Norton: return of a king?

Ten years ago, if someone asked me who made the best antivirus product, I would say Norton. No hesitation. Peter Norton's company was really on the ball, and it seemed like everyone had a little doctor's kit in their system tray. Fast forward five years, Norton 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 reached increasing heights of suck. They hogged memory. They broke easily. They detected very little; and when they put product activation in there, you needed two licenses if you had a dual-boot configuration. Techies turned from the company that was now a symantec front in disgust, giving rise to the popularity of companies that were still hungry, instead of just resting on their reputation. Kaspersky and Eset built names for themselves and continue to deserve their popularity.

But I must say, it seems like since 2007, Norton has been slowly improving. 2007 brought a much cleaner interface and somewhat lower system resources. 2008 dropped the resource footprint considerably. And 2009, well, to be honest, 2009 just has me impressed. I really like the new interface. I LOVE the "incremental scanning" option that only scans files that have changed or been added since the last scan. And for people who have multiple computers but no server, the ability to monitor all the systems is nice. It's very user friendly, and I'm not seeing constant complaints about crashes anymore.

Then today, I saw an ad for Norton antivirus "gaming edition", which uses even less resources, and has a "gaming option," which snoozes the heuristics engine, the update engine, the updates, alerts; basically, anything that would interrupt your game.

The only thing that's been keeping me from reccomending it is that it just didn't have the detection rate of the big dogs anymore. But looking at the last few avcomparatives.org reports, it looks like it's actually doing as well ask the big two!

I guess what I'm saying is, is it time to re-evaluate Norton? Would YOU trust it?

 

There are many threads here where the overall opinion seems to be positive about Norton 2009. So why a no for Norton?

 

I dunno, I'm kind of a "once bitten, twice shy" type of guy. I just really, reeeeally hated them for a long time, so it's difficult for me to trust them again.

 

Personally I don't use security products I can't trust for what ever the reason is. Even if the AV receives good test results and is praised by most of the people, I might still feel uncomfortable with the software. That is unacceptable if security products are in question.

 

So did I. But after trying out their new Norton Internet Security 2009 trial, I have a new respect for them.

Norton Internet Security 2009 is super light on system resources.

If I had the money, I would buy it. Because what I am using right now (PC Tools Internet Security 2009 15 day trial is good but it IS a major resource hog. It slows the computer down so much).

I can however afford to buy just the Antivirus from Norton, so it looks like I will be doing that.

 

i was surprised with nis/mav 2009.
i dont see the need for the gaming edition thou.
it isnt any lighter. just has some features taken out and a new skin.

 

No I would not.

Your experiences with Symantec are very similar to mine, except that you have tried some of the more recent products from them. Despite having read about how they are on the comeback trail, I plan to stay far away from them. Really, why should I go back? I can't come up with a viable answer to that question. There are far too many deserving and equal-or-better tools available. I ask, must I put myself through hell twice in order to be convinced that I was correct the first time? And what if I find that Symantec has improved, how much will I be able to depend upon them?

I say you can't unring a bell. When they lost me as a customer, I was gone for good. If more software companies knew that customers, once lost, would not return, maybe they'd strive to do things better when they had the opportunity. Symantec, let's not forget, redefined arrogance when it came to tech support. I can't count the number of times I emailed them and then waited 5 days for a response that completely ignored my question. Their mantra, even for simple problems, was to uninstall and reinstall the software. Symantec was a snakepit. I am so not going back.

If you ask me, you have already answered your own question, but it might not have fully sunk in yet.

 

Amen to that. Trust your instincts, that's what I say.

 

Hi WraithTDK;

I know how you feel ("once bitten, twice shy").

I absolutely refuse to install or recommend any McAfee product; there are simply too many security software providers and too many viable options (than) to reward those underachieving companies who continually spit out garbage and then fail to provide even a modicum of support.

I believe Norton/Symantec is really trying to restore their image (no intended play on words in reference to "Ghost") and market share through an honest commitment to quality and innovation and for the improvements they have made to this point they should be applauded.
-That said-
They still have a way to go before I consider them to be at the highest echelon. I have a subscription to their internet security 2009 and while it is a definite improvement over earlier offerings, it doesn't blow me away.

Prior to recommending Norton's "Gaming Edition", I feel you should try it out yourself.
Personally, I wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who "hasn't walked the walk".

 

If I were you, I would definitely look into NAV/NIS 2009. It has been considerably improved from past versions. As others have said, it is very light on system resources and has good detection. As far as tech support goes... they are decent. The support is outsourced, however, they are not as bad some people are making them out to be. At least from my experience before. However, seeing as the 2009 product line is the most reliable/stable version I've seen, you won't be contacting tech support that much.

 

There's only one way to decide if a product is good or not, and that's by testing. Personal feelings or past performance have little to do with current detection. Things change.

If you're lucky enough to have access to recent malware you can do the testing yourself; if not then consider the results from reputable testing sites.

 

sure, id use it.

i used to love norton 2005, so 2009 would be a breeze.

shame 2006 completely ruined it.

 

What the heck is this? Intelligent dialogue? On the internet? In conceivable! Lots of good points here.

All relevant questions. But let me pose another one: what if they’ve improved to the point where they might actually BE the best solution? You may be doing a disservice by not keeping an open mind about it. They have a number of innovative features I haven’t seen in other products. And if you provide support for technophobes, user-friendliness is a quality not to be undervalued; and Norton has that in spades.

Good points. Norton is that they got complacent. Symantec wanted to break into the consumer market, so they bought the biggest name out there, and then, they did the same thing that got Intel, 3dfx (anyone remember them? Voodoo graphics?) and others did: they rested on the dominance of their name. They lost the hunger, and other products surpassed them.

But more and more, these companies are starting to wake up and realize that with the level of popularity PCs have reached, you’re never gonna be the only game in town anymore. You have to keep improving or someone else will step-up and take your customers.

That being said, another thing to consider is this: you say that if companies learn that if they don’t strive to do better they’ll lose their customers, then by buying their stuff when they do improve, won’t that just reinforce the lesson? If the look at their sales figures and realize that the years that they did not innovate and improve their products, sales dropped, and the years that they really put their backs in to it, sales rose again? And at the same time, won’t acknowledging improvements from a company like Norton serve to keep Kaspersky and NOD32 on their toes? Doesn’t seem like a bad idea to send the message “you’re on top now, and you deserve to be, but don’t get too complacent, or Norton will start looking good again.”

Ugh. McAfee. The same thing happened to them that happened to Norton. Big company (Network Associates) bought them up, got complacent, and they sunk into the miserable state they are now. The only difference is that instead of improving to get their customers back, (well, to be fair, they DID add a few nice features, like the ability to schedule tune-ups and defrags, a backup component, and monitoring for other computers using McAfee, just not enough to offset the suck factor!) they just made deals with a bunch of ISP’s and continued in their complacency. They sit with CA in the bottom of the barrel in my eyes.

I’m lucky in this department. I work for an on-site PC repair company. When a client wants malware removed (as opposed to just insisting on wiping the HD and reinstalling Windows [I’m looking at you, Geek Squad] ), I take the system home to work on it, as it takes considerable time to be completely remove them. Bottom line, I’ve no shortage of test opportunities.

I’ll tell you what I’d like to see: an expanded version of AV-comparatives that also shows how effective a product is at REMOVING malware. One of the problems I often saw with Norton was that it detected a bunch of stuff, but then couldn’t do anything about it.

 

I used the 2004 Norton AV and back then I didn't even know what it was on my computer and i just uninstalled it after it required to update but i was totally unaware of its importance. then my computer totally crashed and i had to take it to the tech to fix it. I had to learn the hard way to know what it was and what it did. After two years i someone put it again but then it totally slowed and ruined again my comp then i swore to never ever have to do anything with Nortons. After reading the very positive reviews about it i gave it a shot and wow it was smth very different totally different. I believe Norton is the vendor that made the highest improvement to the 2009 series then any other vendor in ;detection ,performance look, but not in price.

 

Norton isnt a vendor but the product, its Symantec!

 

Some times it's hard to get riden of a reputation without testing.
For me, I have 3 different laptops and 3 different desktops running NAV 2009, and no problems.

 

Norton just returned to my computer.

I had to get rid of PC Tools Internet Security 2009 because it was using up so many resources that the computer was unuseable.

I just installed the 90 day trial of Norton Antivirus 2009 and the computer is running great and fast.

 

How did you get a 90day trial? I thought they only offer 15 days?

 

You get them from OEM versions. Depending on the manufacturer, you can get 30, 60, 90, or possibly more.

http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/support/partner_download.jsp?id=lenovo

 

I think if a company and product show distinct signs of improvement to that degree then yes, you could and perhaps owe it to yourself to give it another try to see if the new and improved product is all people say it is.

I feel the same way about Kaspersky. I will never ever trust KAV again after what they did with the file tags stuff and messing with my file system. No product should ever alter something like that. So you wont' find me ever using KAV again, regardless.

I doubt Symantec support has improved any, but the product itself is getting good reviews from all around. Worth a look I think, unless you have been permanently traumatized by it in the past, like I was with KAV.

 

Losing a customer means the customer does not come back. At least this customer. It would take a serious (and highly unlikely) decline in performance from alternative applications to get me to consider going back into the Symantec camp. That said, there is a fresh crop of prospective customers for Symantec to reap... a whole massive group of users who have never experienced the downside of Symantec software. And there are plenty of ex-users who are perfectly willing to forgive and forget. I'm not one of them. It's not a vendetta and I am not over the top with hatred for the company. It's actually just a matter of principles. The only way I get to vote is with my software dollars. I voted NO on Symantec, and there is little that I see on the horizon that I am missing out on. To put it differently, there is no way I would ever pay money to that company again after the shitty support and product performance I received from them. And payment isn't the only consideration, actually. I just saw a Staples ad that would have allowed me to get NAV 2009 for free. I couldn't care less.

 

Correct
sorry

 

From this website:

http://www.symantecstore.com/dr/v2/...ndexPage&client=Symantec&sid=37771&cid=273172

 

I need to reflect the (so far) prevailing sentiment on this thread. While the 2009 line is sure a big technical improvement, I've totally lost my trust in the vendor. The previous customer experience has cost me $$$s and I'd just echo all the concerns about the very bad customer support etc. Not trusting your security application's vendor is something that I find unacceptable, so Symantec is out of the game for me for quite a while, perhaps forever.

 

It's good news to hear that Symantec is competitive again considering that most new computers come with NAV pre-installed. It means that many people who wouldn't give a hoot about security are going to be well protected, and with a perfectly working computer by default.

I personally always have eschewed monarchy, and will never support a king again.