Before we start off, know that this review isn't about malware detection rates, features or performance. It's about efficiency.

Performance is relative. Whether a product slows down a system largely depends on that particular system. What's more relevant is testing how it compares with other products that offer similar features.

Finally, please don't use this thread for starting yet another flame war, so don't reply with "norton suxx" or "norton roxx" posts. Reply only if you have some valid points/arguments, with proofs to back it up. Posts like "Norton once caught xyz virus that abc AV didn't" (or vice-versa) are meaningless.

--

• Although the NAV 2008 installer was around 58 MB, after installation it went on to use a total of 557 MB disk space! The installation took 20 minutes to complete. The installer was also quite sluggish and it took some time for the program to respond to button clicks. NOD32 on the other hand, was installed and running in less than a minute!


The interface, although heavily skinned, was snappy and responsive.


• To get a better picture of NAV 2008's efficiency, I've compared it with an antivirus that's popular for its low resource usage and high detection rates - ESET NOD32 Antivirus. (Rated @ Neowin as the Best Antivirus 2007)

The green bar represents the base system parameters, the blue one with NOD32 installed, and the orange bar represents Norton AntiVirus 2008.



• Here's a screenshot of the modules NAV 2008 loads at boot: (Using Microsoft AutoRuns)



Verdict: NAV 2008 is a definite improvement over earlier versions, but still not as lean as other AVs. The good news is that the CPU usage has gone down considerably since the last few editions - so much so that I didn't find much difference in CPU usage levels between NAV and other AV products. If you're a NAV fan and would like to stick to the NAV line, then 2008 is a must-have upgrade.


In my next test, I'll be comparing NAV 2008 with the alleged resource hog, Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0. Stay tuned!

Very good review, after this test that you performed I am really going to avoid norton products.

This just affirms my commitment to stay away from Norton products.

In your test what is a "clean system"? That is really vauge.

As far as boot time, are you saying that NAV '08 caused a 6 min boot?

As far as disk usage, how did NAV '08 use almost 2GB of storage? The install only takes half a gig.

------

Why don't you test what services, etc. are necessary instead of Norton bashing here. That way, the people who do use Norton are using it more effectively. We get the goddamn point, that Norton is a bit of a hog, but there are millions of Norton users out there and it remains the best selling AV, so why don't you help them?

In the beginning of your analysis you say that this isn't about performance, its about efficiency. How is this possible, that it is a test of efficiency? It doesn't make sense to say that this doesn't measure performance, because it does. However, this analysis does not measure efficiency. This is because your analysis was done on one system (you say yourself that performance is relative to the owner's computer) and your analysis contains data that affects the performance of a computer. All-in-all, you really make no sense.

I also do not understand how your analysis compares NOD32 and NAV '08. Besides, you give a rehashed screenshot of NAV '08 autoruns, so who is to say that you even did testing with NOD32.

Where are all these numbers coming from!! Back up your own **** before asking others to come in here and debate with proof.

im waiting for the nfr then ill do my own testing i happen to be a active beta tester & when i beta tested my boot time was under 2mins for the record ram is cheap & so is hard drive space

Kaspersky Antivirus Version 7 is a resource hog? Who said that?! Hehehe. Anyway, interesting review. Thanks

That's a shame. It seemed like they were improving with 2007, but now they've gone right back to the way they were.

Can you explain the boot time a bit more??
6mins????
Doesn't sound correct.

I would really like to see a review of NOD 32 Version 3 when its released. ESET have done a lot right in my view, in the latest beta.



I found that hard to believe too. I think it may have been on the initial boot after installation. Maybe Nortons was doing some housekeeping?

It would also be helpful if you compared various other AV products and other versions of Norton, that would allow us to see the difference.
Just now all that you've done is compare a program that many expect to use a lot of RAM with the AV program that uses the least. Great job!
Your system specs would also be useful, for all we know, you're running a Pentium 3 system with 256MB RAM.

@ntbnnt:

The "clean system" meant that no additional software was installed on the system. It was a fresh windows install which was slipstreamed with all the latest updates. The disk was defragmented post install and an image was taken of the system. No other software was running while testing the AntiVirus.


Yes, the boot time was increased to 6 minutes, from 2. Mind you, this was on a Pentium-III system. I specifically choose to test on an old system, because the Symantec site lists the minimum requirements as a 300 MHz processor with 256 MB RAM.


That's the total disk usage after NAV was installed. I did mention in my post that NAV used 557 MB.


Sure, maybe in another thread, but not here.


@Nighthawk:

This was something I put up in a haste. I will be doing a more comprehensive test soon.

its a shame something so pleasing on the eye sucks.

I'M NOT even surprised by those results...

What a giant POS. 6 min boot time????? WTF?

Thanks for the review. I will continue to use NOD32

Thats on a pentium 3, granted i gave up using norton YEARS back after i realised it was a POS

But still Id like to see this test run on a more modern system....

LOL, c'mon.. not saying that in your first post was a bit misleading. A difference of 3 minutes on a P3 might be a difference of 15 seconds on modern systems (pure speculation), in which case it wouldn't be doing too badly. I doubt anyone with a P3 would be buying and running NAV08.

It would look so much better if they change that yellow border to the transparent Vista style for Vista systems.

i used nod32 as my antivirus for a long period of time and was quite happy with it until i heard that kaspersky had better detection rates. so i got kaspersky and use it...uggh. what a slowdown. i removed it and used norton 360..suprisingly less of a resource hog than kaspersky 7 and had fewer popups (kaspersky always had this thing on the bottom right corner of ur screen saying this registry key changed and this thing is tryna access the internet wat not). then i noticed overtime that norton slowed down my pc the more and more i used it. so i take it out and replace it with zone alarm security suite. this was the most terrible slowdown i had ever experienced. even after defrags it is terrible in performance and takes very long to scan..(i guess not optimized for vista yet-i used it a lot on my xp pc with no problems or noticeable slowdowns).

i needed a good firewall so i decided using comodo instead. unfortunately none of these firewalls allow my pc network configuration to work properly.. ie. connect to the gateway computer or let my 360 connect to pc. now im back to nod32 and windows firewall. my pc is fast as ever. my 360 works with my pc, media center extenders, gateway computer access, password protected file sharing, windows media player media sharing service etc.

if only i can fix vista's network config. my ics connection keeps on showing up as unidentified network and defaults to public after every restart.

or just not use their own window theme and instead us the os' standard theme

oh I can guarantee you people would and are buying that and putting it on a PIII with 256 megs of ram

I can second that. Two words

Old People, my grandpa loves running norton on his 600 Mhz celeron 128 mb ram compaq

ya, they buy Norton and they are proud of it... when ever I ask which anti virus they have they say Norton..... and I usually say "Oh" (my voice usually sounds not very excited and somewhat disappointed) ..when what I really want to say is "I'm sorry". This last month I've been turning people over to nod32.

P3 or not, the boot time explain why Norton is BLACKLISTED here.
Damn, it's not a single image

lol, don't they notice the slow-down? Why not just stick with an old copy of Norton? Actually, if all they've ever ran is Norton, then they probably think that their computer is actually that slow, and has nothing to do with Norton.

Old people don't care about speed. Today I updated Net Framework on a Celeron 1.2 it took more than 20 minutes. And well, the guy (60yrs old) waited in front of the screen all the time saying that he was not in a hurry wile I was playing Stalker on my own machine...

kaspersky a memory hog??

Definately it confirm me to continue using Nod32

I've read a few of these types of reviews yet I am unable to replicate a single part of them

I've used Norton products since forever, along with many other AV solutions. The Norton range from 2000-2005 was the worst for me. Absolute pig of a program. Norton AV 2006 was a massive improvement, and Norton AV 2007 was a revelation. There was bugger all difference between my system AV free, and with Norton. It also compared favourably with the other AV solutions, for the first time in many many years.

Norton Antivirus 2008 is the same in this regard. For me there is almost no difference between my PC AV Free, and with NAV2008 installed. Boot time certainly isn't affected, let alone that ridiculous kind of increase.

If I were any of you i'd go ahead and try the trial version for myself, because this review couldn't be more opposite to my experience on several PC's and laptops

Now i'm not saying that you won't get a similar experience to what he's describing for a fact, although I would be very very very surprised if you did.

Hope this helps

I really doubt that. You're just giving us your impression, he's giving us the cold hard numbers. Any AV is going to affect start up time. Any program, for that matter, is going to affect startup time.

I have and have not regretted it.

I've used Norton since 1999. Switched to NOD32 a few weeks ago but uninstalled it and switched to AVG. Now i'm not using Norton i've only got 22 running processes, with Norton i had 30. I'll avoid Norton at all costs from now on!

If they could only tone down on running all those processes to 2 or 3, it would be a good product, no doubt. They have a process for every god damn feature on their product. Combine them all to one process or stop adding junk to the program.

Are you sure you've installed Norton Antivirus 2008 only? Why in your screenshots we see firewall components?
It seems your review is very flawed because you have installed NIS 2008 and NOT Norton antivirus 2008 only.

Guess I'll stay with NOD32 then

Actually they sometimes do buy the latest version, Symantec makes it so appealing.

I do usually suggest reneewing the subscription rather than buying the latest version if they're going to continjue using Norton.

I know one user (77 years old) who doesn't even notice her computer is slow. I complain every time I have to service it and she tells me "well I don't notice". Unfortunatly she has to use Norton since she will not switch away from Juno and AVG and Avast! doestn't support the client.

which client the email client?

Why not just specify the pop3 and smtp servers in the avast data file and then just point the email client to 127.0.0.1 for both smtp and pop

I have to say i've used the 15 day trial of norton and it's pretty good to me. I've been one of the main ones saying Norton sucked, but I decided to give the trial a try and it indeed is definately not a resource hog on my system. The only thing I don't like about it is the config options suck, it's almost like antivirus for dummies the way they have it, but the performance is definately alot better. I had avg installed before and my system performance seems to be the same in terms of alt-tabbing, boottime, etc. If I didn't know which one was on my system I couldn't tell you just from using the system.

I think everybody who's knocking it should give it a try, the 15 day trial costs you nothing and it allows you to form your own opinion. Best Buy has it on sale for only $20 this week, I'm seriously considering getting it.

If only NAV was like Symantec Corporate AV. They have to make the home edition all bloated.

I like my nod32

Maybe nice review but still NOD32 is for me, doesn't need a fancy gui nor it uses nearly all your memory and slows your pc down! Nod32 does it all just in half the time and half the memory.

I have always used Norton since DOS times.

Having upgraded to Vista recently, i had to let go of the NAV 2003. Shame because 2003 was the last that did not require activation.

Now i have 2008 and i'm very happy with it. My boot time (Fully loaded with apps 64 Seconds) cannot be compared with a clean install Pentium III.

On another note, if you have this installed on a Vista, make sure you delete the:

C:/users/XXXXXX/AppData/Local/Temp

XXXXXX is the name you gave it. There was over 350MB of data in this temp folder on my pc. Ccleaner did not see this one. There was some leftover symantec stuff in there.

I agree 100%

Symantec AntiVirus is without a doubt, THE best Antivirus program I have ever used. Much better than any free antivirus program out there.

I have to agree on that one. I've never really been a big fan of NAV. I had a demo version of the NIS (2006 I think it was) pre-installed on my laptop, and when I removed it, I noticed that my machine sped up significantly. The shut down and boot times were much quicker, let alone the general use of the machine.

I even had NAV 2000 on an old 80486DX4-based laptop running Win98SE, and scanning the C: drive took forever! (Hell, that machine took forever to do anything for that matter.)

My Dad purchased Norton 2005 (I think it was), and he went through some activation hell with it, and then it went in and conflicted with his sound card software, and started reeking havoc. He finally removed it, and I installed eTrust AV on it. No significant problems with it thus far. I hardly notice any significant drag on any of my machines that have it installed on.

In the end, no more Norton for me. Great review btw.

And here is more proof that just because a product is sold on the shelves of stores doesn't mean it is better. Thank you!

Great review! Informative and easy to read. Thanks for the charts

Great comparative with this review, thanks for this reality check

Firstly, what do you mean by a clean system?

If your "clean system" took more then 1:30 min to boot up then I think your system is seriously screwed up...

And for your general info [all of you], Norton Antivirus has a BETTER detection rate that NOD32. Source

edit: nevermind.

my laptop came pre-installed with norton is 2007 trial which i used until it expired to give it a thorough testing, although it was an emprovement over previous versions, it did slow my boot time abit too much.

then i installed various other av trials and would've bought eset if it wasn't such a disappointment over nod32 v2.7 which i really liked. also tried kaspersky v7 & even some other ppl i know say it is a resorce hog on old and new systems.
finally, i got the 15-day trial of norton is 2008 and immediately bought it thereafter as it made minimal impact on my system/boot resources, the scans are damn quick and it always finds & cleans malware on other peoples removable drives when they use my laptop, oh and it has so far never interfered with anything else on my pc whatsoever.

i am running vista business 32 on an hp compaq with amd turion 2ghz dual, 2gb ddr2 ram, 160gb hd while running aero and i haven't tampered with any start-up entries or such. nuff said!

very nice review been always interested in Av's .. anyway to mention something regarding Norton i had an experience with it like 4 or 5 years ago in an InterNet Cafe i used to mentain .. the pc's there got infected with a pretty normal Virus called "Kargo" as far as i remember .. and Norton was installed on all the pc's ... and it didnt even detect it .. i asked for someone's help and he told me about the kaspersky and i downloaded and installed and SURPRISE it caught dozens of threats . ... it was hilarious coz before that i was a big fan of all symantic products ... what version was the Norton ?!?! sorry i cant remember but it was the latest one am sure with the latest Virus Definitions' database and upto date .... thats a part of my experience

and ofcourse lots of you know about the System restore Exclusion by norton ... when i used to be a norton user i noticed that By Default it Excludes the System restore areas regardless what Os you are using ...
so i used to remove that exclusion .. so anyway i believe that norton wasnt just the best antivirus .. it just has the Best selling and it doesnt mean anything technically its a Marketing regarding process

and by the way .. i dont mind a resources killer or hog or whatever u call it .. if it will offer me a higher security .. and it doesnt bother me if it takes 5 mins more during Boot than other softwares coz it means this Av is performing a real thorough scan on my startup applications and services ..
got more stuff to say regarding norton coz isuffered alot with that antivirus .. seriously its nothing compared to some other Av's

thanks for the review and it was such a nice forum to register