Norton Security

[squeakr]

I was trying to figure out how many lines to offset it to make it funny without being blatantly obvious yet not be annoying. At least someone gets me!!

 

[AppleScruff1]

If it is, it's been completely redesigned since I used it. I had used it for many years on Windows, but abandoned it for AVG after running benchmarks and determining that Norton was consuming up to 40% of system resources. When I ditched it, it was like buying a new computer. I've never looked back.

Have you ever used the 2010 or 2011 version? It has been completely redesigned.

 

[squeakr]

The last I used was 2010, and found it to be a total train wreck of a software. Maybe 2011 is better, but life is too short and precious to wait on Norton to finish scanning.

 

[AppleScruff1]

The last I used was 2010, and found it to be a total train wreck of a software. Maybe 2011 is better, but life is too short and precious to wait on Norton to finish scanning.

Actually 2010 got very good reviews too. And not just from the main stream pc magazine sources but from independent sources too.

 

[kidaquarius]

Hey Scruff, do you work for Norton? What's up man.
You're really putting some effort into swaying the masses here..

To answer the OP's question- Running Norton on your new Mac is unnecessary.

 

[GGJstudios]

Have you ever used the 2010 or 2011 version? It has been completely redesigned.

No, I'm happy to say I've been Windows-free for 3 years. No more need for AV.

 

[squeakr]

What were the basings on (ability to detect and protect or overall ability to use the well protected machine)? Was it from magazines like the following:

(i hope it posts correctly)

 

[AppleScruff1]

Hey Scruff, do you work for Norton? What's up man.
You're really putting some effort into swaying the masses here..

To answer the OP's question- Running Norton on your new Mac is unnecessary.

I don't work for Norton. I spent some time learning about security sofware and malware the past few years and I merely pointed out that many here are carrying forward Norton's old reputation as a resource hog. If anyone actually did a bit of research they would discover that this in no longer true and hasn't been for a few years. They will also find that Norton has excellent detection rates, better than the free software. I never said that there wasn't anything better than Norton, I just said that it is very good and on of the best security suites available for Windows.

Obviously anyone with a Mac running OSX doesn't need any anti malware software.

 

[RockPortTech]

Just remember that av software you pay for is like the mafia. They only offer you 'protection' as long as you keep paying them to do so.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

The last I used was 2010, and found it to be a total train wreck of a software.

lol - im so happy im a mac boy now

 

[chrono1081]

I don't work for Norton. I spent some time learning about security sofware and malware the past few years and I merely pointed out that many here are carrying forward Norton's old reputation as a resource hog. If anyone actually did a bit of research they would discover that this in no longer true and hasn't been for a few years. They will also find that Norton has excellent detection rates, better than the free software. I never said that there wasn't anything better than Norton, I just said that it is very good and on of the best security suites available for Windows.

Obviously anyone with a Mac running OSX doesn't need any anti malware software.

Sorry but your wrong. I use the most current versions at work of both Norton and Symantec and they both have terrible detection rates, and are resource hogs, and don't even get me started on the machines running 360...

I recently spent three hours on the phone with Symantec trying to find out why their terrible software couldn't find viruses that were years old (or if it found them it didn't do anything with them, not even quarantine them). I couldn't even get a straight answer from the guy on the phone.

Its amazing when you have an infected drive that Symantec products say are clean, yet the second you run Kaspersky, or even free stuff like AVG or Avira and they find it and remove it instantly.

You may like Norton/Symantec but they are truly terrible products and shouldn't be recommended. Anyone in IT can easily tell you that.

Whats even more special is putting a virus on a thumb drive, showing the file is indeed on there (under Mac OS) then putting it into a Windows machine running Symantec products (Symantec, 360, and Norton, three different machines) not ONE detected it, yet the machines running Avira, Nod 32, Kaspersky, and AVG all detected it and deleted it instantly.

I did this as an example to try and push for a different AV at our work. It'll open your eyes to how bad Symantec products really are.

Too bad my demo was for nothing, all I got was the opportunity to make the fun call that I talked about above :/

 

[squeakr]

I always thought Peter Norton was a God. Then they started using his name in Symantec products and as the years went on I almost wanted to cry due to the injustice. Steve Gibson and Peter Norton are some of my idols.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Sorry but your wrong. I use the most current versions at work of both Norton and Symantec and they both have terrible detection rates, and are resource hogs, and don't even get me started on the machines running 360...

I recently spent three hours on the phone with Symantec trying to find out why their terrible software couldn't find viruses that were years old (or if it found them it didn't do anything with them, not even quarantine them). I couldn't even get a straight answer from the guy on the phone.

Its amazing when you have an infected drive that Symantec products say are clean, yet the second you run Kaspersky, or even free stuff like AVG or Avira and they find it and remove it instantly.

You may like Norton/Symantec but they are truly terrible products and shouldn't be recommended. Anyone in IT can easily tell you that.

Whats even more special is putting a virus on a thumb drive, showing the file is indeed on there (under Mac OS) then putting it into a Windows machine running Symantec products (Symantec, 360, and Norton, three different machines) not ONE detected it, yet the machines running Avira, Nod 32, Kaspersky, and AVG all detected it and deleted it instantly.

I did this as an example to try and push for a different AV at our work. It'll open your eyes to how bad Symantec products really are.

Too bad my demo was for nothing, all I got was the opportunity to make the fun call that I talked about above :/

I can say you're wrong too. The facts speak for themselves. NIS 2011 has an extremely high detection rate and low impact on resources. There's a multitude of information by independent sources that show that and have for them past few years. You keep repeating info from 5 years ago, things change and one must keep up with the times. As far as free stuff, Avira and Avast are better than AVG. Kaspersky, Nod 32 and a few others are also excellent.

 

[Michael383]

This is my first mac and I've always had virus protection on my computers. With my comcast internet I get free Norton security. I just noticed they have the option for macs also. Should I put it on my MBP or should I just leave it as it is.

My MBP is my first mac as well and after years of using Windows it seems strange to not be running antivirus software. As others have said you don't need it and I have no plans on installing it on my MBP.

 

[AppleScruff1]

My MBP is my first mac as well and after years of using Windows it seems strange to not be running antivirus software. As others have said you don't need it and I have no plans on installing it on my MBP.

This is a big plus and coming from Windows it seems strange not to use it.

 

[kappaknight]

Wow. I never thought I'd see the Norton name in these threads. Glad to be rid of it in my life.

As for Scruff, instead of just posting your opinion, why not post some links to some reviews or research to back up what you're saying? Stop trolling if you have nothing concrete to add to the discussion.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Wow. I never thought I'd see the Norton name in these threads. Glad to be rid of it in my life.

As for Scruff, instead of just posting your opinion, why not post some links to some reviews or research to back up what you're saying? Stop trolling if you have nothing concrete to add to the discussion.

You're joking, right? I"m trolling? Go back and read my first post in this thread and see where it was taken from there. What did you add to the discussion? What I have stated can be found quite easily, but a few anecdotal claims by some here are accepted as fact. If you're interested, do some reading and see what you may learn.

 

[JasonH42]

This is my first mac and I've always had virus protection on my computers. With my comcast internet I get free Norton security. I just noticed they have the option for macs also. Should I put it on my MBP or should I just leave it as it is.

Never ever install the Norton virus.

 

[SPEEDwithJJ]

I don't really like Norton AV software & I prefer Kaspersky myself on my Windows partition of my MBP but I found a very interesting Norton review as follows:

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5912&review=Symantec+Norton+360+Review

Good luck.

 

[8CoreWhore]

Norton's IS a virus.

I have ClamXav that I run once in awhile, or scan something I'm sending to a Windows friend. But I leave nothing like that running.

4.5 years on Macs, surfing the dark side... and never had any virus or spyware, etc.

EDIT== ClamXav is free, open source.

http://www.clamxav.com/

 

[AppleScruff1]

Have at it. Lots of good info on this site. Thanks to Baserk at Notebook Review for his wealth of info on security and malware. This is a thread with free security info: And before anyone complains, the thread was started in 2007 and is kept up to date.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/security-anti-virus-software/190538-best-free-security-software.html

Another good source from the same site:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sec...-index-sticky-please-read-before-posting.html

And for the real meat and potatoes:

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

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/summary/summary2010.pdf

 

[squeakr]

Interesting links. Thanks for the read, although I noticed that Symantec hasn't been evaluated in a corporate environment since May 2009 (almost 2 years). I also noticed that they left out one of the prime things I have been complaining about in my posts about Symantec being a resource hog is the boot times. They completely left out this in the evaluation. I stated in one of my posts that running VMs brought the systems to their knees, especially during start up. For those of us in corporate environments (as that is what I have been referring to) that need to constantly start and stop VMs this is a major issues. I also noted that the reviews seemed skewed. One reviewer said it was super, but his measured results were below the industry standard in 2 of the 3 sections tested and yet it still received a glowing review and recommendation (in fact they were almost at the bottom of all of the AV software tested for those categories, so does that mean all AV software then becomes superb?). Something seems fishy there. I have to question as well why anyone would set up a test environment with Windows 7 32 bit (December 2010 test configuration). It is getting very hard to find that (a Windows 7 32 bit installation) configuration in this day and age as most are coming with Windows 7 64 bit standard configurations (so I again ask why test an outdated configuration)?

 

[kappaknight]

It is getting very hard to find that (a Windows 7 32 bit installation) configuration in this day and age as most are coming with Windows 7 64 bit standard configurations (so I again ask why test an outdated configuration)?

My guess is most Windows users do not perform the scheduled upgrades like OSX people do. 32bit may be more common out in the field than those running 64.

 

[squeakr]

My guess is most Windows users do not perform the scheduled upgrades like OSX people do. 32bit may be more common out in the field than those running 64.

I was just basing my observation on the fact that the majority of the computers released within the last 2 years have come with Windows 7 64bit installations as the basic configuration (usually some flavor of 7 home or 7 home premium), and it is getting harder to find a non 64 bit configuration from the manufacturers as the base (not thinking along the lines of any upgrades). I agree that there are probably lots of XP 32 bit installations, but that makes the benchmarks biased if one expects the XP installations to perform like Windows 7 installations (which is why I think they are skewed).

 

[zurichuk]

I've used Norton for years until I started to convert to Macs last year and still have it on my old Windows systems, I never had these issues mentioned here. I had one problem 2 years ago when it failed working, and support fixed it remotely in under an hour. Oh well.