the VB100 Compares

i was surprised to see Symantec AV second to NOD in the Comparatives. Do they mean Symantec corporate or Norton? I don't see the word Norton mentioned. Could someone clarify this for me?

 

With 500MB of program, Norton could get lucky at times!!

 

If you will quit bashing norton and actually look at their past detection history you will see that they actually are right there with ESET. And have been for a long time. and the size of the program isn't all that important if it works well and Norton does. Which version did you try that was 500mb??

bigc

 

I agree with you completely. To answer your question, I can say that SEP 11 is almost there, 400 something megs (very near 500 megs) and that is for the for the standalone client installation only. WAY too many megs, if you ask me.


Cheers

 

How much of that 500 megs is multi lang pack. The install client means nothing install it and see what it ends up being. if you look at Eset's website they have all langs split up into single installers, Imagine if they combined all what 30 different installers would be bigger then a 20 meg install. Norton has also been praised on how "light and responsive on system resources" (RECENT VERSIONS 2008+)

 

The 500 megs is with english only.


Cheers

 

When I have norton 2008 installed on this comp it is nowhere near 500mbs. But stranger things have happened. But you have to remember that even with a large footprint norton has about the best after malware detection cleanup that is available anywhere. I would sacrifice a little Hdd space(which I have plenty of) for that ability alone. But everyone to their own.

bigc

 

big C,

With all due respect so does Avira, Eset, KAV and others with smaller installer size.

 

I'm pretty sure it is not the corporate version. Ever since I first heard of and started tracking the VB100 results (about eight years ago), it seems to me that the two that were constantly winning the VB100 award were NOD32 and Norton.

 

In my opinion and with respect to your opinion - that is BS. The tests that are run are not all that *unbiased* and I would think you, as a ' should be informed' ex-mod would know that. Some of these tests can be set up according to what the companies with the most... *you fill in the blanks*. No one was bashing your precious "Norton" - read a bit around what the *true* gurus on AV's say about your great AV - you might learn something.

 

These av's you mention do not have the cleaning ability of norton. They have excellent detection but not nortons ability to cleanup. http://www.icsalabs.com/icsa/product.php?tid=dfgdf$gdhkkjk-kkkk

 

I dont disagree with the tests you have given but other tests done on Avira and Eset put them at the top in detection and cleaning as well. OTOH I find many infected systems with Norton running.

 

Unfortunatly they all miss to much

 

True enough.

Just my personal take - I think the situation has more to do with the user bases of products vs. the products themselves. While there are Symantec users here who are very knowledgable, there are plenty Moms and Pops whose PC just came loaded with it. Someone running Norton 2003 with IE6 and an unpatched XP system who clicks yes on everything will probably be infected just as often as if they had Avira, for example. The people running "alternative" security systems tend to be people who have more knowledge on the subject, so naturally their machines are safer regardless of AV.

That's not to say some AVs are not better than others - That's certainly true. Just that I give Norton some points in the fact that they will have a larger chunk of that "security unaware" population, so I'd expect them to have more infections regardless of how good their product is.

 

I agree that Ive seen that a lot of times sadly

 

Who are these "gurus" that you speak of? Having read a bit around I'm sure you could name about six or seven.

 

Except that KAV does have cleaning certification according to that link you provided.

Very good point, CountryGuy

 

Properly configured there is very little difference in protection between the top AV products,as for install size:-does it really matter if a GOOD product takes up 500mb or even a couple of gb given the size of HD's nowadays?I'd be more concerned installing a poor product that ony took up 50mb!

 

Yes but when top-notch avs like kaspersky, avira etc. are less than 50MB and then even multi engine avs like F-Secure are less than 100MB...

 

I don't suppose the "tag" on the end of your posts is likely to make you have a slightly biased opinion,is it?:-
Kaspersky Lab Personal Security Professional
I don't use Norton or particularly like it,that's a subjective thing,but the current version is a good product,there is no reason to keep having a dig at it and then trying to find reasons to justify doing so,installed size of an app has nothing to do with how it actually performs,you're not still using a 2gb hard drive are you??

 

BS. Sorry, when a product turns a quad-core box into Pentium-I, the thing is a piece of junk no matter how many viruses and malware it detects (not that Symantec/Norton would exactly excel at this field). I didn't buy a computer to run Norton on it, I want to utilize it for something more useful...

 

I personally Don't use Norton but I have tested them out on my test bed computer. 2008 and 2009 are running quite light yes the old versions used to run very very slow. but the new ones are redone to run like this. they do run light. or lighter then they used to.

Just a fyi my test bed is a old duel-core with 4gigs of ram and vista I had no problems with slow downs. when I was trying this or Beta testing the 2009 on it.

you want slowdown try ZA Extreme beta. then complain about slowdown.

 

I guess I'm a little confused here. What is 500MB? The Norton installation? I've run NIS 2008 and the now NIS Beta 2009. Both were around 50MB. Am I missing something?

 

I may be wrong, but I assume they mean after installation.

 

Thanks L815. Not sure if that's a true figure, but I'm not concerned enough to check it out.