I have been wandering around on various antivirus forums to find what I should be using. And, everyone pretty much seems to agree that NOD32 is one of the best, if not the best “paid” (best in terms of the optimization between quality and lightness) antivirus software. Likewise, the best free antivirus software is dubbed as either avast or antivir.
The common thing, in almost all of these forums though is that, everyone bashes Norton AV, and says it misses viruses, it is a resource hog, this that.
What I don’t understand is that, according to independent/reputable antivirus comparison sites, NAV performs quite well…
NAV performs really well. At least it is definitely better than Avast/Antivir in terms of detection rate.
I can understand that NAV’s home edition is slow, it intervenes all the time–which is very annoying-- and such a big resource hog, but NAV Corporate Edition is pretty light weight, and it does not put too much load on the system.
Could someone please explain what is the reason of this discrepancy, and why people hate NAV so much?
It’s simple from my point of view. First, you cannot believe all these test as some are biased in their findings. We will not go into why they are sometimes biased because the reasons are many and varible. Second, Symantec/Norton is a resource hog filled with unneeded code, next to no help should you have problems with the program or an infection, and worse than a virus to uninstall are just a few of the reasons. And, you pay for this sorry service! >:(
If you are an ex-Nav user who has switched to Avast (or any other av other than McAfee … it’s almost as bad) after Nav let your computer get infected nearly causing you to loose a one year old computer … and, Avast has kept infections out ever since … you will appreciate the low resource usage, quick incrimental auto updates, helpful forum, and helpful alwil/avast staff.
I know because I am an ex-Norton’s user … and happy to be an ex! ;D
Norton/Symantec & McAfee … been there, done that; will not do it again!
I’ve tested both… Antivir has some more heuristic features but, from time to time, more false positives.
Update, customization, GUI, etc., well, avast! is far better than Antivir, imho.
What can’t money make? Adversitesement… I can’t believe a worst resource hog than NAV. Besides, we can scan our computer and find nothing while others (AVG, Antivir, BitDefender and avast) detect… :-\
This was discussed a lot and will be very difficult to make us believe on this…
Hate at first glance ;D
Worse: hate that have your system hijacked by NAV ;D
Almost all of us tested NAV before… thanks God, never more 8)
Just to clarify this one more time, you are talking about the Corporate Edition, right? Not the Home Edition??? As I mentioned in my first post, I think they are very different, and from the way you describe it, it looks like you guys are talking about the Home Edition… So, I just wanted to make sure…
You need to pay to use Norton. You could pirate it, but virus signature database files aren’t free forever. Subscription based? No thanks.
A new version coming out every year. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading. BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT.
Norton has hijacked systems before. Norton has slowed systems down before. Once bitten twice shy.
I don’t trust big companies like Adobe/Symantec/Microsoft. So I either don’t pay a cent for using their software, or avoid using them in the first place.
I used to use AVG Antivirus/Panda, now I’m using Avast for good.
You will probably find that the corporate edition has no active sheild / constant monitor if I recall correctly, so naturally you are going to get low resource requirement. Nothing is running until you scan.
Check taskmanager and see how many processes are running to confirm.
Not many people will know about Corporate version so are basing Norton experience on Home. Also some will not have tried Norton since the dark age and might not know about improvements since 2003. Besides this is partly a forum for free AV so expect only a few paid AV can “survive” 8) Also Norton is a huge package, Avast tiny in comparison - different needs and audience.
You could test the claims and install 2006 version. I have and was surprised how many options it had. Much like Avast compared to AVG. I thought the typical Symantec buyer would prefer to be kept away from too many choices and options but I guess not. More or less a postive experience, not a deadly hog on fast computer and it can be hacked a bit. 20-25mb for a mini setup. You can find positive user-reviews comparing it to older versions, have to look for them though. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?s=cef8f4cdc784b423e8f4fd50e5db1f6c&t=116783&highlight=norton+2006+memory Avast has nothing to do with Symantec Home, compare to other “Suites”. Then I can imagine it looks quite good, may be even a bit light! Still has problems cleaning up during uninstallation but they know and have some reg-files ready for download. They take care of remaining 999 entries…
Anyway, if you use Avast in combination with Windows Defender or similar security thingy plus some (system)awareness (firefox vs. IE perhaps) what more you need? People here know Avast is not in top 3 when it comes to pure detection tests but do they get infected more? What makes an AV program? I know I would still use Avast even if Norton was free. Should you test 10 brand new cracks per day then may be absolute best real time shield is needed but if not less will do. You prefer paying cause you get what you pay for etc. well then you allready know what a research will suggest. You should get the very best if you feel computer is at risk 24 hours a day no matter what you do.
You can still test with NOD32, Symantec and more should you go for Avast. http://virusscan.jotti.org/ and http://www.virustotal.com/flash/index_en.html can doublecheck those rare files you have doubts about. You can also install free Bitdefender together with Avast. But as said, should you be in a high risk environment then pay up…
Can you even buy Corporate version in a single package btw.?
Sorry. I was talking about the home version as I never used the Corporate. I did read your first post but just want to share my experience including Antivir.
Cloussau, are you sure? This will be a version that can’t ever be used in a local computer… Does the resident works on the server? I can’t believe how it’s protecting a local machine this way…
The corperate edition of Norton is WAY better than the home version. If only norton would make their home version exactly like their corperate version they would have a very solid AV for home users. I will and can verify this as i work with the SAV corperate edition at work, it detects more than the the home versions, and has gotten better foot print wise for the corperate edition. In fact the corperate edition uses less memory than Avast does.
Now i use the pro trial version of avast if im in a real bind and cannot effectivly clean the system with the corp of norton as lots and lots of viruses attack and disable norton cause it is so widely used, but the corp version isnt bad at all. The corp version does have a real time scanning ability and has some huristics available as well.
The only thing that the corp doesnt have is any sort of web scanner like avast does and that is because the corp version of norton is designed to be used on a corp network with corp firewalls and network filters so that viruses and spyware dont get past them to the system so only a antivirus is needed in case something does happen to slip by via email.
If you want to use norton corp for a company then you should be fine and their support for their corp users is better than for the home users, but if you know what you are doing you shouldnt need anything but google and a good understanding of the windows registry.
I have no idea how avasts products work other than the home edition that i use on my home computer. I love avast and how it works and its webscanner is worth its weight in gold for keeping trojans out of my system. Im sure avast has some good products to compete with norton corp, but do remember that norton makes you manually install updates if you want them done every single day instead of maybe once a week, vs avast that updates just about everyday.
Well well… is it a good antivirus after all? Lots of infections : :o :
What I’ve suspected… the resident part is absolutely necessary.
In fact, there are a lot of ways to by-pass firewall protection by viruses and spyware… Corporate firewalls and network filters still need a good antivirus as far I can see.
At least… The Home support is unbelivable bad…
In fact, an antivirus that requires a good understanding of windows registry is far from being that good.
Are you sure? It’s impossible that an automated update is not available… ???
In fact, for me, with home edition, Norton miss some detections compared to avast or AVG.
I have very few - if any - false positives using NAV in the past.
Norton Corporate does have automatic updates (it updates daily)… Its a pretty good AV, much better than the home version… No unnecessary crap… Pretty good if you ask me… But then the price factor comes…
:o :