Norton 2006 or Avg Pro

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by maddawgz, Nov 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,276
    Location:
    Earth
    Which is better I know avg is getting 100% on the bulletins now? I was a bit hesitant to put Norton on cuz of bulk? as avg was lighter but i was surpised But which has better detection?? Thanks MD o_O
     
  2. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    In my experience I would have to go with Nav 2006 without a doubt.
     
  3. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,276
    Location:
    Earth
    Thanx Big C yeah my though'ts too !! :)
     
  4. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California

    Hi bigc. Does this mean you got your copy of NAV 2006? If so, what's your assessment of the new NAV? From my readings in forums, it seems to be getting good reviews from users.
     
  5. hollywoodpc

    hollywoodpc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,325
    NAV2006 over AVG ! Better detection and , in most cases , this new version does not seem to slow things down as much as the other versions have . Just my experience
     
  6. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I only advice you to not install any program from Norton...
     
  7. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,276
    Location:
    Earth
    hymmm dunno she's pretty lightweight so far!! That's without systemworks

    bwt anyone konw what this protection centre do? cuz it disabled my Winxp Firewall?? do i re-enable it? thnx md
    Hey hollywood hyb?
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  8. mata7

    mata7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Posts:
    635
    Location:
    Mississauga, Canada
    i agree Whit you, i wont install anything program from Norton to, you have to have 10 ruining processes and you will end with 2 virus on the road
     
  9. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I disagree with both of you. Im no expert but those who are say you should not worry too much about the number of processes.:p I was well protected when I used Norton.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  10. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Not the best way to judge overall detection rates. Even "average" scanners, such as QuickHeal, VirusBuster, and Ahnlab are picking up VB 100% awards.

    However, if you look at a variety of testing sites, which include both ITW and zoo malware, Norton has by far a better detection rate than AVG.
    If you have a fairly new machine with sufficient memory then, IME, the recent versions of Norton should not slow you down. With a decent sized hard-disc and with new computers coming with 1GB memory as standard, Norton should not be considered as bloatware.

    It's only judged as bloatware on older machines and against low footprint scanners such as Dr Web or F-Prot. IME, Norton 2005/6 runs very well on a decent spec computer.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  11. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,276
    Location:
    Earth
    Thanks Blackcat i run 385mb? 80 gig!! Win xp sp2!! And shes great!!... Not only that i noticed my browsing system actually runs better strange that is bizzare, perhaps its configured it or somthing anyhow happy here ill do a snapshot while its clean and no biggy if i end up with a bad virus ill just snapshotback :D
     
  12. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Isn't only the number of processes, but also what Norton program do on your registry... ;)
     
  13. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    My registry works just fine running Norton and has in the past. I haven't noticed anything detrimental done to the registry in years of running norton products. What are you referring to about the registry useing norton.
     
  14. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    The amount of registry entries created by Norton...
    The uninstall utilities also create another problems...
    Its programs are very bad for a big company like Norton size...

    You can like Norton programs, but I definitively don't...
     
  15. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma



    Agreed. it is a personal preference. Thanks for your input.;)
    bigc
     
  16. Mr2cents

    Mr2cents Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Posts:
    497
    I would choose Norton 2006. It's detection rates are far superior to avg pro...according to av-comparatives. If I remember correctly, Norton came in second place behind kav in detection rates in the last av-comparatives.

    I never thought I would be reccomending norton. However, A new pc may be purchased in the future. Like in the next 60 days. Guess what antivirus it comes installed with? :) Yep, Norton. :D

    90 day free trial. I'll see what happens after I start running it. Never had a problem with norton as far as detection goes when I ran it. I used to run the 2002 version. I did have a problem with liveupdate crashing my computer every other day. I've heard this has been taken care of.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.