I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out there?

What is the best Antivirus Software out there?

I've been using Norton for years but it's just not thrilling me anymore.

 

Try a few, but I use Nod32, you won't be sorry!

http://www.nod32.com/

There are several! Read this forum and you'll be amazed.

 

"best" is a relative term. it depends what ur looking for. as a few examples, KAV (and AVs using its engine) are generally very good at detecting most any malware, but they can be a bit slower. OTOH, nod32's (my personal choice) detection isnt as strong but IMHO runs significantly faster.

if u search this section, there'll be plenty of thread on "picking an AV" or "the best AV"

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

Surely you'll get the most "thrills" from an AV that doesn't work too well?

What features are most important to your needs for the new AV? Any resource usage requirements - lowest, medium, doesn't matter? Best signature coverage? Best heuristics? All of those? Something else?

Tell us and the recommendations will come flooding in.

 

I have been useing computers for a long time and as a result I of course use an antivirus. The av that I always come back after trying the rest is Norton for the simple reason "That it works" usually an antivirus that does it's job without a lot of user intervention is a bit boring, but dependable. If norton has kept your comp safe why change? Like the old saying goes ( if it aint broke, Don't fix it )

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

Bigc

As you are a long time Norton user, could you comment on Norton's troubles with trojans.Av's using the KAV engine do a wonderful job at detecting them right away ( preventing them), while Norton seems to detect alot of them after they've rooted themselves in a computer and then has even more trouble removing them.Is Norton just not as effective against various types of malware compared to say the "KAV Engine" or do you think it has to do with Norton's "window of infection", the time the user is exposed between idenifying malware and updating definitions to protect it's users as Norton takes on average, 6-8 hours longer than the other top AV'S to update definitions?.

 

Which ones have you tried that don't work?

I've only tried one AV that didn't work and that was Norton - LiveUpdate packed up so completely I had to buy another AV.

 

Try, try, try, and if you like the software, go purchase it. Lots of good AVs out there. Norton is quite good as such, so if you like it, keep it.

 

I agree, I have used as well as trialed many an AV before and with the exception of a few previous past Norton releases, I have to say I also agree that Norton's AV is very robust. Since AVs are not a type of product which can be judged as to which is the best overall, they all seem to have so many various pros & cons that are important to different users. Anyhow for my needs, the new 2006 Nortons works very well and is pretty decent in not consuming too many resources. It has a great detection rate and antispyware abilities. If you go with the NIS it is a decent overall package. I see now the new KAV is getting ready to be released and that to me looks pretty interesting although I have never personally tried it. But if I were to be shopping for an AV or suite right now I would be looking at NIS or KIS as my two main options.

 

I used and liked NAV 2006 until recently. There is a discrepancy in the files scanned count. I first noticed it on a full system scan. After the scan, the scan count showed one number, the activity log showed another. How do I know for sure that all files are being scanned? I ran an on demand scan the other day on a file in My Documents just to test NAV. It showed zero files scanned. I checked the activity log, and it shows 2 files scanned. Maybe I'm too picky, but that is unacceptable to me. Symantec knows about the flaw, but does nothing. I know from reading other forums, that I'm not the only one with this problem. Maybe no one else thinks it that big of a deal. I do, but that's just me.

Sorry for the rant. I got carried away. Anyway, I'm using NOD32 at the moment. Happy with it so far. Maybe if Syamantec fixes this problem in the next several months, I might go back to using it.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

The scan count includes the files WITHIN archives.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I'm aware of that. But why two different files scanned counts? An example. After a full system scan, the box with the big green check mark opens and shows 75,000 files scanned. I open the activity log, and it shows 160,000 files scanned. Again, this is just an example, but it's pretty close. Why aren't the two numbers the same? Can you really be sure that the 160,000 is the correct number? How can you be sure it shouldn't be 180,000 files scanned. It leaves doubt in my mind that maybe not all files are being scanned.

If this is a known problem like Symantec tech support has told me, why hasn't it been fixed? I have sent three e-mails, and talked twice with a tech through live chat. I keep getting the same "Symantec knows about this, and it will be fixed shortly" answer. It started in February. It is now the middle of April.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

The smaller number is likely the number files scanned.
The larger number includes the files in the archives.

Less any excluded files.

You can use the program at the following URL to find out how may files are recorded.

http://www.standards.com/index.html?GetFileTypeDistribution

 

You know that strikes me as funny. I have never had one bit of trouble with liveupdate since the 2001 version, and it works very well in the last two versions.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

Tobacco, it is this way. I have never been infected by a trojan or any other malware that norton av hasn't been able to handle. And since norton has never allowed me to become infected when I had it installed. I really can't answer since I have never had that problem with norton. And as far as taking longer to respond to an outbreak, I can see where that could be a problem. But as before I have never had a problem because of it. I have used Kav and most of the Kav based av's but prefer nav. And according to av-comparatives there is nothing wrong with Navs detection rate. the same goes for most of the testing sites. I know you like your av and I do the same with mine, so I guess we are just stuck with them

bigc

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I ran the GetFile. It shows C:\ has 11,387,958,560 bytes in 28,070 files. Not sure what to make of it though. If there is something else I'm supposed to be looking at, please let me know. I can send you a screenshot maybe. I am leaving in a few minutes. Will be back in a couple of hours.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I just did an experiment:

The GetFileTypeDistribution program states that there are 661 files on E: and 27 files on N:.

E is a zip disk that does include a bunch of archives. NAV reports that it scanned 3220 files.

N is an NTFS USB drive with only REtrospect Ghost and TRue Image backup files. NTFS reports that it scaned only 20 files. It might be interesting to find out which 7 files were skipped.

Code:

Type	Count
v2i	10
tib	2
rdb	10
sv2i	1
ini	2
	2

I have no files excluded in NAV 2005, so there's bug somewhere in NAV.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

So NAV 2005 is affected also. Hmmm.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I'm fairly confident that I know what bug in NAV 2005 is causing this discrepancy.

First, the byte counts returned by the current version of http://www.standards.com/index.html?GetFileTypeDistribution are correct. This is version 3.2.0.2 of the program.

Since the program is written in VB, and VB does not have unsigned 32-bit integers, I had to tweak the code to work around this for file sizes greater than 2147483647 bytes.

Versions prior to 3.2.0.2 did not have this tweak.

Now, I must ASSuME that NAV is written using C/C++, which does have native support for unsigned 32-bit integers.

However, the evidence appears to indicate that NAV 2005 is using signed 32-bit integers, which is an outright bug.

Why do I believe this?

Because NAV's scan count omitted 7 files and, guess what, there are 7 files with a size greater than 2147483647 bytes. So NAV generated an internal error and we are not notified. Perhaps, there's a log file somewhere, but I sure ain't gonna look for it.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

All this is too complicated for my old gray cells to comprehend.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I just sent the following via email to Symantec's support.

.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

Not sure this will help, but it will help Symantec if they read this thread.

Many programming problems are caused by a programmer choosing the wrong data type to store a value.

In the case of Visual Basic, there is no provision for unsigned 32-bit integers, so any variable declared with the Long data type may not have a value greater than 2147483647.

In the old days, that value was adequate, but no more with larger files and drives.

Other programming languages, such as C/C++, have both signed and unsigned data types. So using an unsigned data type, values can be twice as large.

Of course, even that is not large enough so, it is necessary to fake larger integers.

The file size is returned in the WIN32_FIND_DATA API structure as a 64-bit thingee divided into two 32-bit unsigned integers.

If one does not program around this, the file length info will be wrong.

Indeed, I did not remedy this issue until the current version of the GetFileTypeDistribution program, so if you happen to have an earlier version, and you run it for drives that have large enough files, the values returned for byte counts will be incorrect, even negative.

My program just grabs the file structures, but NAV has to Open the files, and I expect that the Open is failing for the 7 large files.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

I only tested in NAV 2005.
I have NAV 2006, but will not install until NAV 2005 subscription expires.

My experiment should be easily reproducible if someone has, say, Ghost or True Image files on an external drive.

THis problem is serious enough that a patch for NAV 2005 is required quickly. Any decent programmer can fix this in a few minutes.

I would guess that the problem also occurs in NAV 2006,

 

Well here's hoping that Symantec will actually take the time to look into this. I'd like to think that they would, but I just don't have much faith in them anymore.

 

Re: I've been using Norton for years, Please tell me there is something better out th

Hi Howard .. nice research .. but I don't think that this issue is caused because of data type set as 32 bit unsigned integers..

The count that is displayed in the NAV screen after the latest program updates is not the correct count. But this does not mean that NAV is not scanning the files. The actual result of scan, is displayed in the Activity logs. Follow the below provided steps to go to activity log:

- Start Norton AntiVirus. If Norton AntiVirus is part of Norton Internet Security or Norton SystemWorks, then start that product.
- In the left pane, under Norton AntiVirus, click Reports.
- In the right pane, click View Activity Log.

Also the count which is shown by NAV is not related to the size of the file. Just create a new text file , right click on the file and select the option " Scan with NAV " the count shown will be Zero ..... which indicates that this issue is not related to size ...