Norton vs Bitdefender

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by yodafan, Jun 23, 2005.

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

    yodafan Guest

    Which is better based on detection rates and memory usageo_O how much memory does bitdefender use? just focus the discussion only on the two avs, thanks.
     
  2. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Hi yodafan,

    Norton (NAV) is better in detection rate, but BitDefender have much better heuristics and is much faster to release signatures and on last months they release a lot of new signature that could improve a lot its detection...

    About resources, BitDefender use less than NAV, but I don't how much it use...

    Between NAV and BitDefender, I will choose BitDefender...

    Regards
     
  3. musicman

    musicman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Posts:
    199
    If I may add on I agree 100% with VaMPiRiC_CRoW I have used Norton as well as Bitdefender for a extensive amount of time and have found BD to consume less resources than Norton. Norton seems to be more bloated software than BD. BD heuristics detection for me would be the deciding factor as this would be the most important aspect of a antivirus. Hope this helps :)
     
  4. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    BitDefender is very nice... It's quite nice on recources, I notice no slowdowns and memory usage is around ~18mb wich is nice (I use the Standard).

    Only negative side it's incompatible with some software espesially with defraggers. But it's promised to be better in version 9 to be released after summer.
     
  5. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I used Noton for at least 5 years. It performed well, and I never had an infection.
    I am now using BD, and it has not let me down. Norton got bloated and so I left it.

    I am pleased with BD, and would recommend it over Norton.

    Jerry
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    BitDefender is cheaper, has good detection and very good heuristics as well as excellent updates. So I recommend BitDefender. :)
     
  7. snowboard

    snowboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Posts:
    160
    BitDefender hands down. Cant wait for the new version :)

    Regards,

    snowboard
     
  8. yodafan

    yodafan Guest

    hey got a question i notice norton has a better detection rate based on AV comparatives last on demand scanner test, even has a 15% trojan difference... where norton miss 2 and BD miss 7. I know BD been add a lot of signitures and it has a better heuristics...but can't really tell how BD compares with signitures now, but as far as heuristics for new malware based on whats on the wild would there be that much of a difference in results, in other words would there be a big percentage gap like 15% and would the heuristic have caught 5 more out of the 7 where it only miss 2 trojans like symantec?... i know BD isn't an AT but there were other parts that BD didn't catch as much as norton or more, if i remember each part or the other categories it performed less efficient..but again BD is getting alot better lately and will be coming out with a new version and can't really tell till it comes out and new tests.
     
  9. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I will admit that bitdefender is getting better but then again norton is getting better all the time also.
     
  10. yodafan

    yodafan Guest

    i guess what i'm saying is like the difference between kav and nod, one better right now at signatures the other is better in heuristics, but yet kav does better in on demand test. For Retrospective/ProActive Test in heuristics they use future malware, i think its hard to say how much of a difference there is.... cause that be excluding how AV have current updates all the time. Think heuristics is a good way going about it but at the current time i don't think its good enough. Is heuristics really better at the current time (now) than signatures AVs?
     
  11. wrong forum

    wrong forum Guest

    Yodafan, you asked that question at the WRONG forum. About 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people around here all hate NAV with a passion! And you'll never get truly fair opinion on NAV at this forum. I would ask the same question at Dslreports they seem to have a more balanced opinion of the different AV products. ;)
     
  12. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    You are a bit off in your statistics, There are actually a few well informed people here that realize that norton antivirus 2005 is a pretty good antivirus program.
     
  13. wrong forum

    wrong forum Guest

    Ok Bigc, maybe your right. It should be about 98% of all people around here hate NAV with a passion. ;) :D
     
  14. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I can't comment on detection rates. All I know is from AV tests such as AV-Comparative and the like. As far a resourses go, it must depend on individual computers. I ran BitDefender 8 Standard on my machine and it slowed it down quite a bit. I'm now running NAV 2005, and there is no slow down what so ever. I know lots of people call NAV a resourse hog, but I haven't noticed that with NAV 2005.

    They both have trial versions. Give them a try and see which one you like better.
     
  15. yodafan

    yodafan Guest

    I can see wrong forum does have a point, i mean norton has been a pretty consistant AV but has never been on the wilders AV list yet trend micro is? =T
     
  16. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Trend Micro is on my comp now. It works very very well
     

    Attached Files:

  17. yodafan

    yodafan Guest

    i'm just saying norton is better than trend micro based on av comparatives stats and wonder why norton wasn't in its place or place in the AV section...anyways back to the topic about detection...
     
  18. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    If you remove the resources used by Norton... ;)
     
  19. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I don't know what other people are doing wrong but With Nav 2005 I didn't see the large resource usage some others talk about. It actually runs very light and fast on my XPSp2 box.
     
  20. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I have seen Norton Antivirus 2006 in action. It's gonna be an interesting summer ineed :D
     
  21. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

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

    Hi RejZoR. Can I take it from your comment that NAV 2006 has made some nice improvements? Could you please comment on some of the things in NAV 2006 that caught your interest.
     
  22. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Here is a screenshot... but you can see more screenshots and NAV 2006 info here. :)
     

    Attached Files:

  23. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    and heres one more...
     

    Attached Files:

  24. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    Thanks hbkh for the screenshots and the link.
     
  25. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Spyware is finally detected On-Access (in NAV2005 only On-Demand grrrr),they lowered memory usage,but there is still quiet large number of processes.
    But since they don't use that much resources it's much better.
    Interface is pretty much the same as in NAV2005,but thy have added a new tray icon (yes,now you have 2 of them) that is for Norton Security Center.
    But again,they cvannot be merged/split like in avast!.
    Norton Security Center takes around 4 extra processes (each one uses around 400-500KB of memory,but anyway),so my idea is that this Security Center should be optional since many of use don't need it.
    On-Demand scanning speed was quiet fast even in VirtualPC.
    But i can't comment anything about heuristics/packers and their improvement.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.