Norton Security

[AppleScruff1]

Here are a few of your posts. How did I discredit anything since this is what you said? Read the Kaspersky reviews too. It is a good product which also has flaws. I haven't read much about Sophos recently but I will check it out.

And by your logic, there are people here posting problems with their Macbook Pro's so I guess they are garbage and should be avoided at all costs. After all, if a few people have problems then everyone must, right?

Don't even use it for Windows. Choose something else like Sophos, MSE, or Kaspersky. Symantec is a resource hog. Like I said, Symantec ruined Peter Norton's good name IMHO.

I have done the research and I have run the tests (it will literally bring a system running heavy VMs to its knees, and this was a new loaded quad core as well not some stripped down bare bones). We used it at work and got rid of it due to resource intensiveness (although the latest versions are better than the version of years past). MSE is much better in regard to resources as is Kaspresky, and Sophos has one of the lower resource requirements/ usage and is highly regarded in the Corporate world. I have worked for numerous companies (I do consulting for a living) and none of them will use Norton for this exact reason (McAfee is just as bad if not worse).

I agree with most of this except the endpoint comment. We had endpoint and what an awful, bloated piece of software it was. Boot times were slowed as were most things we needed to do (email, launch VMs, etc). When we got rid of it I thought I had gotten a new computer it was that much of a difference.

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.

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.

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.

I agree, the reviewers don't test it on thousands of machines and that reviews are only a starting point. So you and Squeakr are credible, but 15 review sites and labs aren't?

 

[squeakr]

Here are a few of your posts. How did I discredit anything since this is what you said? Read the Kaspersky reviews too. It is a good product which also has flaws. I haven't read much about Sophos recently but I will check it out.

And by your logic, there are people here posting problems with their Macbook Pro's so I guess they are garbage and should be avoided at all costs. After all, if a few people have problems then everyone must, right?


I agree, the reviewers don't test it on thousands of machines and that reviews are only a starting point. So you and Squeakr are credible, but 15 review sites and labs aren't?

You are discrediting my posts by stating I said things I never did. Where in any of my posts did I call it rubbish, garbage, etc (once referred to it as a train wreck and many times as a resource hog, but like I said performance measurements taken by my company have showed that) or a security risk. Why not use my words instead of using words that don't mean or have the same connotations as I used. All of the quotes you tagged have related to resource overhead, which is what I have harped on from the beginning. They also state I in them which implies personal experience and opinion. No where did I state issues with is security ability, so why not take those arguments and direct them at the users that have stated those claims rather than use them against me.

I never have stated anything as fact, so why the personal attacks that I haven't proven anything. I have only called your links into question (and even quoted them directly) but you still deny that what I said exists. You claimed I probably didn't read any of them, yet software I stated was in higher regard in Corporate world was reviewed in those reports so you must not have read them either.

I never stated that I was credible, just stated my experiences so why constantly try to put me down for my opinions and experiences. If you feel the need to constantly try and belittle me with comments like that or the ones that say "by my reasoning something is flawed" or " something must be garbage" you are showing your lack of maturity and the ability to form a logical conclusion or argument. I never claimed something wasn't flawed, so why even go there??

Are you feeling threatened or upset because using you own links I was unable to find measured proof that the resources were indeed lightened in this release? If you are so sure of your links, post something from them that proves with a measured repeatable data and test set that the resources are lighter, rather than just try to discredit my opinion posts. I am not upset with you nor have anything against you, just when you claim I am wrong, all I am asking is for you to show me how I am wrong?, You claim reviews are to the contrary and I haven't seen any of them that are measured definitive repeatable proof. You stated 15 links supported it, so I challenge that you should be able to produce 15 definitive repeatable measured results that the resources are lighter in this version .

As a side not, none of them made comparative measurements between older versions and newer versions, so newer versions running on dual and quad cores will seem lighter than core duos and pentiums of the past (not really fair comparisons)

 

[NickZac]

Norton on Mac = fail

 

[AppleScruff1]

I bolded what you said, how is that discrediting? Show me one instance where I attacked you personally. I have not belittled you. And calling me immature? That says a lot about you. This is a discussion, you have told me I am wrong and that my sources aren't any good, even though I provided a substantial number of them. You got owned.

 

[squeakr]

I bolded what you said, how is that discrediting? Show me one instance where I attacked you personally. I have not belittled you. And calling me immature? That says a lot about you. This is a discussion, you have told me I am wrong and that my sources aren't any good, even though I provided a substantial number of them. You got owned.

Only in your mind. You have yet to post anything from any of your links disproving my comments. I didn't say you were immature, I said your statements showed your lack of maturity there is a big difference. And yes you have belittled me by paraphrasing my comments in your more negative terms rather than use my terms (which you have bolded, yet you still claim I used the terminology you state) and stating that "I have credibility." Since you don't actually agree with that statement nor believe it, that could be a text book example of belittling (as that is what belittling is making fun a situation or thing in jest and with the purpose of making light of another).

 

[mrwonkers]

No, I'm not wrong at all. Do some research on NIS 2011 and get back to me. You're talking about things a few years in the past.

Back up your arguments with hard facts and statistics otherwise you come off a little like this :

 

[AppleScruff1]

Did you miss this from Maximum PC?:

Unlike last year’s version, trying to trip up NIS with our malware samples proved futile. Symantec upgraded its SONAR technology, which pays close attention to how a program behaves rather than relying solely on virus definitions. The idea is to catch zero-day threats that slip into the wild, and it worked beautifully with our contaminated archive. NIS also shields against potentially harmful websites, though you can still truck through if you suspect it’s a false positive.

Installing Norton had no impact on our test bed’s boot time, and system scans were among the fastest of the bunch. We’re beating what’s left of a dead horse at this point, but this isn’t the same Norton from three-plus years ago. Our only real complaint is that Symantec perhaps caters a little too much to enthusiasts and risks alienating some mainstream users.

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

Or maybe this from PC Magazine?

Independent labs consistently award Symantec's Norton technology their highest ratings, and it attained a new high score in my own malware-removal test, a full half-point above the closest contenders. Webroot AntiVirus with Spy Sweeper 2011 ($39.99, ) scored higher in specific tests against rootkits and scareware, though Norton came close. As far as blocking installation of malware on a clean system, Norton thoroughly deflected all the threats it recognized; but other apps, in particular Ad-Aware Pro Internet Security 8.3 ($29.95, ) and Webroot, scored higher. For details on how I test malware removal and blocking, see How We Test Anti-malware.

I rated Norton higher for malware protection than my own tests alone would merit. I can't discount its glowing reviews from the independent labs, and its Norton Insight feature is demonstrably effective against brand-new malware variants.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368876,00.asp

Or this?

Small Effect on Performance
For several years, Symantec has devoted a team specifically to minimizing their suite's impact on system performance. I ran my standard battery of tests to determine how much effect Norton has on system performance. Norton and Trend Micro both added just 4 percent to the time required for a system reboot. That's lower than any other recent product except for Astaro Security Gateway Version 8 Home Edition (Free, ), which runs on a separate computer and hence had zero impact. Kaspersky came close in the boot time test, with just 5 percent.

Norton and Trend Micro also share the honors for least impact on my Windows Installer test. This test measures the time required to run a lengthy script that installs and uninstalls a number of large Windows Installer packages. A test that measures how long it takes to fully load a hundred websites of various types took 10 percent longer under Norton's protection. That's the least impact of the current crop, though Trend Micro added just 11 percent.

Security software that checks files for malware on access can slow common file management tasks. A lengthy script that moves and copies a large collection of files took 15 percent longer with Norton watching. That's not bad, but Kaspersky didn't slow this test at all and Webroot added just 1 percent to the time.

Another test that measures the time to zip and unzip that same collection of files took 20 percent longer with Norton installed. Here again Kaspersky didn't slow the test at all, but the only other product with less impact than Norton was BitDefender.

My tests (and my own experience) show that having Norton installed won't noticeably slow your system.


Norton Internet Security 2011 remains our Editors' Choice for security suite. It does everything a suite should and includes innovative technologies in its essential antivirus and firewall components. Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 is a very close second, but Norton is what I use to protect my own systems, and I think you should use it on yours, too.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368912,00.asp

Here's a comparison chart:
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=268767,00.asp

 

[mrwonkers]

And don't you feel better now that you've got that off your chest?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Back up your arguments with hard facts and statistics otherwise you come off a little like this :

View attachment 281460

And don't you feel better now that you've got that off your chest?

I'm the only one in this thread who has provided any information to substantiate their opinion. Try it sometime.

 

[chrono1081]

I'm the only one in this thread who has provided any information to substantiate their opinion. Try it sometime.

Yes but everyone on this thread has provided you with their experience. I don't understand why you are defending a crap product so much. The only reason I am countering you so much is because your recommending people put malware known as Norton on their system.

Sorry but like I said, your "reviews" are wrong. Please go USE the product on many machines. You will not be able to tell me or others with a straight face that its A. working well or B. not resource intensive. Granted you need this on a windows machine so it gets infected, which it will if a Symantec product is its defense.

Not to mention I wouldn't trust the reviewers who said they couldn't get malware past Norton. Its sooo easy to do. (We had to ban non-work issued thumb drives because its that easy!) You can download all kinds of crap on the internet that Norton won't find. It doesn't take long at all.

Anyway I'm done with this thread. I really hope the OP listens to the rest of us who know what we are talking about.

 

[mrwonkers]

I'm the only one in this thread who has provided any information to substantiate their opinion. Try it sometime.

You are my hero, do you wear your cape whilst typing out your responses, that'd b so hot!

Don't sell yourself short, you've provided something much more than info to back up your claims. You have provided some much needed entertainment to this otherwise dull forum, again you are my hero.

kisses xxx

 

[AppleScruff1]

Yes but everyone on this thread has provided you with their experience. I don't understand why you are defending a crap product so much. The only reason I am countering you so much is because your recommending people put malware known as Norton on their system.

Sorry but like I said, your "reviews" are wrong. Please go USE the product on many machines. You will not be able to tell me or others with a straight face that its A. working well or B. not resource intensive. Granted you need this on a windows machine so it gets infected, which it will.

Not to mention I wouldn't trust the reviewers who said they couldn't get malware past Norton. Its sooo easy to do. You can download all kinds of crap on the internet that Norton won't find. It doesn't take long at all.

Anyway I'm done with this thread. I really hope the OP listens to the rest of us who know what we are talking about.

Don't get mad at me because I have documented my views. I'm not suggesting that anyone put Norton on their Macs. I merely said that it was a good choice for Windows and the evidence clearly supports this.

 

[GGJstudios]

This thread has been severely derailed. Perhaps it would help to re-visit the OP's original post and the reason for this thread:

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.

The OP was not asking about the viability of Norton for Windows, but rather, Norton for Mac. A more appropriate forum for the Norton for Windows debate is the Windows on the Mac forum.

 

[mrwonkers]

Don't get mad at me because I have documented my views. I'm not suggesting that anyone put Norton on their Macs. I merely said that it was a good choice for Windows and the evidence clearly supports this.

I don't think chrono1081 was mad because you documented your view, I think its more of a case that maybe not everyone appreciates your act.
I am not one of those people though, I find your form/posts most entertaining. I really look forward to reading your future rants.

kisses xxx

 

[squeakr]

The review from PCMag seems the closest to what was requested. It provides results, but not the measured repeatable that I asked for, as they don't state how the testing was conducted. Although it does not prove that the resources are lighter than in the past like I also asked, but I can see that they put some effort into this review.

The review from maximum pc, is that for real? No impact on the test system. Ran faster than the others. You seem like a reasonable person and can you really believe that it had no impact at all and what is faster (0.1 second, 2 seconds, 2 minutes)?? I just have a hard time validating and believing their claims. Everything has an impact no matter how big or small, with claims like that I can't believe their review (which is what I said about lots of the reviews with measurement values like fast and very fast). How did they measure no impact (it consumed no resources, it started up what seemed like the same time as without)?? Those are vague unmeasured and unrepeatable results. What was their test plan, system configuration, did they run a single test or ,multiple iterations? They leave out the meat and potatoes that would allow us to recreate, if we so desired.

I knew you were going to post the PCMag review as it was the one that had the most credible review, but still you posted 15 links that you claimed had credible reviews and could only come up with one that somewhat met the criteria. In my job this type of documentation wouldn't be acceptable, but as I said before for publications no one wants to put out a bad review for fear of getting blackballed in the community (notice how they all were quick to point out the high/ good points and avoid the extreme negative or slam one of the competitors)? Although PCmAG recognized that the system was slower and impacted.

As for providing information, you have done it somewhat, but what you have provided has not shown what you claim in that Norton is less resource heavy than it was in the past. Other than the statements from 2 reviewers that provided no data to back these up.

And claiming you are the only one providing the information to substantiate, why should I have to provide data to substantiate an opinion. I have stated from the beginning it is my opinion and personal experience. If I posted an excel spreadsheet of time impacts, would you really believe it, as I could just have generated it?? No you wouldn't so why should I waste my time doing so. I only threw out the challenge as you said many reviews stated such, and those could be viewed by all, and I am sorry to say not one of them have proven that it is less resource intensive than it was in the past (although that might beg the question have others become more resource intensive)?

 

[Myrm]

I have used Norton Internet Security for about 10 years now. In the early years it was awful and used up so much resources. However NIS 2010 and now NIS 2011 are so much better and I have never had a proplem with either of them. My Windows PC is about 6 years old now and not vary fast and yet NIS 2011 does not slow it down that I have noticed.

I was going to use Norton AV on my Mac but declined as I noticed that their Mac version does not have a trial version whereas they provide a trial version for Windows users. Guess Norton have something against Mac users.

I use Intego Internet Barrier on my Mac and it gives me peace of mind. As for those that say there is no need for AV software on a Mac - that's just the kind of arrogance virus writers love to hear.

 

[lavrishevo]

I have used Norton Internet Security for about 10 years now. In the early years it was awful and used up so much resources. However NIS 2010 and now NIS 2011 are so much better and I have never had a proplem with either of them. My Windows PC is about 6 years old now and not vary fast and yet NIS 2011 does not slow it down that I have noticed.

I was going to use Norton AV on my Mac but declined as I noticed that their Mac version does not have a trial version whereas they provide a trial version for Windows users. Guess Norton have something against Mac users.

I use Intego Internet Barrier on my Mac and it gives me peace of mind. As for those that say there is no need for AV software on a Mac - that's just the kind of arrogance virus writers love to hear.

Your just bringing baggage from the years of fighting viruses and malware on PC's to your Apple experience. If this makes you feel more secure then this is good but totally unnecessary. I've tried them all just to see if they ever pick up and detect anything. Well in the last 7 years not one thing detected...

 

[munkery]

My Windows PC is about 6 years old now and not vary fast and yet NIS 2011 does not slow it down that I have noticed.

Have you ever used that machine without antivirus installed?

 

[MacSignal]

On my personal Windows machine, I am loaded up with various kinds of security software. NIS 2011 is a good choice for the Windows platform IMO.

With my Mac, I use the built-in OS X firewall and ClamXav for on-demand scanning.

Hopefully, the OP can observe from the responses that the recommendations of what is adequate depends upon your assessment of the threat potential and your own cost-benefit evaluation of the security software that you would consider. Good luck!

 

[AppleScruff1]

Is there really any need at all for anti malware software on a Mac? Is it possible to become infected to the point where an os reinstall is needed?

 

[GGJstudios]

Is there really any need at all for anti malware software on a Mac? Is it possible to become infected to the point where an os reinstall is needed?

No, antivirus software is not required to protect a Mac from malware. Only common sense and some education is required: Mac Virus/Malware Info

 

[Myrm]

No, antivirus software is not required to protect a Mac from malware. Only common sense and some education is required: Mac Virus/Malware Info

But you could say that about a Windows PC. As long as you have common sense and some education, why have AV on a Windows PC?

At the end of the day if somebody wants to get AV for their Mac then get it. Just because somebody else decides not to use it doesn't make it right. Just remember; there may not be viruses for Macs out there but there are trojans. One day an enterprising virus writer will create a virus for Mac. It's bound to happen if Mac continue to become more popular. Then we'll see how smug these nay-sayers are.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

HAHAHAHAHA, this has got to be the best joke I've heard in a long time.

I challenge you to prove otherwise. Obviously you are a few years behind in your experience.

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Norton is freaking AWFUL and literally is malware itself (seriously on Windows you have to download symnrt, a symantec/norton removal tool even if you uninstalled it from add/remove programs. I have TONS of experience with Norton and Symantec since the places I've worked loved to use them despite the entire IT department (myself included since I am IT) 's cries for something else.


Oh and no offense Applescruff your completely wrong on Norton. Its still terrible. I sat for three hours on the phone with Symantec while they dodged my questions on why their crapware wasn't finding viruses that were infecting machines on our network (or why it would see them, but not remove them). I never did get an answer.

I've dealt with Symantec and Norton for over 10 years and its pure trash. Expensive, resource intensive trash.
And as others have stated you don't need antivirus or antispyware on a Mac, and on your Windows machine, get something better. Norton is literally useless and wont find viruses even if you have them (or it will find them, but only tell you about it and not actually remove them).

No, I'm not wrong at all. Do some research on NIS 2011 and get back to me. You're talking about things a few years in the past.

The fact that a program called Norton Removal Tool exists, is more then enough for me not to get it. Avast/AVG are free having excellent security, speed and really just keep out of your way and let you get things done. I might consider Norton if they made a free version but I have never felt the urge to buy virus protection.

 

[wpotere]

But you could say that about a Windows PC. As long as you have common sense and some education, why have AV on a Windows PC?

At the end of the day if somebody wants to get AV for their Mac then get it. Just because somebody else decides not to use it doesn't make it right. Just remember; there may not be viruses for Macs out there but there are trojans. One day an enterprising virus writer will create a virus for Mac. It's bound to happen if Mac continue to become more popular. Then we'll see how smug these nay-sayers are.

We aren't "nay-sayers", we are simply quoting current information rather than taking stabs in the dark!

Actually, your information about using common sense on both systems is simply not true Viruses like blaster looked for Windows computers by broadcasting on a certain port and if they responded they then transferred themselves and installed. With Windows you can still turn off UAC making the computer extremely vulnerable to permission escalation. Mac always requires user intervention to install anything. The point? Anti virus is a very needed asset on a Windows machine as a virus can still install without the user knowing and "common sense" makes no difference.

We might see a need to do this for Mac in the future, but for now AV is pointless as the only thing it will know how to find are viruses that are written for an OS other than Mac. Once the first one comes out, then we will have a template to model definitions and heuristics after.

Lastly... I played with Symantec for Mac once. It trashed my Mac and I was forced to rebuild the computer. Be very careful about installing these things as they try to integrate deeply with the machine. It is also going to make your upgrade path a pain if you are waiting for Lion as I doubt it will run right on that system.

 

[munkery]

But you could say that about a Windows PC. As long as you have common sense and some education, why have AV on a Windows PC?

Because UAC has not shown itself to be very robust. Windows still has a many privilege escalation exploits.