Norton is the best Antivirus-Do you think about this?

Use F-secure. 15 passes 12 fails
or
Sophos 24 passes 11 fails

I don't understand why all these creatures on this forum take a care of resourses so much. I prefer antivirus which is seen. If I install it, computer has to be little more slower so the effect is seen and you have a feeling that antivirus is working. All that NOD32, Avast and other crap make me feel unsecure.

 

Most people prefer to run software that does not slow down their computers. If you have a newish computer then your choice of running most software, including AV software, is not limited by resource/memory usage.

However, if your box is a little older, the choice of AV becomes more of a balance between protection and performance/stability. Not everyone can run F-Secure, or AVK Pro for example as their primary scanner because of system slowdown.

As for NOD and Avast, I would not quite describe these AV's in your terms, but one reason why many people have chosen one of these excellent AV's, apart from offering good protection, is their relatively light footprint.

 

If you prefer slowdowns Norton is AV of your choice

 

How about they reduce the bloat so it slows your system down less, and instead bundle a huge flashing red light and fog horn with Norton that you can plug into a USB slot. These could activate when virus stomping is in progress so you feel secure and know it’s working, but the PC would still run acceptably. It's a win win situation I say.

 

dear Acadia, stopping a virus doesn't necessarily mean you have to use a resource hungry AV. NAV is a decent piece of software thats all. its certainly not the best. now P4 systems are here but it doesn't justify coding an AV which will keep it on its toe almost all the time. LOL sard has a good point.

 

I prefer the "If it aint perfect, don't stop improving it" philosophy myself. Otherwise we’d still be living in caves

 

Some people prefer to go from point A to point B with a tank. Others do it on a bicycle. I only use an e-mail AV scanner and a firewall. The virus definition file is updated manually twice a week...more if there is an outbreak of PC gremlin. Not a single infection since 2000.

Norton 2004 will reduce the throughput speed of any hard drive...even with the latest high-end set-up. That's why very few PC enthusiasts will load NAV.

Freeware like Avast Home provides an excellent balance between value and performance.

Symantec is the KING of software hype. PartitionMagic to partition the hard drive. Drive Image/Ghost to image data in the hard drive. You can spend $100 at the local store for these programs, or download Bootit ng (600KB) for $35. Sure, bootit ng lacks those nice graphics, but it will do much more for less $. Bootit ng does not have the visibility because it does not advertise on computer magazines.

I suspect that Symantec paid Dell and HP to bundle the NAV program with all new PCs. These companies include a lot of crappy free software like Real, AOL, MSN, etc. Why not include FREE AV proggies like AVG and Avast? It's all about $$$.

 

Well of course Symantec pays HP and Dell, it's basically an ad payment. After all, they only include a 90 day trial. Symantec is what we call: good at marketing.

 

NOD32: 27 passes - 3 fails. 100% detection in every category on all of the more recent tests.

(Of course, it also has sub-par trojan detection and isn't very good at unpacking executables... what can I say, no AV is perfect.)

 

Unfortunately, with NAV, it could in fact be broken, but you wouldn't know about it.

 

Norton is not the best. It's very close to being the worst. Horrible product. It used to be a trustworthy and reliable software, but nowadays it's plenty bloatware and it will hog all your system resources. They spend millions in advertisements and in bribing people working at cnet, pcmagazine and so on. That's why you only see good reviews telling you how "wonderful" this software is. They would do much better by investing those millions in developing a software that actually worked. Too bad for you Symantec, you're going down. It's a pity you haven't broke down already. Kaspersky Antivirus Personal 5.0 all the way for me.

 

It's difficult to be 100% independent if you accept advertising $.

F.

 

Oh Please, you don't need any proof. Don't you see this Antivirus is so lousy and still gets the highest grade in these magazines/sites ? If these magazines were independent they would give the highest grade to other antivirus softwares that really deserve it, like Kaspersky or NOD32, but Norton ? lol, it makes me laugh, you know I'm right. This antivirus is going nowhere and so the people who use it. If you use this antivirus, then don't complain when your system gets infected

 

router:

I agree with you!

 

Thank you I'm sure most people do

 

Sorry OT for a second - Nice avatar Acadia - here's another for you http://www.quickbase.com/up/8q9jbnau/g/r8c/eg/va/throbber.gif

 

Thank you very much. The Acadia region of Mount Desert Island, where my wife and I hope to retire some day, actually has 5 or 6 lighthouses, I forget now how many.

Acadia

 

There are many other variables that determine the actual performance of an AV software. People love to see 100% because it does not require any prior knowledge about the product. As a former rocket propulsion engineer, I know that some companies will spend a lot of resources to make sure that they pass test XYZ.

We have a customer with NAV...so far she has been hit twice by PC gremlins. Yes, NAV is up to date with the latest definition file. NAV isn't bullet proof. Its real-world failure rate is about the same as McAfee, CA, Kaspersky, etc.

What do I look for in a good AV?

-timely virus definition update during period of peak infection
-better than 85% detection rate
-small hit on system performance
-speed
-price
-ease of installation and removal

NAV gets 2.5 out of 6 stars.

 

Hear, hear, Acadia! I've been using NAV forever (or so it seems), and I've never been bitten by a virus. From my own experience, NAV works, and I'll not switch to another AV while it continues to do so. And, as for all of you you who comment on NAV's 'heavy' footprint, it runs just fine on my Win98SE P3 machine.

 

If you value detection, with the understanding that NO AV is perfect, then NAV may be in the top 2. If you factor in the load on the PC, price, and support...well let's say no higher than 7. Magazines do not directly publish good report in exchange for advertising $. However, you must be an alien if you think that prolific advertisers like SYMANTEC do not swing the vote.

If you start a post asking for the most WELL-ROUNDED AV program, I believe less than 5% of the vote will go to NAV. And most folks who visit this forum are semi-informed about PC security and computer hardware/software.

F.

 

KAV 4.5 has a bigger database of overall malware and quicker updates it seems, so I feel that that one is better. But I still think NAV has good detection. LiveUpdate with NAV annoys me.

 

You may be right, friend, about Symantec swaying the votes and stats with the almighty advertising $$$ they wield. All I am saying is that, for me and on this machine, NAV works, and this is all that matters ... to me.

 

Automatic LiveUpdate has a tendency to go "bad" and not update when the PC automatically adjusts for time change. Did anyone noticed this behavior? Currently, Liveupdate will use 150K to check for update, and another 200KB to update the virus definition file. Definitely a bummer for dialup users.

Speaking of update, Avast Home is very good in this department. The timeliness of the release of new virus definition could stand some improvement, but the program is lightning fast when it comes to updating the AV definition file...50 to 70KB...max.

 

I totally agree with this. A person who really understands about security issues would never pick up Norton as his/her antivirus solution.

 

Sure, NAV will run with a PIII CPU. Only problem is that your hard drive's throughput speed will be reduced by 20 to 30% with NAV automatic full-time protection ON. NAV 2003/2004 will result in a bigger hit on PC performance. You can quickly verify this if you have more than one partition in your hard drive. Reboot NAV with full-time protection ON. Copy a large folder (500MB to 1GB in size if possible) from one partition to another and record the transfer time. Delete this newly created folder. Turn OFF NAV automatic full time protection from the NAV main menu. Reboot PC. Make sure NAV full time protection is off. Copy the same folder and record the transfer time.

Go to PC Pitstop and run a complete test of your system with NAV full-time protection ON. The performance of your system will be subpar, especially when it comes to the speed section.

I'm using free AV with only an e-mail scanner and still no infection since 2000. Kinda hard to beat that safely record, especially when we are dealing with FREE software.