Norton 2013 Products Final Released.

why?would be if Hard drives were still same size as they were years ago but most now are huge so 360mb is negligible, using smart defs as opposed to full compromises security (in theory at least)and the full defs don't use much more memory just take longer to download initially very little if any difference after the initial download/installation of them,I always recommend folk to use the full set

 

Just FYI the average update size after the first big update using the full definitions set is about 3-4 MB. It's not much IMO.

 

To Firecat and steve1955


This is a disaster because it slows down dramatically not so new computers. No matter the hard drive sizes, transfering unneeded information (360 MB - 180 MB) is not so good for the machine's life. It also takes more time to download, install it, maintain.

Why would I need to download 180 MB or more if I can use Microsoft Security Essentials (about 10MB installer and full set of definitions/modules 68 MB) or Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (10 MB installer and definitions about 7MB), or ESET (about 50MB installer and 30 MB definitions/modules), or Avast/AVIRA... Second update for all MSE is not 3-4 MB as in Norton, but just few kilobytes, same goes to MBAM and ESET, and other AV vendors. Norton protects as good as ESET+MBAM or MSE+MBAM, if not worse. Then why should I "kill" my machine with unneeded info. Being so high in size means that either the developers at SYMC are not that good, or the SYMC business decision to keep it that big is bad decision (IMO). Additionally, installing Norton and after update it wants restart, most other AVs don't (including the above I mention).

This is a disaster. I remember in 2009 Norton Antivirus installer size was about just 60-70 MB and the definitions were about 40 MB. 40 to 180 for about 3-4 years is too much, IMO.

 

Yeah I am beginning to regret trying Norton. Completely fubared my kids laptop. Could not do anything on it without waiting 10 plus minutes for a program to load. Had to uninstall it last night, no problems. On the hunt for a new av.

As for my old desktop however, it seems fine so far weird.

zfactor if you see this, check your PM's please. Thanks!

 

er34, you're right in that memory use during scans as well as general time required for a full scan are noticeably higher using the full set of definitions at least for me. I can imagine that this wouldn't be good for older PCs at all. I haven't yet measured the impact on real-time protection if any, but IMO that isn't nearly as noticeable as the difference in on-demand scan times.

I am also aware that many other AVs have smaller update sizes on average (AVG ~800KB, Kaspersky and Dr.Web - a few kbs). In the modern day, with a modern computer and modern internet connection this is not a significant difference, but yes, for older PCs with slower connections, it could very well be a problem.

Also note that I use PC Tools, but this product also provides the option to select between Smart and Full Definitions and uses the Full set by default. Consequences are similar in SEPS, Norton and PC Tools because of the same scan engine being used.

Also FYI: PC Tools' own database is only a few MBs in size.

 

We'll become friends one day

 

Eh... what?

 

Perhaps if you include the updates to the other components but not if you just include the virus definitions.

 

just because the footprint of this or any app is large doesn't mean it will use a lot of PC resources after the initial installation,the memory and cpu load of NIS is still very low compared to most(in fact all suites) even using the full definitions,ask any woman:-size isn't everything its how you use it,would you rather have a product with a small installation footprint that caused a high load on the processor and high memory usage?Norton only asks for a restart after a newer version is installed automatically,most other suites behave in the same way,not on normal update of sigs:-if that is an issue you can disable the installation of newer versions automatically.if you think a install size of 360 mb is killing your machine I do wonder what other apps you use if any,what about the office suites or even a photo editing suite,sorry but you're way off beam on this

 

for comparison run a scan with NIS(full defs) and KIS with most modules active:-compare cpu load,memory use and page file usage an even better way of judging things is trying to do some memory/cpu intensive work while a scan is running,unless you have set KIS to surrender resources to other applications it kills other processes if you have set it to surrender resources it takes an age to complete

 

yes he got me on that one too,making it up as ideas pop in to his head IMO

 

You did not quote me right

I mean transfering unnecessary information (being it 180 or 360 MB) is not good coding when the product protects as good as some other vendors (ESET, MS, AVIRA, etc) which products and definitions are way smaller in size than Norton/SYMC, then why would one choose the bigger one? Yes, if ESET's updates are 30 MB but protect the same as Norton's 180 MB (360MB) then the extra MB (after 30th MB) is unnecessary. Do you understand it now?

 

Sure. The "for the machine's life" part confused me; it sounded like you meant it was bad for the hardware.

 

I believe a lot of people are missing the point and are letting paranoia take over.

There really is no reason to download the full virus definition signature set. The only reason I can think of is you have strong suspicions you are infected and NIS is not finding anything. You are much better off verifying if your infected by going to one of the malware removal sites like bleepingcomputer.com and having one of their specialist verify your suspicions.

If you want a higher level of NIS protection/detection without all the overhead the complete definition set causes, set your hueristic level to aggresive in the NIS computer scan profile. Also in the realtime protection profile, ensure "Enable boot time protection" is set to Normal. I also turn off the Auto-Protect catching option.

 

not really because the protection offered in the "real world" is far less than Norton using any of the products you list,and cleaning is even less effective with them,if you want to choose a product solely on the install size or size of sig data base,go ahead:-but you are choosing it for the wrong reason,if size of either bother you so much don't install any av or suite just use a sandbox for browsing etc and only install apps from a known and trusted source

 

I'm using the Comcast Business of Norton 360 (20.2.0.19), and I see no performance hit. I play all the latest games, do school work, browse the Internet, sometimes all at once and still no slow down. I was using Comodo CIS v6 (Good Product), but the Cache Builder problem forced me to uninstall it.

http://forums.comodo.com/install-se...is/comodo-cache-builder-problem-t89739.0.html

 

Just a heads-up to you guys that Norton 2013 products can now be purchased from DownloadCrew's software store at what seems to be quite reasonable rates

 

I got a 3 PC 1 year license for NIS 2013 from DownloadCrew. It is working fine for me so far.

 

20.3.0.36 is being released in a phased manner.

Product Update - 20.3 of Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus
Product Update - 20.3 of Norton 360

 

Theese too:

 

How is the spam blocking on pop 3?

 

I haven't had any shutdown issues with NIS 2013 on WIN 7 x64 SP1 since the 20.2.1.22 update.

 

Might want to stay away from this update for a while. Numerous problems being reported with it on the Norton forums including incompatibilty with other installled security software. MalwareBytes? Give me a break.

 

you could take it the other way:-malwarebytes and other security software have a compatibility problem with nis:-it is a 2 way street,Norton has always had some issues with running malwarebytes real time,this isn't a new thing,the amount of incompatibility just fluctuates

 

According to the posting on the Norton forum for NIS/NAV, this latest 20.3 full installation was flagging as incompatiable not just the Pro version but also the free version. We'll see since I haven't been upgraded to 20.3 patch yet and I use the free ver. of MBAM.

Also as recently as a couple of months ago, I was using MBAM Pro with no conflicts with NIS 2013. I did set all the recommended exclusions in both MBAM Pro and NIS 2013.