A simple question

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

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

 

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

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

 

norton 2007 is better than antivir in my opinion

 

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

 

norton 2007 has improved on all:

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

its not buggy nor slow, although other versions were.

 

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

 

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

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

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



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

just my 2 cents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That's not a good attitude, being a sworn devotee. It affects your objectivity and judgement towards softwares. Softwares are just tools with advantages and disadvantages to do something on your computer, not something that needs to be worshipped or idolized and you can't sleep with softwares, so there is no love for softwares either.

 

well actually......

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

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

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

 

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

 

Some may call it improvement and/or product development. But to be more accurate, AntiVir has beated Norton in THREE recent tests from 2 different independent testers.

http://www.av-comparatives.org

10. Retrospective/ProActive Test

11. On-demand comparative

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

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

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

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

if you say so......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

I still would never use norton again IMO.

kav,nod32 and dr web are better options.

 

Now you are talking about properties concerning suites, not av:s only. When I'm using AVIRA AntiVir PE 7 Classic together with AVG AntiSpyware 7.5 licenced version, BOClean 4.22 and Free Comodo Firewall 2.3.6.81, I just can't find a single part where NIS 2007 or what ever is superior to me, but on the contrary...

Best regards,
Firefighter!

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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