I hate Norton Antivirus.

[moeburn]

A typical checkup with Norton Antivirus:

"4 viruses have been detected"

*clicks 'Repair Files'*

"Repair failed. Would you like to quarantine?"

*clicks 'Quarantine files'*

"Quarantine failed. Would you like to delete?"

*clicks 'Delete files'*

"Delete failed. Would you like to ignore?"

*goes off in search of files. First two are deleted by selecting them and pressing the 'delete' key on my keyboard. Second two don't exist.*

Is there something better than this? Please don't tell me to use AVG, I've tried it and I don't like its instability.

[jack_canada]

I use fprot, it's great!

[moeburn]

I used McAffee on Windows ME, back in 2000. Switched to Norton 2000, and was hooked on the ease of using it. The Live Update feature was a hassle, now I know how to turn it off, its good. I tried Panda, didn't like it. Also tried to use the new version of McAffee, but im in Love with Nortorn and its firewall.

...except norton, like SAV, doesn't detect compressed viruses, which i can safely say 4/5 trojans will be.

[Deryck]

I have to say, Symantec AV has the best interface I have ever seen; clean and simple.

No, Symantec and Norton are not the same "product", although they are the same company.

Either way, I just did a test. And I must say I was severely disappointed in SAV. I created their test-virus file, and it detected it. I compressed it with UPX, and it did NOT detect it. Is there any AV that can detect compressed executables?

That's why I said they were "makers" of Norton products.

Symantec Norton Antivirus does have an option to scan within compressed files.

[moeburn]

Symantec Norton Antivirus does have an option to scan within compressed files.

That means they extract a zip file and check for the virus inside it. I'm talking about an exe that once was 600kb, and has been made to 300kb, self extracting auto run (look up UPX). They don't find it.

[Mister Lamar]

...except norton, like SAV, doesn't detect compressed viruses, which i can safely say 4/5 trojans will be.

Norton Internet Securities 2004 has never failed me.

[Hurmoth]

I have to say, Symantec AV has the best interface I have ever seen; clean and simple.

:x Clean & simple, I'll give that to them, but doesn't make it appealing! Nor does it make them catch viruses any better ... SAV & NAV both suck :angry:

[Banzai]

AV sucks all togeather, just look after your self like i do, Norton can only remove virus that arnt currently running by the computer.

[Drexthepimp]

AVG Free Version. If you get a virus then it is always going to be a hassle, but that is free, uptodate and solid.

Why pay. Surely Norton loves viruses, they are it's bread and butter. It is one big con.

To be blunt, use AVG.

[JustGeorge]

Anyone ever wonder like me about whether AV companies sometimes contribute code to the free, opensource virus community?

[Bearded Kirklander]

I have been happy with Norton Anti-Virus 2002. I wish it worked with SP2 in all ways right out of the box, but I guess it is hard to expect a 2 year old package to have that level of compatibility. But it works great with SP1, and after the problems I had with SP2, I think I may just stick with AV 2002 and SP1 for a while longer. Change can be a bit disconcerting. :cry:

[giga Veteran]

But Symantec Antivirus (makers of Norton products) is for business and what you actually pay for is for many licenses instead of 1. Norton is more for the home user. with a more "user-friendly" interface.

How does everyone else on this forum get Symantec Antivirus?

Though some people actually do get it legally, others usually get it through torrents, irc, p2p etc.

[moeburn]

Though some people actually do get it legally, others usually get it through torrents, irc, p2p etc.

Oh no, I thought no one knew about our secret underground black market! :ninja:

AV sucks all togeather, just look after your self like i do, Norton can only remove virus that arnt currently running by the computer.

I used to believe in that; I just used TCPView or Netstat and monitored all my connections. Until I did a scan of my computer and it came up with 83 viruses.

Clean & simple, I'll give that to them, but doesn't make it appealing! Nor does it make them catch viruses any better ... SAV & NAV both suck

Although it won't change your opinion, I should rephrase what i said. It has an explorer-like interface with features on the left as items and configurations for each on the right. No large GUI graphics, no hogging effects, no confusing interfaces, it was so much simpler to use than AVG. But once I gave it the "ultimate virus test", I realised it was no good for me.

I should also mention to all you AVG lovers, it performed no better than Norton on my test. It still ignored the UPX compressed virus bound to a functioning EXE. Effectively making the user not even suspect something was wrong when they opened the EXE. The only AV i've ever seen that can actually detect UPX'd viruses is Kaspersky, but i didn't trust the fact that it monitored my internet explorer for search strings.

[Rahul]

even i hate norton , count me in da gang

[moeburn]

even i hate norton , count me in da gang

I don't see why that post was worth my reading a signature ad.

[canuckerfan]

nod32 - it's all you need. stable, very fast and easy on the memory, not to mention fast scanning.

[Spyderz]

second that

nod32 is the best ive used so far

low on resources+one of the best scanning engines so far

thats like half of what my norton av 2003 used to eat

im currently running retail 2.12

[RadishTM Veteran]

I use NAV 2003 / NIS 2003 without any problems, runs fast and doesn't use that much memory IMO.

Radish?

[macmax]

I was a fool 2 buy Norton 2004 and it was not even worth 1 cent of it ... I havent seen a more buggier proggie than this .... its a memory HOG and is totally worthless ....

Gud i saw some review's on Neowin n i bought myself Kaspersky :) ... well i even got NOD32 for free from my computer dealer :)

fck when it comes out this sept as Norton 2005.

[pckiller00]

Well I don't want to sound rude, but about that not scanning in compressed UPX or whatever that file is, don't be a n00b did u try and select the options in the AV to scan compressed files, I know for a fact that both NAV and AVG have those options. I personally love AVG Pro/Network Editions, they work perfect for me, and low sys resources/fast scanning too/good detection of viruses as well.

NAV sucks, its a memory hog, sure back in the day NAV was great, I loved it but NAV over the years sure has gotten simpler but at the cost of system performance and scanning speed, etc. Use AVG PERIOD END; but you just don't install the AV and don't configure its options if u do that of course it won't do certain things... :whistle: Just a note to those that are b*tching about it not doing certain things imo. :ninja:

[eilegz]

i used to use norton but 2k4 version just **** me off it eats too much memory i decided to switch and now im using trend micro pc-cillin 2004 and its a right choice ts cheap and it comes with a firewall

[LastSamurai]

by looking at the VB comparative test results I would use anything but AVG, too scary:

http://www.nod32.com.hk/news/compare.htm

an AV product can miss so many viruses is just ridiculous.

[Max Veteran]

I used NAV2004, but it really dragged the PC down, I noticed a big difference when I went to SAV.

[Hurmoth]

I used NAV2004, but it really dragged the PC down, I noticed a big difference when I went to SAV.

Try Panda Titanium 2004 for free... go to http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/titanium2004/ and download the trial today ;) I love it :happy:

[eilegz]

just inmagine this many of u guys have a very new PC lets said pentium 4 2 ghz 512 of ram and norton 2k2 still make ur pc lags and well i was using a pentium 3 500 mhz and 256 of ram just inmagine how norton 2k4 slow down my pc that it makes it feel like i was using windows XP with 64mb of ram

by the way anyone tried extendia it says that is one of the best because it got 2 engine in one rav and kapersky

[Dane2003]

Well, let me first state my system specs. 128MB of RAM, Pentium 3 - 866MhZ, Windows XP Home Edition (Used Norton on No Service Pack, Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2, all the same), 80GB HD.

For those of you complaining about Norton AntiVirus and Memory...Quit your bitchin'. Learn to CONFIGURE your AntiVirus...Norton is one of the best AntiVirus', From version 1.0 to Version 11.0 (2005). Takes barely no resources. Also, you may want to try something called "LiveUpdate", its this thing that they include to update your virus defs, that way, it WILL detect new viruses and will attempt to remove them. As with EVERY antivirus, most of the new viruses cannot be repaired but must be quarantined or deleted...Macro viruses, however, are usually repairable. (Also, i'd be interested to know how much configuration you went through, because Out of the Box, Norton AntiVirus tries to configure itself for your memory)

I have yet to see someone bitch about activation, but again, they have help on there website, GO USE IT. Norton AntiVirus 2004 did include a problem with Activation, its the same as ANY software, introducing a new feature will produce bugs. They issued a fix shortly and its now available, they even are resetting activation counts for the users who were affected by the bug.

McAfee has had the same weaknesses as Norton AntiVirus, in fact, both still have weaknesses in terms of being unable to repair newer viruses. If your gonna bitch about Norton, why dont you start bitching about McAfee as well. McAfee's strong point is that it does a little bit better of a job at configuring memory.

People only say that NOD32 is good because it does a better job managing memory. NOD32 is still VERY COMPLICATED and not great for the new home user, throw in its ugly interface and What home user is going to buy it and configure all of its options (which is a lot). So dont start telling me that NOD32 is even comparable to Norton and McAfee, because it isnt. It is work in progress, imo.

So I guess my final words are to stop the bitching about Norton, Use the Self Help/Customer Support, and Configure it.