Symantec/Norton not very popular here? Why?

@oliverjia

ofc it contains some facts about testing methods (or how they should be) Kaspersky has no influence how tests will be performed or which version of software is tested. in most cases when results come out the tests are 2 or 3 month ago (like latest av-test results). KAV 2013 nor avast 8 were ready.

but detection rate is not all - and thats one of the major issues at kaspersky - their support ist really bad if it does not concern signatures. i can not understand why people buy such a product if they dont get support from first hand if they chose the official support forum. i never read and official from kaspersky concerning important issues. and kaspersky aint able to update their third party add-ons (in special firefox).

i think norton has still its bad image from the past but people buy it due good results. afair the support of symantec is quite better - excluded their plugins (again firefox*)

anyway kaspersky has a lot to loose, that market place is hard to fight and they use any weapon incl such "articles".

anyway avast 8 gets also its critics
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=345736


* firefox is my favorit browser - i dont use chrome

 

Yeah agreed.
I don't like the kaspersky firefox add-ons, since it appears they never worked because they can not catch up with the upgrade of firefox. I use firefox a lot also, and the lack of kav add-on support on the latest firefox is the biggest gripe I have with kav. I agree, they have to speed up with support for firefox, which is the favorite browser of many ppl, including me. I don't use chrome either. When it comes to support, KAV is bad. However, if it can still do its job as a security software and keep me safe, I can live with the above-mentioned shortcomings. I do hope Kaspersky can improve its attitude towards its customers.

 

That was about unauthorized deleting of files... I can live with it, because I backup my important files, and they aren't executables anyway, and I mainly use linux. For me Windows is for poker, using certain utilities for certain purpose, or some kind of entertainment programs.

My main issue is security, not to get infected, and protection from trojans, keyloggers, rootkits etc. Deleting some Windows executables, or some Windows utilities, doesn't bother me much at all. I can always restore a working Windows from an image. When there is no really great AV/FW softwares available, I can live with some minor nuissances like unauthorized deleting of some executables. I'm sure for most people that could potentially cause major harm, tho.

So go ahead, and use a random generator to decide one executable to delete per day if you want. If the other issues are done right.

 

Pc Mag? I think your problem starts there

 

Hi Brummelchen,
FF is my favorite browser, also, but I have not noticed any problems with KIS. I know if you check the add on list it shows that the Safe Money is not compatible. However, it works anyway so I am not sure what the add on does.

I have FF set as my default browser and when I call up Safe Money it goes to FF, and the green border appears. That indicates it is working. I am using FF 20.0.1.

Jerry

 

My reasons:

1. Bogs down average computers, despite supposedly being light now.
2. Past grievances.
3. Equal or better protection available for free.
4. Complicated GUI (takes me forever to find quarantine or some settings).
5. Too many background tasks (which is probably why it seems heavy).
6. Scareware subscription renewal ad in the past.
7. Kills competitors (PCTools).
8. Preinstalled trials on PCs annoying.
9. Logs have long list of trivial threats or actions prevented, that may give the user a false-sense of usefulness.

 

I know that was more or less with a toungue on cheek, but feel free to point me to security suite reviews you give more weigh. Independent labs AV reviews, yeah, but aren't they mainly testing for virus finding abilities than other qualities of security suites, like firewalls, resources using, and level of ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ up your system, etc.

~ Removed Moderation Comment ~

E: many->money

 

Perhaps some of the dislike for Norton/Symantec is due to their 'slash and Burn' corporate philosophy regarding software they have acquired- Sygate and PC Tools most particularly.
I and many others aren't pleased that they have been killed off.

However;
I've owned two licenses (AV 2010 and IS 2011) and found nothing truly objectionable about either.
Norton/Symantec provide a liberal free upgrade policy and didn't spam me when the licenses came up for renewal. After declining to renew, they left me alone.
That I liked.

So as with all others, the community opinions are a mixed bag- just as they are with any other AV.
If I wasn't dedicated to running AV-less, Norton/Symantec would be strongly considered.

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/
http://www.av-test.org/

 

AV-C site is very difficult to navigate, logic resembling german computer programs. (Seems to be Austrian company, but close. AV-Test is German, I think) AV-C forums don't seem to work, I wonder if its temporary or shut down for good.

I haven't found information on the qualities of firewalls there, or things like level of ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ up your system (lol). There was something about performances, tho.

Also nothing about firewalls on av-test.org

At least PC Mag had something on firewalls. (I just found some kind of firewall test at matousec. Interesting, hmm... )

 

^ THIS

I bought the Norton 2005 Internet Security Suite CD version at Best Buy, and had it on my computer for less than two weeks....maybe 10 days, tops! I encountered some major problems, called Norton's tech support, waited on hold for an hour before they answered the call and when they did finally answer and I told them my situation, they were going to charge me $30 to fix the problem! I told them I had just paid $70 for the software and that I wasn't going to PAY to have the problem that THEIR software created fixed....so they said that they would "waive" the fee for me. The problem was, though, that their "fix" left two permanent desktop icons...and I had to click "yes" twice to two separate questions each time that I wanted to start up AND/OR shut down the computer. That is why I wasn't the biggest fan of Norton for the longest time.

That said...I can't speak to how effective or well behaved the product is NOW because I haven't used Norton since 2005. I've heard it has vastly improved, is much lighter, and is generally a very good choice for an antivirus software product. But because of my experience 8 years ago....with all of the other options available.....I haven't gotten around to, and may never get around to, trying Norton again.

But it's not that different from any other AV, really. I've read several similar comments regarding Kaspersky that are very similar to what I have seen said about Norton. Thankful pretty well summed it up when he said:

 

I'm only now reading about 64-bit problems of especially products that used kernel patching techniques of 32-bit kernels (so now possibly being more insecure against certain threads, like possibly keyloggers, because alleged restricted 64-bit versions of their products - especially, allegedly, Norton and Kaspersky).

Those things would be major concern to me, as a poker player, keyloggers and stuff... Still, Norton and Kaspersky did well in AV-Test's recent comparison, made in 64-bit Windows. Hmmm...

Perhaps, when I get more info on firewall qualities, I'll reconsider my solution. Alternative to Norton I bought, could be some separate firewall like Comodo or ZA, and a commercial AV product like Bitdefender or F-Secure.

 

Some people here had bad experiences with Norton products in the past and they tend to avoid the product at all costs.

IMO i consider NIS a very good suite, i would definitely use it with confidence if i had a license.

 

Reasons which I think people hate norton for :-

1. It was a resource hog back in 2006. People still live in 2006 and reluctant to try new software.

2. Norton has caused problems ( detecting/ cleaning) earlier. People dont easily switch back.

3. Its a paid s/w and many people don't like that. There are other paid security product but since norton is one of the most popular, it feels more heat as corporate money sucker.

4. There are much cheap products than norton.

5. Some articles/forums/comments of site (especially user with experience as stated in points 1 and 2) have immensely criticized it. People follow the same as they relate to actual user experience.

6. Norton has often not done well in every test. Recent e.g. of AV-C. Thus more generalization from people just because of one test.

 

Like many other members I have used Norton in the past. NIS 2004 was my first security suite and criticism was already building up against it then, mainly because of bloat and lack of support. E-mails were never answered, and the only way to fix things was to pay for solutions. Symantec is not just Norton, I had a terrible experience with Ghost (version 6 I believe), it was very expensive and never worked.

Nowadays their products have improved, too many people are posting positive comments, and I have no doubts it is an excellent antivirus. What they don’t realize at Symantec, is the perceived company image among people who care about security, their marketing team is completely insensitive to these issues.

I perceive Symantec as commercially haughty, you know ‘we have money’ and therefore we are the best, ‘don’t get any free products otherwise you’ll get infected, marketing scare tactics, and lately picking only tests where they are sure they can score within the best 3.

Last but not least, I’ve recently bought a computer and it took me almost 3 hours to get rid of the pre-installed Norton Internet Suite. MS was accused of monopoly by the European Union over its bundling of IE with their OS (which I find legitimate from MS). Nobody is actually raising the issue that most computers (at least here in Korea) are sold with Norton pre-installed which I think it could be challenged from anti-trust laws.

I think Symantec isn’t popular with some members here at Wilders for some of the reasons that I mentioned, obviously new generations of users might have a totally new experience, after all it is an excellent product nowadays.

 

1. I doubt that...
2. who cares
3. Maybe
4. Really? I think it's very logical, just pin the expert mode in the GUI.
5. it has 2 background tasks, just turn off the performance report
6. again who cares
7. this is pure business. strong companies will live and weak will fall
8. you can uninstall it
9. average users don't bother with logs

 

I would too.
They built up a pretty poor reputation over a certain period of time.That being said, it is complete wrong logic to use those bad experiences to say the new products are bad too.Norton isn't perfect but it's not that bad too.

 

Norton continues to perform really well at AV-TEST.

 

ha ha -> https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=345563

ding ding - Kaspersky vs Symantec next round

 

most of the top products offer very similar levels of protection if configured correctly the biggest difference between them is system hit and conflicts they may have with other security apps you may want to install/run. I feel the main reason Norton seems to be unpopular is because of it popularity:-bit like Microsoft in a way,it is seen in some circles to as being hip,cool etc to dislike them and knock them,I thought best summed up in ad Microsoft ran for a while when IE10 was released with the guy just blogging how bad IE was until he found it suited something he wanted to do!:-then it wasn't bad!

 

I'm fine with Symantec; SEPS is a very good, no-nonsense product. Unfortunately I don't feel the same way about Norton. I don't like wrangling with Insight, the UI, the performance oriented features (checking resource use? Really?) - there's just a lot of features there that I feel have just been added to show the user that "hey, look, we're a high performance premium product". They could simplify it a LOT more and still have good protection - but for some reason they want to keep these things.

PC Tools was a good no-nonsense, simple, powerful and easy to use product, which now Symantec has seen fit to retire. As far as protection goes; I don't mind; but as far as usability goes, I think Norton needs to take some cues from both SEPS and PC Tools. Call me someone who likes barebones products.

 

Slash and Burn ? Hmmm,

Any big vendor does not simply buy a company because they can and to keep it in their collection in the closet.

The idea to buy a company (acquire) is very simple - all business - this is the only legal way you can take their property and this is the only legal way you start to own and use the other company's technology. Symantec bought PC Tools to take its technology for optimization and to built it in some Norton/SYMC products. That is it, Symantec has their own brands and they do not feel the need to keep other brands like PCTools. Most of Symantec's nowadays successful technologies come from other companies - even Norton (one of their first acqusition - Peter Norton) : PGP, SafeWeb, Altiris, MessageLabs, Sygate, Brightmail, Verisign, etc... In addition to taking over the properties and technologies of the acquired company, the buyer (aka Symantec) also kills the "competition" this way. This is all business - very successful one - for all the big companies, and very successful for Symantec, too.

 

Good Afternoon! I like a lot of Wilders members had the old Nort...Crawl...circa 2003...2004...but Forgive...possibly not Forget...that was then and so much Malware...under the bridge! The new editions are a Vast improvement. That said I agree wholeheartedly with Firecat...I admire a Gui and product absent of needless complexity and clutter. The new PC Tools was superb in form and function...wasn't pandering too the Windows Metro Look...Graphics 101...that Norton and other vendors have chosen to inflict on an unsuspecting public. That's why I personally enjoy Eset and the new G-Data Gui's...form and function...a win win for the consumer. Anyhow Norton does provide excellent detection...and cleanup...those are the two attributes that to me and the majority of Wilders members...tend to hold as most important. Sincerely...Securon

 

the same can said of almost all later versions of any product compared to versions a few years back,think the biggest culprit from moving away from "barebones" type product is Kaspersky rather than Symantec,christ I am surprised their security suite product doesn't come with a kitchen sink(a british term)