOD32 Enterprise..I'd be installing Sym CE from version 7 or so all the way up to 9. Haven't worked with this new engine yet..but I am surprised at the amount of RAM use here. Wow. Guessing the CPU hit and overall performance hit is accordingly higher based on reports here. :(

[SteelyDon]

Why torture yourself?

[Edwin024]

hihihi ... indeed 3GHz... childish

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "hihihi ... indeed 3GHz... childish" }-
3GHz or 3.06GHz? :P;D

[achi]

Theser are my usage results.

ccApp.exe................6.772 kb
ccEvtMgr.exe............2.660 kb
ccSetMgr.exe............3.796 kb
DefWatch.exe............1.720 kb
Rtvscan.exe...............21.612 kb
VPTray.exe................6.108 kb

When i first installed it I was also getting numbers like the ones mentioned here. There was a scan active under "startup scans". Delete that and I think you usage numbers will be more in line with mine.

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "Theser are my usage results.

ccApp.exe................6.772 kb
ccEvtMgr.exe............2.660 kb
ccSetMgr.exe............3.796 kb
DefWatch.exe............1.720 kb
Rtvscan.exe...............21.612 kb
VPTray.exe................6.108 kb

When i first installed it I was also getting numbers like the ones mentioned here. There was a scan active under "startup scans". Delete that and I think you usage numbers will be more in line with mine." }-
It's, anyway, a lot of memory usage...

Unacceptable for me...

[RejZoR]

I tried Symantec Corporate and i never had a tray icon ??? I saw it on some other PC and there was a yellow shield tray icon. Strange. Detection was however working correctly.

[Trespasser]

The only thing I didn't like about Symantec Antivirus Corp 10 was that it didn't support Outlook Express (no incoming scan).

[no13]

-{ Quote: "It's, anyway, a lot of memory usage...

Unacceptable for me..." }-
the numbers add up to ~37MB... still less than the 55 MB that BD Pro users have reported.

And even Av-comparatives confirms that Symantec Corp has indeed become good at achieving a high detection percentage...

But the question remains whether it can 'clean' infections that it detects, yes?

[Nika]

-{ Quote: "I tried Symantec Corporate and i never had a tray icon ??? I saw it on some other PC and there was a yellow shield tray icon. Strange. Detection was however working correctly." }-
me had sam prob instal 9.0.3.1000, rebot does th trick for me :)

[RejZoR]

I have rebooted 5 times and nothing. Even installed it on perfectly celan (imaged) Windows installation and same. So i gave up.

[Nika]

-{ Quote: "But the question remains whether it can 'clean' infections that it detects, yes?" }-
cleanin good look her http://www.checkvir.com/

[pvsurfer]

Resources aside (that's not my hot-button), we recently upgraded from v9 to v10 and I'm finding the latter has superior detection capabilities compared to v9.

[Cadoul]

I tried it and the result is here:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=74972&page=3&pp=25

[infini]

Can someone post the a comparison of the resources in ram between version 9 and version 10?

[cfp999]

After completing the auto startup scan, rtvscan.exe dropped its memory usage to 12MB on my system.

BTW - as far as I understand you cannot turn auto startup scan off..

[pvsurfer]

Seems as if there's way too much concern over the resources used by SAVC v10. I don't see anyone complaining about the far greater resouces utiiized by Windows, the browser, media-player or a great many other apps! Antivirus programs perform one of the most important and continuous jobs on one's PC, so if they use their share of memory, isn't it worth it? The way I see it, protecting one's PC is far more important than memory use. RAM is cheap, so if you don't have enough, it shouldn't be a big deal buying/installing more.

We should pay far more attention here to the functional strengths/weaknesses of SAVC v10 (and I must say, it looks pretty darn good to me) rather than to the resources it uses!

Ok, I'll step-off of my pedestal now. ;)

[se7engreen]

-{ Quote: "Seems as if there's way too much concern over the resources used by SAVC v10. I don't see anyone complaining about the far greater resouces utiiized by Windows, the browser, media-player or a great many other apps! Antivirus programs perform one of the most important and continuous jobs on one's PC, so if they use their share of memory, isn't it worth it? The way I see it, protecting one's PC is far more important than memory use. RAM is cheap, so if you don't have enough, it shouldn't be a big deal buying/installing more. We should pay far more attention here to the functional strengths/weaknesses of SAVC v10 (and I must say, it looks pretty darn good to me) rather than to the resources it uses!" }-

For a typical user, I'd agree with you regarding resources vs functionality. In the corporate environment that this is intended for (especially one that always wants to cut corners) I disagree. I'd rather see PC's use their resources toward business critical functions while the AV silently protects using as little resources as needed. Upgrading an office full of PC's cost time & money and installing AV software is not justification to perform upgrades.

About the new SAV, I did notice that resource usage fell in line closer to that of SAV9 after a reboot or two. That is even with the startup scan enabled.

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "Seems as if there's way too much concern over the resources used by SAVC v10. The way I see it, protecting one's PC is far more important than memory use." }-
Not if it brings a system to its knees. ;)
-{ Quote: " We should pay far more attention here to the functional strengths/weaknesses of SAVC v10 (and I must say, it looks pretty darn good to me) rather than to the resources it uses! " }-
But remember this version of Norton will most likely be used on a network of many different computers, differing in both OS and installed memory. At work we have tried it now on about 50 workstations, of differing ages, and in all cases it has brought the system to a virtual standstill.

We did not see this performance slowdown with previous versions of SAV.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "Not if it brings a system to its knees. ;)

But remember this version of Norton will most likely be used on a network of many different computers, differing in both OS and installed memory. At work we have tried it now on about 50 workstations, of differing ages, and in all cases it has brought the system to a virtual standstill.

We did not see this performance slowdown with previous versions of SAV." }-
As you mentioned 'Norton', you may be confusing this with NAV; they are not the same product. We recently upgraded to the SAVC-10 client on our PC-workstations and I can say for certain that not even one user has complained about related resource issues (so far)! In that regard, I personally see little difference between v9 and v10. On the other hand, I find the latter has much improved detection capability, especially with infected files embedded within rar-files!

[cfp999]

-{ Quote: "About the new SAV, I did notice that resource usage fell in line closer to that of SAV9 after a reboot or two. That is even with the startup scan enabled." }-

Does this mean that startup scan can be turned off? How?

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: "As you mentioned 'Norton', you may be confusing this with NAV; they are not the same product. We recently upgraded to the SAVC-10 client on our PC-workstations and I can say for certain that not even one user has complained about related resource issues (so far)! " }-
No confusion here between Norton and SAVC. Glad to hear SAVC 10 does not affect system performance on your workstations.

However, as already stated, compared to previous versions, it has caused a considerable slowdown on our computers.

[se7engreen]

-{ Quote: "Does this mean that startup scan can be turned off? How?" }-

To remove any scan, just expand the Startup Scan or Scheduled scan folder, right-click the target scan, and delete.

[pvsurfer]

-{ Quote: "No confusion here between Norton and SAVC. Glad to hear SAVC 10 does not affect system performance on your workstations.

However, as already stated, compared to previous versions, it has caused a considerable slowdown on our computers." }-
That is really curious! How much RAM is in the PCs that experienced considerable slowdown with SAVC v10?

Ours all have 512MB and as I've indicated, there's no real noticeable change in overall system performance from v9 (but there is noticeably better detection)!