What is the verdict on the latest internet security suite from Norton? Is it any better than previous versions?
Reading reviews, most people with the previous suite found this newest suite, after buying/upgrading, a waste of their money. I can't give you an advice, because i don't use Norton anymore for several reasons, take a look on internet yourself to make your own impressions about the product.
NIS/NPF is one of those things that people seem to love or hate. A number of people use it and are quite happy with it. Others ... If you are not familiar with NIS/NPF you could give the trial a shot and see if it meets your needs and is compatible with your sytem and other software. It does have automatic/pre-defined rules for easy out of the box experience, and still allows for alot of customization for those that like to make their own rules. Regards, CrazyM
I would say that trialing out a few different ones to see what works better for you is definitely the way to go. I've mostly seen Norton's antivirus products to be big and slow down the system, others have found it to be fairly light and fast. With any AV I would recommend going to eicar.com and using the 'test virus' (it's just a benign file that everyone has agreed to detect so you can safely test your antivirus) so that you know what to expect if you get something. My personal feeling on the matter is that if some malware is going to try to terminate your security software, Norton is going to be the first one on the list, and I've seen it happen too many times. I wouldn't advise *just* using an antivirus alone, however, anyway.. a backup anti-trojan or anti-spyware makes a good addition.
Hi CrazyM! That's 100% correct! Isn't there a song named "love or hate"? The subject could be Norton.
Norton IS 2005 was quite decent when i trialled was quite decent in terms of resource usage nothing spectacular just okay.Dont know about the recent one so cant say more.
Currently testing out Symantec Client Security 3.0. Since I use Kaspersky AV, I have disabled all the antivirus components/services and not using ad-blocking or privacy or intrusion detection components. So far, as "firewall only" I am surprised to say that I am very impressed so far...but only been using for one day. It's very easy for me to use, having used AtGuard for many years before moving along to Kerio, although there's little of AtGuard left to see. Doesn't seem to slow web page loading whatsoever the way I have it configured, although memory use is higher than some firewalls. Logging and configurability are excellent. It hasn't crashed yet. If I'm still impressed after a week or two, I may do a full review. I prefer it to NIS2006 for several reasons, major one being that I can backup firewall settings using a GUI button, something Symantec removed on NIS beginning with NIS2005. I know it's strange going from CHX-I (only)--->Symantec, but I like to have application filtering if possible and I didn't feel comfortable using one of the combos with CHX-I (ie. Kerio 2.1.5 + CHX-I, ZA + CHX-I, etc.) and I don't like any of the standalone firewalls/packet filters except for CHX-I and Kerio 2.1.5. I hope it works out.
