Norton vs Bitdefender

Arhh.... rejzor stole words out of my mouth..........

I think the reason why Norton has some bad reputation was becoz norton has a HUGE usage in consumer PC, therefore there are higher chances of you seeing people complanning about it.

And from personal experience 2003 - 2004 keep on missing things as well as huge resources usage. 2005 so far has a good run on test machine. And recent updates see Symantec has HUGE increase of signatures update. As well as adding adware in their db as well.

1 thing i must admit, i have never heard or seen norton has a f/p. Which is a good thing for noob.

Norton 2006 is quite good. added features but slightly faster and less resources than 2005. However this is only a personal view, i don't know about its unpacker and heuristic as rezjor said.

i use bitdefender for on demand since i like it better than escan MAV.

I will wait for Norton 2006 to make my conclusion.

 

Thanks RejZoR.