Why not Norton AV?

Paranoid2000,

Dont forget KAV and GDATA AVK, these also get free upgrades during the lifetime of the license (eg.KAV 4.5 to 5.0 upgrade is free using existing key file, GDATA AVK 2004-2005 upgrade is free if you can provide your username or password....)

Regards,
Firecat

 

I don't care for NAV for it's high resource usage & it's a pain to uninstall.

Hey Worf. I'm not trying to slam your software choices, but Aluria entered a partnership with WhenU, a spyware company.

 

I thought this was standard practice? (Norton excepted). F-Prot, NOD32, etc being further examples.

 

Ok, I'm a new guy around here so don't want to make waves......but -
My latest PC, bought in May 2004 came with Norton System Works including NAV 2004 and having experienced the problems with a Norton uninstall before I decided to leave it on and see how it performed.
Almost eight months later it's still on my machine and detection so far has been very good (although not perfect).
I am aware of it's larger system resource use than most and I will probably "attempt" to remove it when the renewal date is up, but just thought I would make the point that on a new machine (mine at least) Norton as done OK.

Regards,

 

I too have NAV, but have only used 2003 and 2005 versions, never tried 2004. I don't find either to be resource intensive. They both have worked very well on my systems. I feel the true reason others frown on NAV around here is because this is a security forum and they just can't possibly use a more popular main stream AV. In truth NAV has a great detection rate, more so than many of the AVs recommended around here, and is a good quality AV, no matter what they may say.

 

It just totally amazes me that the question the originator of the post hasn't been answered yet.... WHY DOESN'T WILDER'S SECURITY AKA PAUL WILDERS Review NAV? That is the question... I think only Paul should answer it.. If the answer is "we didn't get around to it yet..."..LOL...This thread would've been locked if the subject was NOD32.....LOL

 

Norton is the world's most trusted antivirus. yeah, as Norton slogan says its best qualities that have proved so many years.

ESET can tell everyone that NOD32 gets VB100% award more than other competitors, NOD32 detects knew-unknown virus without any updates by its advanced heuristics, NOD32 faster, lighter, cheaper and better or anything else. Kaspersky can tell everyone that it detects almost malware in the world, it updates every hour, it supports more than 1,000 kind of packers or anything else.

But all that almost useless if users/potential partners don't trust in your products, brand and company. Norton Antivirus is a good antivirus and supported by #1 security company in the world Symantec. Symantec has more money to do anything they want, has very good marketing scheme, has more partners around the world, has more other resources to make Norton circumvents other antivirus in the market.

Norton is not perfect but it is the best antivirus/world's most trusted antivirus in the real world all that proved by users around the world, not by Virus Bulletin or any other lab tests.

No offend but I'd like to tell the truth.

 

It's hard to sit back and read the posts in this thread. You guys really need to sit back and take a look at what you are actually writing here. Do you REALLY believe Norton is a great product? If so then you have very limited experience in malware removal and prevention.

I own a computer business and one of my specialties is malware removal/prevention. I work on so many Dells, HPs and other OEM pcs that come preloaded with Norton 2004, 2005 or McAfee that are fully up to date and have a TREMENDOUS amount of malware corrupting the machines. Correct me if I'm wrong, I know I'm not, but aren't Norton 2004 & 2005 "supposed" to detect spyware as well as viruses? It's detect rate it truly a joke especially in the spyware department. Daily I uninstall Norton or McAfee and install KAV and it find MANY, MANY viruses and other malware. For example a business called me last week that had 2 pcs, one with McAfee the other with Norton 2004 (that was just installed and setup by an IT person). On the McAfee pc KAV found 9 viruses and the one with Norton KAV found 24 viruses, I see this EVERY DAY. The owner of the business also complained about how slow the pc with Norton was and now with KAV she can't belive how fast it is.

There are 3 reasons why Norton is so popular:

1. Marketing, it's about your only option when the "average" pc owner goes to Best Buy or Circuit City to look for an antivirus program.

2. The PC magazines recommend it, they pay to have their products rated so well and how often do they test ALL of the antivirus programs available? Never. And it's ridiculous that there are over 100,000 different viruses out there and magazine reviews only use about 20-30 to test a program with.... what a joke.

3. Norton comes preinstalled on the most all of the major brands of pcs sold today, people don't know any better and use it because it's already there.


I can't stand to see people try and justify Norton's lack of detection by saying "it finds viruses only, not trojans or other malware, besides those things aren't viruses anyway"...... a cop out. The term virus is a generic term that covers all types of malicious code, so ALL malware should be detected by your antivirus program....... no excuses. Another thing I hate to see people say when someone asks what antivirus program they should use is "use what you feel comfortable with or use a program that fits your needs"? What is that supposed to mean? What you feel comfortable with? So you want a false sense of security? That's all that Norton offers. Fits your needs? What does that mean? Aren't ALL of our needs to have a program that finds and removes all types of malware? Under any circumstances?

Sorry to go off on a rant but I hate to see people spend their hard earned money for a product that offers sub par protection and give them a false sense of security. I work too hard for my money to waste it on a product that doesn't do what it states it does.

 

Somewhat OT...

Yes, it's not about 20-30 malware that they gather from their AV quarantine. But not all 100,000 malware that are still circulating and cause real problem to uses, and by accepted industry standard there're about 2,000 (main list+supplemental list) units that are still circulating and cause significant threats to users. But I for one that don't fully believe The Wildlist's methodologies.

You hate it but it true.

I know Kaspersky, Mcafee and Kaspersky clones are the best overall detection rates AV and it can catch almost everything you throw on its way. But when it comes to real-world scenario you have to admit that almost version of Kaspersky can't run smoothly on every machines. My laptop is slow system, Kaspersky can slow it down and Kaspersky would act as it is malware itself by slow system down and disturb my operations.

For me, AVG Free Edition is run smoothly at best on my laptop so I have the full right to consider AVG FE is better than Kasersky on my laptop (not every circumstances) because I feel comfortable with AVG FE and it fits to my needs. I don't want to sacrifice my all resources and speed to protect something that I would never encounter it ever, unless I infect my self.

 

The thing is TAP, AVG FREE uses more resources than KAV Personal 5. I use AVG FREE for a number of clients who can't afford KAV so I know the program very well. I always use KAV to clean the machine (usually scanning from one of my pcs) then install AVG.

I just wrote a tutorial this evening on my recommendations for setting up KAV and posted it on my site HERE, you might want to try it setup as I suggest, doing so I have yet to notice a real performance hit on any pc.

 

Go easy on the Norton lovers now guys....my stock in SYMC is starting to go back up again.....

 

mnosteele,

I thought mcafee had the second best detection rate compared to KAV?

 

It does

 

That's what alot of tests say, but not what I see. I can't say if McAfee is the latest version or setup with any special settings but on the pcs I have worked on that have McAfee, KAV almost always finds one or multiple items it misses.

 

Since when does the term virus cover all forms of malware? And since when is an anti-virus supposed to detect all forms of malware? If you want to detect viruses you buy an anti-virus. If you want to detect spyware you buy an anti-spyware program. Here's a couple definitions of the terms to help you out.

1. Virus http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/v/virus.htm

2. Spyware http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/s/spyware.htm

 

It may or may not trure, since resources can refer to many aspects and I exactly don't know and never measure and compare about all resources that KAV 5 and AVG FE use.

AVG FE provides adequate protection and doesn't slow my machine down as KAV 5 does but I don't say that AVG FE is better than KAV 5 when it comes to overall malware protection, about overall malware protection so KAV is the king.

 

I think you need to read these definitions again yourself, ......A virus is a software program, script, or macro that has been designed to infect, destroy, modify, or cause other problems with a computer or software program.

Spyware, or shall we say malware since that term covers everything, does the same thing as the definition above. Spyware is a program, it's designed to infect, destroy or modify and to cause problems with your computer just like that definition above states.

According the logic you are using an antivirus program should also not be designed to detect trojan horses or worms since they aren't truly viruses and the fact that they have their own definition at Computerhope.com?



Thanks for the information Paul.

 

I used NAV 2003 and thought it was OK back then, but when NAV 2004 came out, it was awful. If you look through archives over at DSLR there are many threads about severe problems with updating NAV 2004 that took Symantec months to fix. The program would generate 10,000 zero byte files. It happened to me. I have to agree with those who say that NAV's popularity is due to marketing and past glory.

However, for those who love NOD32 for its stellar performance on VB100, you should be aware that NAV holds second place in that contest.

A lot of the talking heads at the magazines are starting to recommend Trend Micro. There is a huge hospital around here that switched from McAfee to Trend recently. You might want to give it a demo.

Much gets said about detection rates. For some reason high detection rates on collections of exotic malware do not always translate into good protection. This may have something to do with how and where the virus/malware is intercepted by the AV program, particularly in the real time mode. I suspect that most of the tests are done using an on demand scan.

I used to think that AVG was junk until someone who works the help desk at HAL PC told me they were using AVG to clean up infected machines running NAV and McAfee. While AVG 7 uses an average amount of memory for an AV, it does not seem to slow down older machines.

As for Kaspersky, I love it. But, you have to be able to tolerate more false alarms than a lot of other AV's, especially if using the extended bases. The new interface in 5.0.227 eliminates the most serious flaw of 4.5.

 

For years you've been saying the same BS Paul... yet you continously (Your "Team" at Wilders", that is), "find" that precious time to update other AV reviews and also do some new ones, like GData... It don't fool me.. and you allow this Norton bashing to go on and on...
The whole thing is pretty skewed, wouldn't you say?

 

My experiences with NAV 2004 were that, when it was working, it performed rather well. It has a good detection rate and kept me clean at a time when I was less safety conscious than I am now. My beef with Norton is the fact it goes wrong too often and is so poorly supported.

To the guy with the computer shop who sees customers with NAV plus Nasties on their machines, I would say this was down to carelessness, or lack of knowledge, by the user rather than due to the poor detection rate of NAV. If those same customers had used KAV they would probably still have got themselves into trouble.

 

Have 2 agree with u there topper, most of the PC's i see have NAV or Mcafee, both good AV's, but the user makes alot of difference to the reliabillity.

Alot of customers are dumbfounded that they have a virus/trojan etc, believeing that the AV must be faulty or they were ripped off by the product because they became infected.

Personally i dont recommend NAV, as ive seen too many people have problems with it, although im sure if properly configured it is a very good AV.

 

No, an anti-virus does not have to detect worms and trojans, because they are not viruses. Neither do they have to detect spyware, because it is not a virus. AVs do generally detect these programs so the authors can sell more of their product. Though I feel it is a nice addition to an AV, I don't feel AVs should have to detect anything other than viruses.

People today have just come to expect an AV to detect these other threats, and the authors know that if they include detection of them, more products will be sold to the gullible public, and I suppose AVs will continue to expand their coverage to include more and more different forms of malware.

The more the average computer user finds out about the lesser known forms of malware, like some kinds of spyware, keyloggers and rootkits ect... the more the AVs will be designed to detect these threats so they can sell more of their product. Maybe at some point they'll change the name to anti-malware which is what they are really becoming.