Norton is it overrated?

People seem to bash Norton Anitivirus alot and sometimes I can understand why when everyone say it misses viruses.

I personally feel that all AV's will miss a virus sometimes, no product will ever be full-proof.

I use Bitdefender but I've never heard of a company called softwin at all. I like the product but I feel that the interface is pretty ugly.

Anyways, NAV 2003 or Bitdender pro, which one do you think gets the edge?

Also, Since the Mcafee vs. Norton war is pretty one-sided favoring Mcafee products what do you think Norton has to do to gain back the trust of people who know more about viruses/AV's than just update and you'll be okay.

If you don't trust Norton? How or what do you think Norton should do to upgrade it's product?

 

All they have to do is add good unpacking engines, and they will be among the leaders again.

 

Hi main,

actually I think NAV isn't that bad as most people say. I changed back to NAV 2003 from F-Secure a while ago and I can't complain at all. The software is very easy to use, low (!) on ressources (if I compare it to F-Secure or Kaspersky) and nevertheless provides a good protection against viruses. If you look at some threads here in this forum you will find a lot of information about NAV, not all people are against it.

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Some have made it a sport bashing NAV.
One of the best AVs IMO., even though i dont use it myself( yet )
As Smackdown said, add a good unpacker, and it will be up there.
Regards
Ole
BTW read somewhere that a better unpacker was in the pipeline.
Perhaps it will be in NAV 2004.
BTW forgot to say.
Ive heard many good things about Bitdefender.

 

Norton has never lost my trust and Mc affee will never gain it.

 

Especially after they supplied many pc magazines with an one year free licence for their cover cds. BitDefender is a good program but IMHO it is at the moment too overrated. They do a good marketing job but if you really look into details you will find that there are still better avs on the market.

wizard

 

Free in one year
Perhaps your right Wizard, Ive never really taken some time to find more out about Bitdefender.
I see , here at wilders it is ratet average.
Perhaps it marketing, cos i did hear good things about it.
Anyway i think you could do worse than Bitdefender.
Regards
Ole

PS. Totally agree with you Wizard. There are better AVs on the market, KAV, NAV, RAV and NOD to mention a few.

 

Hi Paul.
Yes I know
Regards
Ole

 

When you're at the top of sales you are automatically wearing a Bulls Eye and people love to bash you, just look at MicroSoft. I personally believe that NAV is an excellent product but not the only one.

Acadia.

 

It doesn't miss many!

Norton.

I think Norton is a great product. It takes a lot of bashing, but it's hard to dispute it's effectiveness.

 

Hello!

I'm not a virus expert, far from there, but as an average customer, I am quite satisfied with it since I've been working with it for 10 months now. It doesn't take much resource consumption, had just one false positive and it works ok with my os which is xp home. I'm not saying it's the best one, they may exist many others that work great or even better. But I am satified with Norton and I think it's a good product for me.

Uguel

 

Norton...My Personal Experience...

The GOOD..
1. Excellent Support. Usually an answer from Tech Support in a couple of hours.

2. Ran very smoothly with my newer computer... Actually, it ran so smoothly I kind of missed it...LOL

3. Daily Updates.

4. A lot of help and support through the forums, especially DSL Reports

5. MUCH documentation on viruses and detailed instructions

6. Excellent Script virus protection.

7. One of the few AV's that scan both incoming and outgoing email

8. Very smooth automatic removal actions at removing or quaranteeing viruses..

The BAD...
1. It never failed to miss common viruses...Not many., and most of them were deactivated or in system restore., but over the years, I was not extremely satisfied...This was VERY confusing to me because they have an excellent Virus Bulletin record.

2. Tech support is hard to understand because some of those folks haven't quite mastered "English as a Second Language" LOL...

3. Lousy unpackers... (I heard NAV 2004 will have much better unpackers)

4. and ... Heurustics are not reknowned. LOL...

The UGLY...

1. Even with all these faults, and they aren't too severe, I may consider NAV 2004 if I see their unpackers improve.. I presently use McAfee, and Finally I have it working good. McAfee, it seems to me, has to learn how to better configure their products to work with Micorsoft products LOL.. But, in fairness, Now, after a month long struggle, I finally have it working right!

2. Symantec is rumored to use DRM, a move I consider a bit unwise.. I understand they have a right to protect their product, but the DRM scheme backfired on Intuit... I hope Symantec studies what happenned at Intuit...

3. No matter what, Nod runs flawlessly on one of my computer. I heard they will put in better or more improved unpackers.... They may or may not think they are needed. Me? I use McAfee on one of my computers because I have seen firsthand how unpackers can help find more malware...

 

hi

me thinks nortons popularity largely depens on the fact that it's OEM stuff on many computer manufacturers,like dell etc.
and the brand is a very familiar one...like coca cola of avs
actually me thinks that its real time protection (auto-protect) is really good, along with script blocking, but the scanning abilities and heuristics(bloodhound) are poor!
i mean no unpackers...and very poor trojan detection added to that( i know it is not an at).just a little upx and norton is useless!!
for the same price you can get a product which has unpackers and a good trojan detection.
now i've seen norton in action for 2 years(gave my license to my dad). during that time i was seriously trojanised, if hadn't had tauscan and after that trojan hunter i would have been hacked to extinction.

 

Norton is good, however it is slipping behiend because of its poor umpaking, poor trojan detection, simplistic interface (its great for newbies, but for power users it isn't very helpful). Hopefully 2004 will improve upon this as for several years nothing has really been added.


It is my understanding that all future Symantec products will contain DRM.

 

Hi Khaine,

Well, I would consider myself as a poweruser and I love this simplistic interface! I hate programs which have a complicated interface. All good things are easy!

By the way, I would never rely on a AV-scanner to fight trojans... That's why AT-scanners were created.

Regards,

Patrice

 

Kahine.
I read that Symantec has dropped DRM.

 

Trojan detection isn't *that* poor, imo. It's interface is one of the best there is, as far as I'm concerned.

Less is better, if you ask me.

 

Good & uncomplicated interface doesnt automatically mean bad AV
Regards
Ole

 

Simple interface - Less control over an AV(joe van simple))
Complicated interface - More control over an AV(power User)

But in some cases I do agree with you!


Technodrome

 

Hi Technodrome,

I don't see it quite the same way as you do. If a program has a simple interface, it doesn't mean at all it has less control possibilities than a complicated interface. But a very good programmer would try to implement all his tools in a simple interface with a few buttons (as Norton mostly does). Actually you can study this area at the universities. It has a lot to do with psychology (work and organizational psychology). Let's say I have some knowledge about that...

Best regards,

Patrice

 

I'd like to be asked before an av takes any action. Norton doesn't do that. It does things automatically.

But thats just me!



Technodrome

 

O.K., got your point. Nevertheless I never wanted to say with the above mentioned statement that Norton is perfect! Far from that, but let's say it's going into the right direction. After all which software is perfect?

Regards,

Patrice