Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Cadoul, Sep 17, 2008.
Cadoul from France
benchmark 6 installation time.
avira 8 free installing faster than norton 2009 BS.
i wonder if they just checked the folders in program files? or the hidden data folder also?
symantec say norton 2009 100mb plus database. but this test says 49mb? i dont think the IS would add an extra 50mb disc space.
Looks like an ad for Norton 2009.
thats what i thought lol.
why else would norton 2009 be the only av with a different colour bar and get top results in all benchmarks?
Some of the benchmarks aren't really things to concern users:-who really bothers about installation size?does 100mb here or there really matter nowadays with size of the HDs on most PCs?
Does how fast the GUI comes up really matter?Does installation time really matter?
I havent read well through the report but i guess the yellow bar means best allround product.
Well steve i wouldnt want to have the product that would stand in the bottom in all benchmarks.
May be you're right
Cadoul from France
I know that NIS 2009 has improved much than the previous one but i don't believe that it tops in almost all the benchmarks
The method used was to start with a clean Vista install, then install the product, looking at the before and after free disk space across the entire drive.
So all files and folders should be picked up, as well as picking up some additional O/S related file changes like roll back points and Vista Shadow Copy files, if applicable.
The top 3 positions were fairly close in fact. The report documents the test process, so the results should be largely repeatable if you had the inclination to do so.
There has been a big push this year (by several companies) to really improve the performance of their products.
[Disclaimer: I wrote some of the report]
I am vey impressed with the design(types of testings) and the results' presentation. Its comprehensive, and I learnt a lot from it. Thanks to Cadoul for the link and to you for your comments
Thanks for the information. That is one of the best and most authoritave reports I have ever seen on the subject of speed.
That report combined with AVComparatives is very enlightening.
Bear in mind that the report ordered and paid for by Symantec.
I'd agree with Silver, this is very well done (even if done by and for Norton marketing efforts).
The only thing I would have liked to have seen is the inclusion of baselines, where appropriate, for the performance without any AV or Internet Suite. This way you could also get an idea of the impact upon the system and not just a comparison between AVs or Suites.
See page 39 of report.
The key words
What impressed me about the report was the elements chosen/ testing methods used. The fact that Norton showed up well is irrelevant for me, as I use NOD32.
BUT, this report does show the huge improvements that Norton has achieved with 2009 releases.
As it (the report) did not include Antivir(Avira) Premium/ Security Suite, it is difficult to compare how Antivir
may fare in these/similar tests. I feel its well worth for AVIRA to sponsor or do similar/ better tests to aid their own marketing efforts.
I'm a longtime NOD32 evaluating Antivir Premium(on Vista Biz)
Separate names with a comma.