Norton Security

[squeakr]

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.

That is the thing, unless you have changed systems and/or have the chance to compare to other AV software you wouldn't notice any sort of overhead. Most people would just write it off as the system is getting slower due to the latest Windows upgrade, slow internet connection, etc. I do QA (functional as well as performance testing) and I can see the overhead deteriorating with Symantec products (as could my company, hence the move away from it).

 

[AppleScruff1]

I have more links if anyone is interested. It takes hours to read and compare, so I doubt anyone will want to. Squeakr, I have no idea how Norton performs in the corporate world, but there is a lot of information that shows that is an excellent choice for the home user. And it's obvious that people still have the past issues in their minds even though they haven't kept up with the newest versions and latest reviews. It's no different than saying Macbook Pro's run too hot because the 3 year old model did.

 

[squeakr]

I appreciate the links, but reviews are only good a starting base line. If everyone agrees something is awful then that is probably a good and true indication of the product, but when people have an agenda, all reviews do is to prove or disprove that agenda. Reviews are only as good as the reviewer. I looked at some and the reviews and they had statements like "these statements and findings may not be correct as the information was obtained from the manufacturer and unverified." Why even put up a review if all it is going to be is free marketing for the manufacturer (that sounds like an agenda to me, as I have never seen a manufacturer put out negative press against their product.) I still can't see how something that finishes at almost the bottom on 2 out of the 3 evaluated categories (and the 3rd category finished in the middle of the pack) could be a recommended buy. Obviously they have different criteria for a good product than we have.
It is like recommending the Firestone tires that came on Ford Explorers as a must buy, as not "ALL" of them exploded and blew up!

 

[AppleScruff1]

Except that I provided reviews outside of the mainstream users realm. I can provide links to the major magazines and sites that will tell more of the same. I purposely didn't include them. If none of the independent or magazine reviews are credible, then why is your opinion or anyone else's here valid? I simply stated that there is a lot of evidence that NIS is not a resource hog and that it performs quite well. Again, I have no idea about the corporate world. And I also never said that Norton was the best or the only good product. There are others that are also good.

There are free solutions that are very good too. The links to the Notebook Review site provide a lot of malware and malware removal information. I understand that this is of no use to Mac users, but for Windows it is.

 

[squeakr]

I am not saying that my word is worth anything, but when several people here are all reporting the same results (and the reviews are yielding the same results) yet the reviewers are still giving a glowing review of the product, does that not sound biased and/or skewed to you??? It shouldn't matter if the reviewers are mainstream or niche markets, the recommendations should be in line with the measured results, or I call them suspect.
Not that I think Consumer Reports is a reputable source (they have been proven to be biased in that the products reviewed are supportive of CR monetarily or the products don't get reviewed, not saying a payoff, but more like advertising in their publication, etc),but when they reviewed the iPhone4 they couldn't give it a buy rating due to the antenna performance, even though it was the highest rated smartphone by consumers at the time. They at least stuck to their guns, not that I agree with their findings, but their reviews were resultant of them. Had they posted bad results and lots of complaints by the reviewers, yet gave them a must buy rating, we would all be suspect of their review. The same thing is happening here.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Your word is your opinion and based on your experiences, just like the reviews. Maybe different situations but still similar. Where in any of the reviews have you seen NIS 2011 called a resource hog? And where did you read that it offered poor protection?

Read the reviews for your product of choice and you will see pros and cons with an overall assessment. Same thing for Norton. If you read the PC Magazine, Maximum PC, CNet and a few others, you will find glowing reviews for NIS. And the same for a few other top notch products. I actually LOL'd at one review that said Norton catered to the geek crowed and was a bit complicated for the average user. Other suites were said to be easier to use for the average user.

I have used it on my Windows machines for a few years and I have had zero issues. You can surf beastiality, hardcore porn, anal enema babes etc with no worries.

I just added that for some humor.

 

[squeakr]

Where in any of the reviews have you seen NIS 2011 called a resource hog? And where did you read that it offered poor protection?

Since you asked, I saw those things posted in the last link you posted that went to the AV comparison website that specialized in AV software comparisons. They didn't use the term hog, but said that we removed the boot time from the reviews and comparisons as the times for the system to fully boot and everything to load and settle down was too great and varied from seconds to minutes depending on the background activities loading. That means resource intensive if it is slowing the boot time! They also said that it failed to find certain intrusions and stop them. This means lack of protection.
I never complained about the lack of protection (as I never had that problem as I am aware of my usage unlike some. I went for 6 years of college with no AV and dabbled with writing viruses yet still managed not to get infected as reported by casual online scans) but the way it tied up system resources was noticeable. Just booting a system or trying to send an email was painful to the point of making me want to jab pens into my skull.
You still are avoiding the issue by questioning my word. I have not denied that my word is my opinion (as is your word, so what makes your so much more correct or valid than mine as the links you posted back your points just as much as they back mine), but when others have reported the same results as me, and that includes the reviewers in your provided links, how can that be considered a good review??? Is it because they say negative things and discredit certain portions of the product and then end it with "we highly recommend it"?
I also saw some of the reviews rating things speeds as fast, very fast, moderate, etc. Without any sort of vectoral scale or legend to compare against, this review was nothing more then subjective. It is like saying something is good or bad (but by what standards and compared to what).

 

[Macsavvytech]

Norton providing ant virus for mac is practically a crime in itself.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I'm not avoiding any issue or questioning your word. If I read good reviews from 10 major sources, I may place some faith in their opinions. No product is perfect. I can read reviews that point out the flaws in Apple products too, does that make them useless?

http://www.av-test.org/certifications


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381924,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369749,00.asp
I'm not avoiding any issue or questioning your word. If I read good reviews from 10 major sources, I may place some faith in their opinions.
https://www.icsalabs.com/

http://download.cnet.com/Norton-Internet-Security-2011/3000-18510_4-10592551.html

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/norton_internet_security_2011_review

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/default/3221259/symantec-norton-internet-security-2011-review/

 

[vincenz]

Norton providing ant virus for mac is practically a crime in itself.

Exactly. They should publish the list of Mac users who are subscribed to them so we can point and laugh.

 

[squeakr]

No product is perfect. I can read reviews that point out the flaws in Apple products too, does that make them useless?

Nope, it doesn't make them useless, it just makes them flawed. You wont get any argument from me on that as I like PC, just like Apple more.

The iPhone 4 was a prime example of that. Hold it in a certain way and it looses signal. Wrap it in a case and it doesn't. I agree that it should have been reworked, but I still use and like my iPhone. Yes I kept it, but won't argue that the complaints found and posted aren't there or valid, which is what you are claiming about Norton.
If you want, use it and enjoy it. Most people will never know what lag is as things are so bloated today due to inefficient code. In 2000 Norton was fast, but the fact is that it is slow today comparatively. I functional test and have seen actual performance numbers with and without it running (these are simulated and real world performance numbers for measuring efficiency of software and not testing benchmarks). Most people wont notice but then again most aren't doing anything intensive (especially considering the raw power of todays machines). With the processes and apps I run, my system currently idles at 30% CPU usage on a 2011 2.3 i7 quad, before firing them up (tell me again that I won't notice lag or resources being utilized, oh right that is just my opinion talking again).

 

[AppleScruff1]

I give up. I've posted a multitude of information that states that Norton isn't heavy on the resources and that it provides good protection. It also has no effect on boot time and does not slow the computer down. I guess they're all wrong. Silly me.

 

[phpmaven]

If you did a bit of research you would see that isn't the case at all.

Excuse me? Just about anything Symantec/Norton makes is total bloated garbage. I wouldn't let any of their software come within 100 ft of any of my systems. I have been in the IT field for many years and I can't count the number of PCs I've seen brought to their knees or slowed to a grinding halt by the dreaded "Norton AntiVirus" or even worse *shudder* any of the "security" suites.

I would sooner throw my MacBook into a vat of boiling oil than let anything with the name "Symantec" come anywhere near it. Not that I have strong feelings about it.

All kidding aside, there are MANY lost hours of life and frustrations that have created this loathing I have for that Company. The only thing they ever made which was good IMHO was PC Anywhere.

 

[squeakr]

I give up. I've posted a multitude of information that states that Norton isn't heavy on the resources and that it provides good protection. It also has no effect on boot time and does not slow the computer down. I guess they're all wrong. Silly me.

I can finally agree with you on something...silly you. I don't think you were really reading through the reviews with an open mind, but to satisfy your points and back them.

I read through all of your links and only three even mentioned boot time:
1)said they weren't including it as the time was too long to determine exactly when it had completed and stabilized so they were not including it to be fair..doesn't sound like it is fast performing to me!!
2) Said "NIS (Norton Internet Security) added 6.5 seconds of boot time and NAV (Norton Anti Virus) added a whopping 12.5 seconds of boot time"..I added the quotations as that was their exact statement (i Also added the name definitions in parenthesis as they were defined later in the review)...definitely not fast when people are adding SSD drives to drop boot times to what NAV added, that would result in twice the boot time as without
3) the last said that it added no measureable time to the boot.....we are left to decide what that means, as in too little they couldn't measure it, not much to make a difference, or it still beats the boot time of PCs from the early 90's when we cold make a sandwich and shower during the initial boot time?? We may never know as we must be a geek to really use as it is not for your Aunt Agnes' computer as they state within. Sounds more like a trying to be cute review to me.

Most of the reviews stated that they based the criteria on ability to find and block or destroy virus related occurrences, and they did rate it very well on that ability, but only the 3 stated above, of your links, stated they measure system performance in doing so, yet never gave their process or measuring and rating system. I stated that I never had issues with its ability to detect, identify, block, and destroy viruses and the like, just the resources used in doing so.

In you credit one did state almost word for word what you have been saying about it not being "the bloated, crash prone prone Norton of yore" (their exact words not yours or mine), but then went on to provide no background of that statement as they just provided information on its ability to detect and identify virus and suspect files. There was no mention of resource measurement or timings of scans. Nothing to back their claims. Most thought a measurement of the time it took to complete a scan was the indication of the use of available resources and claimed that showed it was efficient in resource usage. Explain to me how that equates....it scanned quickly so therefor it is resource light??????

I am not trying to be an antagonist, it is juts that I have read the links you posted and can find no indication from the reviews that it is not bloated and resource heavy. Way fast (as was several reviewers conclusion) is not a measurement of resources used or involved. A simple look into Task Manager would have been a better indication as it would have yielded threads and CPU in use during the scan, loading, etc. Not one even came close to these measurements and they are supposed to be technical publications???

Excuse me? Just about anything Symantec/Norton makes is total bloated garbage. I would let any of their software come within 100 ft of any of my systems. I have been in the IT field for many years and I can't count the number of PCs I've seen brought to their knees or slowed to a grinding halt by the dreaded "Norton AntiVirus" or even worse *shudder* any of the "security" suites.

I would sooner throw my MacBook into a vat of boiling oil than let anything with the name "Symantec" come anywhere near it. Not that I have strong feelings about it.

All kidding aside, there are MANY lost hours of life and frustrations that have created this loathing I have for that Company. The only thing they ever made which was good IMHO was PC Anywhere.

I second everything you have experienced and said except for one thing...I also think that Norton Utilities and System works, after Symantec added the Norton moniker which was around the mid to late 90's, were very good, stable, and reliable tools.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I doubt you read much of anything I linked to. I provided over a dozen links that rate NIS in the top few security suites. You guys twist it anyway you want. They rate is highly because it is so poor. It's rated as superb on several sites, but I'm just using what I want to prove my point. Everything you say it gospel truth even though not one of you provided one shred of evidence to back up your claims. Keep your thinking back several years. Learning something new can be very scary. Enjoy. I expected more from all of the experts here.

 

[chrono1081]

Excuse me? Just about anything Symantec/Norton makes is total bloated garbage. I would let any of their software come within 100 ft of any of my systems. I have been in the IT field for many years and I can't count the number of PCs I've seen brought to their knees or slowed to a grinding halt by the dreaded "Norton AntiVirus" or even worse *shudder* any of the "security" suites.

I would sooner throw my MacBook into a vat of boiling oil than let anything with the name "Symantec" come anywhere near it. Not that I have strong feelings about it.

All kidding aside, there are MANY lost hours of life and frustrations that have created this loathing I have for that Company. The only thing they ever made which was good IMHO was PC Anywhere.

Thank you! Sorry Applescruff your links mean nothing. Literally. Those of us who work in IT and deal with the software every single day know how bad and useless it really is. What I posted before is not opinion, its fact. When Symantec can't even tell me why their crapware can't find viruses then you know there are problems.

Seriously you will be hard pressed to find anyone in IT who recommends Symantec products. (Anyone who knows what they are doing anyway).

 

[AppleScruff1]

Thank you! Sorry Applescruff your links mean nothing. Literally. Those of us who work in IT and deal with the software every single day know how bad and useless it really is. What I posted before is not opinion, its fact. When Symantec can't even tell me why their crapware can't find viruses then you know there are problems.

Seriously you will be hard pressed to find anyone in IT who recommends Symantec products. (Anyone who knows what they are doing anyway).

Since it is fact, post some proof. Show me reviews of NIS 2011 that say it's garbage. Since your an expert, show me some reviews from the sources that you professionals use. Is that asking too much? I have provided hours of reading on the subject. I'm all ears to learn more.

 

[bentoms]

I used the older Symantec AV 10 in a SOX compliant corporate environment where i managed 270 Macs & there was also 700+ PC's

Reporting, resource hogging, port detection & a terrible Mac management console made us move to Sophos.

Sophos, IMO, is very light weight. It just does the job!

They have a free version here for home use too: http://www.sophos.com/products/free-tools/free-mac-anti-virus/

I've not used Clam, but have heard good things about it.

 

[squeakr]

I doubt you read much of anything I linked to. I provided over a dozen links that rate NIS in the top few security suites. .

You are the one that twists things, as you are so deep in the forest you can't see the trees. I quoted direct references from your links (or do they not count since I didn't cut and paste?). If you had read them yourself you would have known what I was quoting, so why doubt that I read them ( am I that stupid that I am going to make up quotes??). Did I sit down and fully read them beginning to end, I will admit No, I skimmed them from beginning to end, but should I really be required to read a section entitled "Virus Detection Accuracy" that the first few sentences detail how they tested the software's ability to recognize a virus definition?? No what does this have to do with resource usage, which I asked to prove?? As I have stated numerous times, for me it is all about the resources and overhead. The links you posted all gave glowing reviews about the security, as that is their main concern and focus. You keep lumping me in with the others that are having issues with actual safety issues. Do you not have the reviews that I asked for about resource usage and overhead, so you are throwing things out there that are unrelated as long as they back your point???

You can think what you want, as you haven't provided any links to prove that it is a non resource intensive program. You keep referring to how it runs so much better now than it did 3-5 years ago, so you admit yourself it has resource usage issues. You neglect to point out processor architecture has more than 4 times+ the performance and power of those processors. Even the crap of 5 years ago will run smoothly on a quad core (as long as it is compatible), but doesn't prove it is being resource conscious.
I would post my findings but they would mean nothing to the average person, as they are runtime loadings from LoadRunner, WinRunner, QTP time folds and QC report legends. I alredy proved to you from one of your glowing reviews that NIS added 6.5 seconds to boot time and NAV added 12.5. With people spending upwards of $1.5K to get the largest and fastest RAM available and another $500+ to get the fastest SSD available and benchmarking out the yin yang just to save a few seconds max here and there, doesn't it seem that adding seconds and slowing things down through resource overhead is counter productive??

Also it is very hard to find a disparaging printed review in this day and age as people who do such lose their readership, credibility with manufacturers, and as a result their income (so only the truly wealthy and non-profits can afford to be unbiased). Look at some of the major blogs and sites, when they post negative reviews they seem to never get invited to events or offered preproduction units for evaluation anymore, so instead they print reviews that are average to favorable to stay in the good graces (or they just don't review it at all/ leave their findings out, which is what I wonder happened with Norton being left out of the Corporate AV review in one of your links, and they weren't the only one left out the field was about half the number of suites of what the other areas were). Hey it is big business. Even people paying you to find the issues (I am in QA consulting, as I have said many times before) don't want to hear about the issues you find. They would rather shell out the big bucks and have you gloss it over so they can go to their superiors and report how well their systems are doing rather than look the fool and waster of the companies money for projects that don't work well currently and probably never will.

Even the review publications only do a worst of review at best once a year, and only devote a couple of pages to it. They are nice to read at times, but nobody wants to buy a magazine of nothing but negative! Even review sites like Anandtech have to grease the palms and walk a fine line. They write their reports in such a way that it doesn't appear as bad, using phrases such as I was disappointed in my findings of A when compared to B. Rather than A was an outright failure and needs to go back to be re-enginered into a workable product. It is all about the tone, as they are not only providing a service to the reader they are providing a service to the manufacturer in the form of a real-world (hopefully) review and free marketing.

 

[bigjobby]

One must remember that off the shelf consumer anti-virus products are rarely used in a corporate environment. I've used Norton at home previously and would never do so again and similarly with McAfee. However, the McAfee business/corporate version (can't remember the actual version title) is VERY resource light like Sophos because it doesn't have all the gunk that's included in the consumer version. Not saying which is better but they are probably very comparable.

My mother-in-law has a new laptop which has NIS 360 installed and what a horrible piece of junk it is. Just my opinion but saying that, I don't think the product was made for the more tech savvy people like myself but instead for the more 'average' consumer and such.

 

[AppleScruff1]

LMAO!! Since all of my sources are rubbish, post some of the professional sources. Also a list of any security software that uses zero resources and no effect on system boot. I have freely admitted that it HAD resource issues a few years ago. I have no idea where you read that it is a resource hog in any of the information I have provided. I ask you to please show me your sources that say otherwise. I'm interested in reading them. I'm the only one in this thread to provide any links. Why don't you post a few so I can claim they're not credible too? That would make this a fair discussion. You keep stating that I have proven nothing, yet I'm the only one to provide sources. What did Maximum PC say about resource use? PC magazine? 2011, not 2008. Things change and old stereotypes refuse to die.

One must remember that off the shelf consumer anti-virus products are rarely used in a corporate environment.

I never mentioned anything about corporate use. My first reply in this thread was for Windows use. The experts then rushed in with their claims of garbage without one link to show where this was stated. I provide over a dozen links to back up my opinion, but the experts all claim they are worthless. I'm very open minded and would love to read all of the reviews that say NIS is no good and a poor choice.

 

[bigjobby]

Hey squeakr,

Would you mind editing your post and adding some paragraphs? Would love to read your post but the readability is appalling. Not trying to be rude so don't take it the wrong way.

Cheers.

 

[squeakr]

Hey squeakr,

Would you mind editing your post and adding some paragraphs? Would love to read your post but the readability is appalling. Not trying to be rude so don't take it the wrong way.

Cheers.

I would love to if someone can tell me how. You can see the hardstops/returns at the end of what I tried to make into paragraphs, and I had indentation to offset the new lines. For some reason everytime I hit submit, it gets slammed back into one large blob!!!! Maybe I can try to add a line between to break it up and the system will allow that??

And can someone explain to me how when I go back in to edit my posts, they are appearing as I intended them to in the edit box??????? Do I have a setting wrong somewhere that changes my formatting during submit, if that is even possible?? And I added spaces between, we will see if that works???

 

[chrono1081]

Since it is fact, post some proof. Show me reviews of NIS 2011 that say it's garbage. Since your an expert, show me some reviews from the sources that you professionals use. Is that asking too much? I have provided hours of reading on the subject. I'm all ears to learn more.

Professionals don't use reviews, they use experience. Reviews should only ever be a starting point. The thing about reviews you have to remember is they don't have 5000+ machines to test this stuff on. Reviewers also usually use brand new machines, you wont find brand new machines often in corporate environments. Luckily where I work we have a mix of old and new machines, and a mix of Symantec products. All the products are pure garbage. Its amazing how many times false positives will be generated and the real stuff completely missed, (or found but Symantec can't do anything about it). The only thing Symantec products are good for is to keep a large IT staff busy.

You say you are all ears yet there are many people on this thread telling you that what you are reading is wrong, and many of these people do this stuff for a living.

 

[squeakr]

LMAO!! Since all of my sources are rubbish, post some of the professional sources. Also a list of any security software that uses zero resources

See that is what I mean. I never said they were rubbish, trying to discredit my posts by insinuating I said things I didn't. I just said that they didn't prove that NIS was resource light and they don't. Resource light doesn't mean 0 resources either, there again asking the impossible (that is like asking for the computer that when off yet still plugged in draws no power). But as requested, in one of your links, it was stated that the measured resource infringement for Sophos was measured near 0 impact (something like 0.3-0.5) From personal experience ClamX is very resource light as well.

As I have stated, I don't have links that state it as resource heavy just personal experience, but then I don't care to use it or have need for it so why would I have or care for them? If I had the need to influence someone wether to buy or not I would dig out my proof, by way of our performance charts. It was my boss that ran the tests (and he used to work for CA prior) and decided to get rid of Norton. We haven't finalized our choice, but know it won't be CA and in the meantime are using MSE (which I am nit convinced is as secure) but is way lighter in resources, so I don't care.