True feelings on Norton

To all the bashers and lovers of Norton what is it about the program that you hate or love the most?

It seems that many of the things I read by Norton bashers is similar to the bashing that Linux lovers do to Windows.

Is it because you don't like big, successful companies?
Is it because you don't like the looks of it?
Is it because you think it's a resource hog?
Is it because you think it's a piece of trash?

For every story out there that goes along the lines of I used NAV for years and then decided to try XXX program and it picked up viruses that NAV had been missing the exact opposite stories could be told by others who have been saved by Norton.

So I'm just interested in the viewpoints outside PC Magazine. And by the way I currently use Norton but am thinking of looking at other alternatives but mainly I want to hear from real people so I can more fully advise my customers.

Thanks.

 

To Msingle from Firefighter!

I have never said that Norton isn't enough for majority of net surfing folks.

Personally, I enjoy from those pearls I had found by myself among minorities!

Most of folks are 100% happy to their Timex's (or Seiko?), Budweiser's, Chevy's and Mc'Donald's.

It is your personal choise, if your are looking for Pilsner Urquell, Patek Philippe, Mercedes Benz or that home made traditional food from your forefathers age.

"The truth is ou there, but it hurts"

Regards,
Firefighter!

 

Hi MSINGLE !
Their would be no disputing from me that NAV makes one of the finest and most comprehensive AV's available today.
I also believe that their are AV's that perform just as well or better.
Personally, I can get a very respectable AV at 1/4 the size of NAV....so for me, the size of NAV is an issue !!
Do I recommend NAV....YES !

Regards,
bill

 

I use NAV on two computers and AVG on another. Neither program has failed me yet.

 

My reasons for moving away from Norton were two fold, firstly the memory usage was a little bit over the top I thought, and sometimes inhibited the way I worked my pc .
Secondly, and most importantly, my main reason is the poor tech support, the forums were littered with unaswered questions and those that were nearly always pointed to another useless thread, and emails went unaswered.

I do/did however believe that it was a good antivirus product, fairly comprehensive with good detection rates, but for me another company had a better product with top notch support that I cant fault at all.

But these are my opinions and obviously will vary from others.



edit* typo's

 

Hi.
I think that the whole NAV versus XXX AV system are a little silly.
If NAV works for you , then use it and be happy, if not? find something else.
NAV is a good AV product, but others are better, and dont lay so heavy on your system.
Where i work im the only Nod user. Most of my colleagues uses NAV, and it have saved them a few times. ( other av systems would probably have done the same), and the praise NAV very much.
Regards
Ole

 

Overall Norton is a fine av. The only two main criticism when it comes to it are its size and its impact on systems resources. It seems more geared to newer and more high end systems, however in some instances it works well in older systems too.

Between nav's home and ce editions i would go for the stand alone corporate edition as it is smaller in size and a little more faster when it comes to scanning. With subsequent release of its home edition av, Norton seems to be adding and adding more features of arguable value.

When it comes to the criteria of how effective its detection rate is, this is a bottom line: how well does NAV protects your system?

If an av seems to let viruses, trojans, worms and other malwares pass through, then it doesn't matter what or how many so called prestigious,rigorous and industry standard checkmarks, 100% awards and so forth and so on it has received, or if it's claimed to detect all ITW or zoo viruses.

Putting aside other criteria when it comes to evaluating an av, does the one you use protects your system? Has it faltered or let you down in anyway? If it has then its time to look into other alternatives.

 

NAV's ok if it runs well on your system. It's pretty user friendly and for many that's an important plus. I don't rely on any AV to save me so I practice safe computing practices regardless of what AV's I may use. I have email text only and block attachments (I can unblock if it's something I know and want). I have no use for Kazaa or other P2P programs, don't download questionable stuff, etc. (And for those who do I would recommend a good anti trojan app and not rely solely on NAV since although it can detect a number of trojans that's not it's main gig. I've seen people relying only on NAV get infected. But again, their computing practices were risky and they weren't adept enough and didn't have the tools to figure out until after the fact that they were trojanned.)

I have an old W98 PC and as the newer NAV versions became even more resource intensive I was considering upgrading to an AV that was lighter on memory, etc. (W98's memory management was the issue, not the amount of memory installed on the box.) And the one time I had a NAV functionality problem, NAV's support was so pathetic, quoting their web site info that I had already told them I had read and tried without success, that was the last straw. I switched to NOD and my PC became amazingly zippier.

Now that I have a new PC with XP, I'm still using NOD. (For trojans, IMO it should be supplemented with an anti trojan app. But I'd recommend that for perhaps all AV's except KAV.) But whatever works for people is fine. Although I agree, NAV seems to be adding features of questionable value to "ooh and ah" its users and I'm not fond of "bloatware" which is a personal preference.

I just think that people should realize that an AV is a useful tool, but to blindly rely on it (as some do) as a rescuer from potentially risky behavior is an invitation for trouble. JMO

 

Hi Sig.
Very well spoken.
Regards Ole

 

As for what to recommend to your customers, that depends on the customers, their systems and their skill sets. So if your talking about the average home user (relatively clueless) or very small business then ease of use and easy or automatic updating I'd think is critical in addition to the detection rate of the AV. If the AV is confusing or difficult to use, the new or clueless user is less likely to really use it as it should be. Also, I've seen too many reports of people who say, "It slowed my system down so much that I turned it off." D'oh. So there's that performance thing too in addition to the user. One size doesn't necessarily fit all, depending on the user and the system.

But overall NAV historically has done well with ease of use and detection which is why it does so well as many newbies' first AV (even if it doesn't come installed on their PC, lol).

Some people also vouch for McAfee while others hate it. I haven't tried it in years so can't say if that's a viable alternative.

 

I have Mcafee on our other computer.
Very easy to use and understand.
As a newbie choice i would say that McAfee is just as good as NAV, but if i have to promote a product a little i find NOD just as easy to navigate, and easy to use.
Which one is best?? Mcafee or NAV i really dont know.
Very alike , I think.
Regards
Ole

 

The 10 things I absolutely Can't Stand About Norton Anti Virus...

1. It did not catch the Klez email attachment.. No warning, nothing.. The letter looked like it came from my office assistant.. Yes, I had the Liveupdate on and I even did the daily intelligent updater.. I thought my assistant emailed me something. WRONG!

2. It let God knows how many viruses through! I had to pay a technician lots of moolah..(That was before I knew of NOD32)

3. It installed on my computer, an XP Home with 512 K and Athlon Processor, like it was going to tear the thing in two..

4. Have you ever tried to uninstall? This "poison" leaves so many registry entries, the only wasy to get rid of it completely is to reformat and never install!

5. Long start up time..

6. Too memory hogging. Slows everything!

7. Tech Support is embaressing...You have to go through a maze of menu's, and then you don't even know if you have the right section to send in your problem.. Then, they get it.. someone from India who's mastery of English is worse than the newly arrived immigrant dishwasher from my local diner answers your email, only to tell you to repeat the problem in different words.. So it goes, back and forth, until you either you either give up or he "picks" up some more english in his or hers vocabulary..

8. Many known issues are not addressed.. They just linger on and on..

9. NO Easy Forum support..

10. Very SLOW on demand scanner.. with no info.. It actually discourages you from daily scans...

11. Takes up a good chunk of your hard drive...

12. The online scanner they have doesn't usually detect other Av's installed except theirs... Hmmmmm....

13. Live update, other functions backfire,..

14. Will not uninstall cleanly, to allow upgrades..Unless you know how to program...

15. When they update the program every year, you are expected to buy the new version.... EVERY Year!!!!

OOOOOOPPPSSS. Went over the 10!

 

Only 15 things?
You must have a few more
Regards
Ole

 

Right! ... no AV can guarantee to detect 100% of viruses 100% of the time. Your own common sense plays a big part in antivirus strategy.

 

1. NAVCE is great for a network. It has saved my network twice from NIMDA, Melissa, and Klez.
2. It's pretty stable.
3. I haven't had problems with updates.
4. You can push it to clients fairly easily.
5. Most of the disinfection programs they have work well.
6. They are normally right on top of the latest threats--sometimes a couple of days before other AV companies.

Having said that, I use AVAST! for my personal machines simply because of the resources NAV uses.

 

Okay thanks so far. A lot of good points here. Now a question that I hope I'm not banned for.

On Wilders.org why isn't NAV even listed in the anti-virus section?

Thanks.

 

Hi. I don't work for Wilders, so I can't answer that question.
I would like to add something that might put some perspective on the first Question you asked.
It has been my experience from use on my own machines and in the process of helping a lot of other people with problems on their machines, that Norton products seem to do better on some machine configurations than on others.
That would account for the loyalty you see in some and the almost violent reaction you can get from others at times.
Norton products do tend to add a lot of fat to some basic engines, and in the process, they do deeply invade the inner workings of Windows file system and the registry.
Norton deals with the same problems that other programmers have dealt with for a long time. That is the lack of access to M$s code. I think in their effort to make things super user friendly, with lots of bells and whistles, they get themselves in trouble sometimes.
The best example of what is wrong with Norton in my books is what they did with AtGuard Firewall. They purchased one of the finest firewall products ever made, and took that small efficient program, and turned it into a bloated, convoluted product, several times the size of the original program, with not one improvement, and the loss of one of the key features, the dashboard.
I also think its a mistake to add the AV to the firewall.
Just my opinion.

 

My understanding of why NAV isn't featured on the Wilders site, based on Paul's comments some time ago, is that they haven't gotten around to testing it themselves. They run their own tests on the programs they feature and hence their reviews or comments. With volunteer staff, it's when and if they get around to it.

And frankly, IMO only, I think they like to feature info on some apps that perhaps don't get a lot of coverage elsewhere. NAV isn't lacking for brand recognition, word of mouth or reviews. Although I can understand that at first glance its absence appears notable, I'm not sure that much should be read into that.

Again, that's my understanding from a long ago discussion and of course I don't speak for the Wilders site.

 

I looked at Norton as a possible av solution.(I chose NOD32)There are a lot of Norton users where I live.Most swear by it.The two biggest turnoffs about Norton for me were;THE UNINSTALL PROCESS.You have to be more careful with Norton than most programs when uninstalling.I surfed the Symantec site and saw a few uninstall tools.That told me that could be a possible problem.The other more "weighty" issue is the RESOURCES/SIZE of the program.I checked out a family members pc that had Norton had it.The number of files associated with Norton was a shock!I once checked out a few downloads from a site that I won't name and I was looking at over 40mbs for Norton downloads!That's just too much on my pc when I had 128mb ram.

 

Norton AntiVirus 2003
"The world’s most trusted antivirus solution."

---

Back when I was a kid, some years ago, i did trust in Santa Claus

[-xor-]

 

i have 3 comps 1 running norton , 1 runs mcaffee and 1 runs avg , guess which one stays virus free ? so far onlt the avg comp . plus norton just eats to many resources . i don't know why , but often free progs work better than the big guys . just my observation .