Norton security suite good?

[Schmeebs]

Microsoft Security Essentials. Its all you need.

[kidsafe]

Let's put it this way. I work in IT as a systems administrator. My company uses the latest version of Symantec Endpoint Protection, which is the same company that makes Norton and is their flagship corporate virus solution. So I see this product in action every day, and it's downright terrible. Viruses are always slipping through the cracks. And once the viruses are there, Symantec can never clean them. I always have to resort to other free utilities like Combofix to clean things up.

Couple that with years of experience with home versions of Norton Antivirus screwing up computers, failing to catch viruses, and generally being the worst option out there, and you have my opinion and the opinion of many others. AVG is only bloated if you opt for all the other options it offers with AVG Internet Security Suite. If you use nothing but the free version, you get a virus scanner with active protection. Nothing more.

Definitions based virus protection is largely irrelevant in this comparison because they all do it. And even in this regard, Norton LiveUpdate runs more frequently than any other scanner, on the magnitude of about 10x. Heuristic/behavior scanning, speed, resource usage, ease of use, compatibility and cost are points of contention. Aside from retail cost and *false positives,* Norton is pretty much class leading in every category.

If the situation at your company is so dire, then why don't you implore your department heads to switch to something more effective? You probably know the answer, there really isn't anything better in terms of compatibility, support and ease of use.

The AVG vs. Norton argument is a relic from last decade. It's like arguing last decades Ford vs. Toyota when the situation

It's passable. But norton now is not as good as norton pre 05.

Generally you'll be fine with free anti-virus. Favorite of mine if spybot search and destroy.

I swear you guys are just making up anecdotes. Norton from 1998-2007 was a horrible product. In 2008, they released a completely rewritten Norton AV 2009. It's been one of the most rounded suites ever since.

Microsoft Security Essentials. Its all you need.

Slow, no behavior scanning, default behavior is to update definitions once a day. No.

[Neurodilation]

Definitions based virus protection is largely irrelevant in this comparison because they all do it. And even in this regard, Norton LiveUpdate runs more frequently than any other scanner, on the magnitude of about 10x. Heuristic/behavior scanning, speed, resource usage, ease of use, compatibility and cost are points of contention. Aside from retail cost and *false positives,* Norton is pretty much class leading in every category.

If the situation at your company is so dire, then why don't you implore your department heads to switch to something more effective? You probably know the answer, there really isn't anything better in terms of compatibility, support and ease of use.

The AVG vs. Norton argument is a relic from last decade. It's like arguing last decades Ford vs. Toyota when the situation


I swear you guys are just making up anecdotes. Norton from 1998-2007 was a horrible product. In 2008, they released a completely rewritten Norton AV 2009. It's been one of the most rounded suites ever since.



Slow, no behavior scanning, default behavior is to update definitions once a day. No.

None of the qualities you mentioned matter for jack if viruses aren't stopped. I don't really care how fast something scans or how easy it is to use if it can't do its job. I've been in this industry a long time, and I've never seen Norton outclass anything. I'm not going by reviews written by other people that may or may not be skewed in some way. I'm going by my years of professional experience in the field.

Even though I feel none of your claims about Norton's superiority have any validity to them whatsoever, I'll address them. A lot of virus programs use heuristics these days including your most-hated AVG. Norton does not scan any faster than any other virus scanner I've tried, and I've tried quite a few of them. Besides, there are so many other variables when it comes to scanning speed that have nothing to do with the virus scanning program itself that it's not really even worth discussing. Norton is horrible for resource usage. It was and still is. This has been confirmed by not only me but by many others in this thread who are techs working with these programs every day. Ease of use...to say that any virus program stands above others in this manner is focusing on irrelevant details. Ease of use isn't worth discussing in this capacity. Compatibility and cost as well...especially since many of us have been advocating FREE solutions over Norton's pay-for-garbage model.

Please don't try to assume you know anything about my company and why it works the way it does. My superiors do things because they think their ideas are best. Suggestions from those under them are regularly ignored even with concrete proof in hand that better solutions exist. That said, this isn't a discussion on the politics of my workplace or whether or not I should do something.

The fact of the matter is that Norton and any other Symantec virus solution is questionable at best and not worth it when there are superior free options out there. And whether or not you want to acknowledge it, the programs you bash are just as relevant and effective today as they were back in the days when Ford cars fell apart in 30,000 miles.

[kidsafe]

My opinion only: I still don't believe you know anything about Norton's capabilities and are just boasting about your IT background (why, I don't know.) I am very, very picky about the products I use...settling on any particular AV suite is an ongoing deliberate process where I've audited pretty much everything.


Now more to your points:
Even if Norton Enterprise solutions use a ton of resources, the consumer version does not. Also I don't buy that a small gain in effective threat reduction is worth trading away better resource usage, compatibility and ease of use...not when businesses are prepared to restore ghost images to eradicate malware infestations.

Here is a snapshot of the two Norton processes in my Task Manager.



That's a resource hog, eh? If you want I can snapshot Resource Monitor too. In terms of disk activity, those processes usually sit at zero unless there is a new file being scanned. <1% CPU, 12MB RAM, zero disk access...I'd like to see proof that Norton is anything other than a well-behaved background daemon.

Like I also said, the right solution for you isn't the right solution for someone else. That's why I named 5 different AV suites, each better at certain things.

Free: Comodo, BitDefender Free
Easy to use: NOD32, Norton
Fast: NOD32, Norton, Comodo
Resource usage: NOD32, Norton, Comodo
Advanced options: BitDefender, Kaspersky, Comodo
Compatibility: Norton

I use Norton because my ISP provides it for free and my previous selection (Comodo) broke. I suspect I might use it even if I did have to pay for it. I have considered going back to truly free options like Comodo, Panda, Sophos, etc., but honestly a year of Norton can be purchased on sale or after rebate for the cost of a fast food lunch. If/when Norton breaks, I will likely switch to something else. Inertia will keep me using it until then.

[Deleted]

Favorite of mine if spybot search and destroy.

Spybot is handy for malware and spyware, but it's not an anti-virus.

[Deleted]

Spybot is handy for malware and spyware, but it's not an anti-virus.

The topic isn't really specifically about Anti-virus but a "total solution", I think a few people forget that and only talk about virus.

[Deleted]

The topic isn't really specifically about Anti-virus but a "total solution", I think a few people forget that and only talk about virus.

I'm aware - just highlighting that particular point because I wouldn't want anyone thinking they had an AV to rely on when they don't, which is what the post I quoted seemed to imply.

[Iamanerd]

As I've always told customers and others, AV isn't going to magically save your ass if you have bad habits on the internet. I've been AV free for a long time now and not a single virus/malware/scareware/bloatware etc. has gotten in to my machine. I do my regular checks monthly to double check and I've yet to get shit. Good internet habits trumps all.

[Deleted]

You can also stop using the internet and go into paranoia mode and you will never get a virus or anything else.

[Warrax]

Norton is still thrash imo. I work in a computer shop and we often have to remove norton products from slow computers because of the way they bloat the computer. Kaspersky PURE is another thrash program. NOD32 is great and VERY light which is what count imo.

[Deleted]

People bring their PC's to your shop because they're slow and then your conclusion is that the main reason they're slow is some bloat Norton installed?

What is it "Norton security suite" installs that you consider bloat and that can drastically slow down a PC?

How do measure the resource hog you claim?

Besides I imagine Norton is one of the most sold/present security packs, some ISP offer them for free, offered with pre-built systems etc.

[Rennadrel]

Norton is good for one thing, whoring your systems memory. I have been using Avast about 4 years now and it never fails to let me down. It updates frequently and I honestly have not had a virus in years anyway.

[Deleted]

Using Norton for 2 years now and I never had any problems with my PC. The first actual issue I had was yesterday when it wouldn't let me install LolSkins as it was classified as a virus. Minor problem, fixed.

[Metallikiddd]

I wont use it. It's a massive resource hog.

[aashish98]

I think kaspersky is a good antivirus than that of norton.

[Deleted]

I wont use it. It's a massive resource hog.

Really, can you elaborate on this?

[Iamanerd]

People bring their PC's to your shop because they're slow and then your conclusion is that the main reason they're slow is some bloat Norton installed?

What is it "Norton security suite" installs that you consider bloat and that can drastically slow down a PC?

How do measure the resource hog you claim?

Besides I imagine Norton is one of the most sold/present security packs, some ISP offer them for free, offered with pre-built systems etc.

While his claim may seem odd, I'm in the same business and I've had a few times that Norton is the sole cause for the system to slow to a crawl but most of the cases being that it's a old version of Norton and hasn't been active in years. But yes Norton today is much better but I still stay away from it as well it comes to personal preference and the free alternatives are really solid. Plus nothing prevents user stupidity.

[Twoddle]

Really, can you elaborate on this?

You can use a program like Process Monitor from the Sysinternals Suite to see what processes are causing all the activity on your computer.

Most of the time when there's a sudden burst of hard disc activity or some slowdown it's the Anti-Virus doing something in the background.

[Valort]

His experience, not yours and things change. Check the links i provided. Saying it's worse than having a virus is just plain stupid and ignorant.

I must agree with him tho.
Having Norton is worse than having no AV.

Lets compare it to something else: Having no condom is better than having a broken condom. Norton is a broken condom. It gives you a false sense of security you shouldn't have.

[Deleted]

I must agree with him tho.
Having Norton is worse than having no AV.

Lets compare it to something else: Having no condom is better than having a broken condom. Norton is a broken condom. It gives you a false sense of security you shouldn't have.

Care to provide some proof for this claim? And no I don't want to hear about Norton free version from 2005.

You can use a program like Process Monitor from the Sysinternals Suite to see what processes are causing all the activity on your computer.

Most of the time when there's a sudden burst of hard disc activity or some slowdown it's the Anti-Virus doing something in the background.

I'm aware how you can tell, I guess I'm asking some of the claims to provide some proof of these slowdowns and making Norton worse than having no firewall, antivirus etc.