Market share vs. Problems %

The old Norton debate.Just like the Enegiser bunny, goes on and on and on.It certainly would be nice to once and for all, put an end to it.Is this possible?.Yes, i think it is.Can it be done?.I just don't know.You have the side that says there are just to many problems with this product.The other side says thats to be expected because they dominate the market share.More users, more reported problems.There are some very knowledgeable people that participate in this form and would like your input here.Is there a way to figure out percentage of users experiencing problems.I don't think it can be done with 100% accurency, but maybe accurate enough to satisfy everyone.I am not "bashing" Norton, but in my opinion, its has more problems than what a product dominating the market should have.A problem i'm seeing lately is removal after detection.Then again,maybe more users,more problems just makes it look that way to me.So if it somehow could show percentages reporting problems say, KAV-14%,NAV-16%,F-secure-18%,etc- i would look at that and say there close but if NAV was 25%-30%, then that is quite abit higher than the others.I think almost all would like to see an end to this and these percentages would certainly help.I for one, will not only critisize but give credit were it is do!.

 

Hi...

Ah yes, Norton...I can't give you any figures but I will put it to you this way: I will normally NOT install it on any system that I work on. I have seen very few applications that will suck the energy out of a system the way Norton does.

Best regards...

 

Well I'm running NIS 2006 on my laptop and it isn't "sucking the life" out of my system. It may have in the past but, 2006 is running nicely. I think this has just become internet rhetoric.

 

It is this rhetoric that i would like to see if its warrented or not.And if i was shown that complaints, problems of Norton users are close to the same percentage wise as the other top AV's, then i would accept it as that.That its no different than the rest.But because Norton has so much market share, its hard to tell without some kind of statistics to back up either sides opinion.

 

I'm just wondering how exactly you are going to build you data pool for your analysis? Would the data collected have to be from random participants for it to be accurate?

 

In my real life experience with NAV/NIS, I can comment on what I have seen. I will go back about 3 years to Version 2004. My closest friends with PC's number around 100. Of these about 5 run AVG, 1 runs Avast, 10 have EZAV, about 4 have McAfee. The rest, or 80 have some form of Symantec, and have so for the last 3 years (04-06 versions). Out of these 80 I have only heard a few complaints. 2 were infected, Norton found the infection but could not clean, they had to run tools which were to complicated for them to figure out. 1 was infected 2 weeks ago by the Vundo trojan, which Norton picked up but could not clean, he updated his SpySweeper (latest version) and it cleaned that off. 1 complained about how slow his PC ran, but it was an older PC. 1 was terribly infected and now hates Norton badly....but he had cracked his version and I think he got his just deserts. Honestly the only complaint I regularly hear about NAV/NIS is how long it takes to boot up. These people I switched to EZAV and they are just happy now (I did however teach then to use online scanners as a backup).

 

Hi NAMOR...

I'm glad NAV works well for you...I've never had much luck with it in the "resources" department.

 

Nav on my computer uses about the same resources as nod. There really is not all that much difference. The resources it does use doesn't have any impact on the normal operation on of this comp.

 

I used to use BitDefender until it gratiously allowed a virus to destroy my computer!
From then on I've been using Norton and am very happy with it. It's protection is one the best around and I don't even feel it's presence on my computer (not like others claim that it hogs resources, this simply isn't true)

 

You'll come to a point where Norton will do the same and you'll run away scared again. Thats not really a way imo... It's not like it let you down day by day. You were just unlucky for that time. Anyway, if you're happy with it, then it's fine too. NAV2006 is certanly much better (daily updates and on-access/on-demand spyware detection). NAV2005 was cool but it had its flaws here and there.

 

Like i said, i don't know if it can be done, that is to show once and for all that norton problems are or are not higher than other top AV's.I read the posts from 6 different forums everyday and the complaints,problems i see the past 2 months are from the free ones,zonealarm and norton.And most of the problems norton has been having is with detection and removal of trojans and sometimes worms.Now i'm not seeing users of KAV posting with these same problems so why is this?.So the impression i'm left with is there definitely is problems with norton.But if i could somehow be shown that because of market share, it just looks that way and norton has the same percentage of issues as the rest, then will accept it as that.Can you understand what i mean?.
What i am having trouble understanding is how Norton is continuing to dominate market share.Usually a product that manages to dominate amid Quality competition, generally has the best product.This is what i currently see available on the web about Norton.Does not have the best detection rates and their removal rates leave something to be desired.Heuristics are well below some of the other top AV's and to compound this, take much longer to update definitions.Customer support is fair at best.Then you add in the live update problems, un-install problems, in fact i read norton suppositely has an entire web page just for help un-installing.And now you add in difficulties with trojan detection.I have never said norton was a bad product, but i'm continually left shaking my head every time i see a user having troubles while using norton and my response is always the same."How do they continue to dominate.The answer is beyond me!".

 

What about the people who are or aren’t happy with Norton who have never visited the forums you go to or any forum in general? What about schools, businesses, etc? You would surely have to count them as well.

 

Yes.You are completely right.I can only comment on what i see in forums from users requesting help.A sponsered survey from enough users in various enviroments of the AV'S would at least give a better grasp on the situation and would have to be a relevant number of users.But who would pay for and oversee it.It can be done but don't see it happening.

 

That's the part I can provide input on. I'm a small business network consultant...I support small to medium networks for all businesses...any type out there. Usually networks of under 100PCs...more commonly in the 10-20-50 or so node range. A high percentage of them Microsoft Small Business Server networks.

Historically, in the past, I'd always sold/installed/supported Symantec Corp Edition/Small Business Edition. Been doing so since around version 5 I think. On many many networks. I started getting let down by it around version 9...slow updates, lack of ad/spyware detection, and more and more frequent...errors when pushing client installs/client updates across the network. Those got to be a HUGE pain. And an occasional virus/worm would get through...and hose a few machines.

I started my search for other AV products...AVG, Kapersky, and NOD32. Being burnt in the past several times over by McAfee and CA...I didn't revisit them. NOD32 won.

So...here is where I get to see a direct comparison. On my clients....as their Symantec licensing expires....I've been replacing their Symantec with NOD32. And BTW...this also goes for some of my smaller clients running just peer to peer networks....so their running retails versions of other AV products, like Symantec 2005. But the core of my clients are on the business versions...and yes I've replaced several networks which were running on Sym CE 10.0

So things that I see almost every time?
*Within hours of replacing Symantec...workstations will report in with red flags...of bad guys found that Symantec never cared out
*People will comment...without me suggesting anything...that their computers seem to run faster, snappier, for them.
*Client push installs are quite reliable, I dont' run into frequent troubleshooting like I did with Symantec which can back me up for hours if a few clients fail to install, or services fail to load.
*Many clients comment on how they see it catching stuff their prior antivirus never cared about. A small school system client of mine..the computer lab teacher loves it...since the kids are so into getting ad/spyware stuff..Symantec hardly stopped much of it before.
*Upon return trips to my clients for whatever purposes...I don't see the little issues that would normall be on their workstation..like some adware toolbars or other things that their prior AV product would allow through, which NOD32 stops. These are the same people..with the same computers, with the same websurfing habits. Where I get to see a direct, "in the real world" comparison.

To me...that's the best "real world comparison" one can get...seeing this happen over and over and over.

I'd make more money if I sold them Symantec..it's more expensive, so my standard markup would stuff more money in my pocket. Plus return visits to clean infected machines would yield me MUCH more money. But..that's not what I'm about. I prefer to focus on new installs, implementation, etc. Not putting out fires. Reliable maintenance free networks is what I'm about.

 

Thanks for that real situation input which alot of the times is more accurate then these lab tests and it confirms what i have been seeing.Awhile ago, it seems the only norton complaints were resourse ones.But lately,more and more problems have been developing with this product including it's ability to handle malware that aren't viruses.Others like KAV,NOD32 and F-secure seem to be doing pretty good with malware like trojans,worms, in fact my F-secure caught a worm for me yesterday.So the reality is, todays malware come in various forms, some of the AV's appear to be adapting, Norton doesn't appear to be one of them.And until they do, will continue to loose the customers that have remained loyal to them for years.