Why not Norton AV?

Why isn't NAV listed here?

 

Welcome to the Wilders Forest Creature Jack W, Oh my, now you must ask for forgiveness right after only your first post. Just kidding I will let someone else answer your question I do think it is worthy of an answer.

 

I myself am also wondering why it isn't listed there too
Perhaps the person in charge of the site can update the page...

 

NAV normally does quite well in virus detection - but recent versions have been such resource hogs (memory and CPU wise) that any recommendation would probably start a flame war (like we don't see enough regarding NAV already). Also Symantec's requirement for online activation arguably makes NAV a problem for "worst case" scenarios (i.e. where a format, reinstall and immediate rescan is required).

 

Yes, I used NAV last year initially, I expected NAV to be a lightweight and easy-to-use antivirus program, but it began taking up valuable system resources instead! The 2004 version is just simply terrible at consuming system resources. I wonder if the recent 2005 version is ok...

 

Got Norton AV (or was it Internet Security?) with a new Dell notebook and I wanted to uninstall it. Unfortunately, I uninstalled the updater first. Thereafter I wanted to throw the notebook out of my house as I, could not for the life of me get it to uninstall the other components (i.e the AV). Furthermore, the link from the Dell website to the Norton site said that the version I got (2004) was too old!

Had to reinstall the OS again and uninstall NAV.

 

One other positive thing about NAV is once you buy it, you can upgrade to the latest version, each time a new version comes out, for free. I do it all the time. I just got NSW 2005 (which contains NAV 2005) for free, because I had an older version. I just go to Compusa or some other similar store and get the physical retail product for free. Just mail in the rebates and it cost nothing. You can continually do this each time a new version comes out. Any other AVs that offer a deal like that?

 

AVG Antivirus
Avast! Antivirus

Both offer free versions for home use with no need to visit stores or use rebates and, to judge from others' feedback, do not have the system-sapping performance of Norton.

 

NOD32 and F-PROT users receive free upgrades during the life of their licenses. Several AV companies do this--without having to fiddle w/a rebate.

 

True, in regard to NAV2004, but anybody who has tried NAV2005 will probably tell you it has improved. It's lighter than 2004 and uninstalls itself properly.

 

That's good to hear. I was always too scared to install 2004.

As far as NAV being a resource hog, McAfee is on the list, and last time I used it (couple years ago), it was a big hog (moreso than NAV at the time).

As far as AVG, I saw a test somewhere of AV apps recently, and AVG missed quite a few.

 

Let me add this, I think Norton is getting expensive, especially on the renewal end.

I understand many say AVG is not so good on detections. I have not had mine long but it functions with default load perfectly, not one single miss step. Time will only tell, but so far for free it is better then CA EZ AV 12 mos. for free.

I did consider "misses" when I loaded the Free on my system, but I have only had one virus or "real" nasty in four years of always on cable, had a firewall too of course Zone Alarm Free for years. And this was before I got BoClean or Adaware Plus like I do now. Conclusion my internet habits and other lines of defense....I thought to myself why pay? Why?

Now my family's machine with children whole different ballgame. Similar approach just more thought and care is needed. Hope this helps you.

AVG is for my virus protection only spend, your money on other lines of defense maybe on anti-trojan these imoh are the worst, then Spyware. Read around here there are some good free firewalls too. Good to speak with you.

 

When it comes to the price, now I don't want to pay for any security apps such as Norton or others for my laptop because of all free apps serve me well.

- AVG Free Edition
- Spybot
- SpywareBlaster
- Kerio 2.1.5
- eScan
- Opera Browser
- Prevx Home

Of course, you get what you pay for but All these freebies offer what I want and some of them run well altogether in real time without introduce unacceptable slowdown and proven me several time by cathcing nasty stuff even though I don't practice safe hex and get myself at high risk sometime.

 

The best review of AV software effectiveness is those done by Virus Bulletin. AVG's past record there has not been great but the latest versions have passed VB's tests.

 

Passed or not,AVG is good,but it's usually behind AntiVir and avast!.
You might wanna consider checking what these two offer and if they suit your needs. If they do,switch to them But even AVG should be ok if you're not a high risk user.

 

For ITW virus protection maybe, but IMHO not for overall effectiveness.

Kaspersky, for example, most people would agree, is the AV which gives the best possible overall malware detection. Yet its record over at VB is not great when compared to some other AV's. Dr Web is another example of an AntiVirus program whose abilities are not really shown by its performance over at VB.

Maybe a selection of sites would give a better idea?

 

ITW protection is arguably the most important criterion for most users.

Feel free to post some links, good review sites with a long track record are well worth bookmarking...

 

Virus Bulletin and ICSA Labs are good resources to see that any AV does well against ITW viruses/worms appear in the main list of WildList at a given time or not.

Especially to Virus Bulletin, it useless and misleading to simply count VB100% logo pass from 1998 to 2005 in order to judge a quality of AV in question just because the essential malware in Virus Bulletin tests are ITW and ITW means malware that are still circulating in the wild by the WildList's methodologies and I think most experts agree to the WildList's methodologies.

So what are real advantages to hold/count VB100% logo February 2000/DOS OS? (except it makes you feel good) when we're talking/concerned about today's malware and tomorrow's malware that may come to your desktop or utilize vulnerability to attack your svchost.exe/winlogon.exe at zero-hour. IMHO

Some AVs fail in Virus Bulletin just because of false positive not because it doesn't catch all ITW viruses/worms 100% or the tester doesn't adjust the scanner propery (this happens to avast! 4.1 in February 2004/Windows NT 4.0) but this has no means or guarantee it will happen to the real-world scenario.

 

Because I dont like yellow

Reguardless of how good/bad the virus catching abilities are, the application/interface are flawed.
People still report similiar issues year after year (uninstall problems, norton av crashing and takin the whole system down), yet they don't seem to improve the situation, just keep bolting on more eye candy, to make it look like that this years version is a great improvement, when you compare the functionality changes they are really just minor point increment upgrades, eg v7.1 to 7.2, not v7 to v8... I think this is the reason for adopting the unconventional version naming of 2002, 2003, 2004, to make themselves look good.

Just look at how Coperate edition AV of Symantecs changes compared Norton Consumer AV, they share the same engines, just different front ends, yet the Coperate edition seems to have stood still in time compared to Nortons advertised updates go, yet Coperate edition is the more stable, bug free version.

 

Ya, I use Nav, but I also use Antivir as a backup av and sometimes I have used AVG too, as a backup. I feel better having more than one av.

 

I had been a loyal Norton user for years, up until 2004 when it grew exponentially in using system resources and the online registering. NAV is one of the biggest pains in the butts for getting it off your system. I switched to NOD32 and my system has been flying ever since. Plus, the total size of NAV is ridiculous. It is a very good AV if you don't use your computer for anything other than checking your email or typing a paper. NAV 2005 is just an upgraded version of the 2004...just a little bigger and uses a little more system resources.

 

The purpose of an antivirus is to keep your system clean. It defeats the purpose of running an AV when the one you use is an intrusive, resource-hog that impacts system performance in a way that is more annoying than a lot of malware is. This is why many people don't like Norton (or Mcafee), and one of the reasons AV's like NOD32 are popular. Even Kaspersky, with its deep unpackers and huge database, doesn't affect most systems as badly as Norton.

 

Well McAfee Enterprise 8.0i was very good when i tested it.
Much much better than home crap. Funny decisions by McAfee really...

 

I used Norton 2004, and hated how it slowed system performance. Not to mention the nightmare when I tried to uninstall. Can you say system crash followed by re-format? Now I'm running NOD32 (no slow down at all) as my active scanner, and Kaspersky 5 (assistance with how to get both to co-exist, courtesy of the good people in this forum) as an on demand scanner. I have no conflicts between the two, and feel very secure. Yeah, it cost me a few bucks, but money well spent if you consider my peace of mind, and what I expected from antivirus protection. I have not found a better combination, and I've tried a few. It might be overkill, but I'm much happier. The whole experience with Norton taught me a good lesson. Fine antivirus protection can be had from many other companies.

 

I used to love Norton, but 2004 was terrible. Finally, 2005 came out. what a disaster. Had trouble installing and then un-installing. Tech Support was in India. It just plain sucked. After they told me I had to reinstall Windows XP to make THEIR product work, I knew what I had to due.

Now I use Zone Alarm Security Sweet (with antiVirus) It is fabulous.
I also use Aluria SpyWare Elimiator (pc world top pick) and SunBelts Counter Spy. Between the two, I have NO SpyWare.
I now also use Diamond CS TDS-3 anti Trojan and anti worm.
I know I have to be careful. But I feel secure knowing that I am running the best security software available.

gary