[Review] Norton 360 Full Review


Recommended Posts

Norton 360?!? What were they thinking with that name? Xbox 360, Norton 360 =\.

But oh well.. I haven't been pleased with any Norton products for quite a long time. The main reason is their pricing, why should I have to buy a new box copy of Norton every year? Some of the greatest anti-viruses (meaning better then Norton) only have a subscription fee every year or so, but all program updates/revisions are part of that subscription.

WOW what a review...! I also moved from norton to kaspersky due to the resources but after reading that makes me want to give norton ago :D

I tend to find the most complained about thing to do with Norton is resources.

If you're on the bare minimum r.a.m. installed then it's not advisable to use it, rather though to use AVG

& zone alarm

Nice review. I'll probably give it a try on one of my test machines (have to go to my parents house and let them try it, my family puts computers through hell more then anyone else I know)

I think I'll still stick with Kaspersky.

Hi,

I am a retail tech for a company whom I cannot name.... let's just say thier initials are G.S. :whistle:

I was a fan of Nortons for years but after the 2003 release I felt it started to get way to bloated and I backed off and switched to Zonealarm Free and NOD32 once I became aware of it. I used AVG free between somewhere.

We have done a lot of tests with 360 on many different configurations of XP SP2 and Vista. While I did not find it as stable as some on any of my Vista builds I think the initial release of 360 for XP SP2 is as good as it is going to get. It beat out almost all the other AVs in general tests but when compared to whe footprint and enhanced code the systems ran much smoother under full loads with the client enabled. Overall tests proved at least to me that I will get solid protection in one piece of software and not have to suffer with a laggy system.

And NO I do not work for nor do I endorse Symantec. In fact as I said I stopped using them and recommended against then for a few years. I am going back to Norton with 360 on my next fresh install, and I do recommend a fresh install if you are upgrading from an earlier version.

Cheers,

hmm dunno if i should use it.... :\

Hi Anthony,

Because of the feedback you've contributed to project Genesis (Norton 360), you will be receiving the a Not For Resale (NFR) copy of Norton 360.

If you chose to receive a physical copy of the product, please be patient as this process may take a few months. If you chose to download the Norton 360 NFR, you will be given access to the build shortly. Testers who chose to receive a physically copy will not be given access to the Norton 360 NFR download.

Thanks again for all your help no this project. Your feedback directly contributed to the success of this new Symantec product, and the Norton 360 team is very grateful for all your work.

Cheers,

Tony Weiss

Sr. Beta Test Coordinator

Symantec Corporation

Hey there, I actually helped Beta Test Norton 360 and got the coupon in my email for the $30 off, but I accidentally trashed that email.

I can't even find an email to email Symantec about this, does anyone have a copy of that email? And how does it, will they verify my email address with the email I used to sign up for the beta?

I tried Norton 360 after reading this thread.

Yes it takes very little memory and is far faster than previous Symantec creations. But I double click on "My Computer" and it takes longer than usual to load. I double click on C: Drive and then back "Up" and Explorer is blank, its only for about 3 seconds, but that's long enough for me to think if this is how Norton 360 is meant to impact on a Core 2 Duo with loads of RAM and Fast SATA II Hard Disks. :ermm: I then start browsing through folders, there is a noticeable lag there too.

Norton is only a temporary visitor on my PC. My utility box runs NOD32 and its perfect. My gam3rz r0xx0r b0xx0r runs registered AntiVir and there is no noticeable impact on performance and both of these product score better than Norton.

If I were to write a review I would say that Norton 360 is an improvement over previous resource hogging versions, but its not 100% better at best maybe 30% better than previous Norton Antivirus packages.

  • 2 weeks later...

Currently, am using Rogers Yahoo! Norton Security Online version 10.2.0.30

Uses one process, and it uses less then 800k of ram.

in the processes tab, there are five of them.

  • 1 month later...

I tried the trial version (I was in beta but could'nt install in my system for some reason), the only thing about this program is you cannot customize the firewall and antivirus, backup utility just suks. I bought Internet Security 2007 couple of months ago I think I will stick to that until they come out with better software, don't get me wrong norton has a great concept but just did'nt took as much time to work at it.

Hey there, I actually helped Beta Test Norton 360 and got the coupon in my email for the $30 off, but I accidentally trashed that email.

I can't even find an email to email Symantec about this, does anyone have a copy of that email? And how does it, will they verify my email address with the email I used to sign up for the beta?

Yeah me too :shifty: , can I have that e-mail too.

  • 8 months later...

Like most of u I've used norton products b4& found that the system just clamps up. :crazy:

However 360 is totaly different, it runs smoothly in the background& doesnt interupt my computer use or slow down my browser.

In fact i find even running a full scan it doesnt clog the system2much, i find my spyware doctor uses more system resource.

I also found the right click¬ being able 2scan a single file strange but dont worry, 360 automatically scan that folder/file on entry

and it has picked up trojans&malware issues.

All in all its the best norton product so far &I wont change back2 my old AV&firewall apps.

Throughout 2006 I had a total of three Symantec products running: Norton Anti-Virus, Norton Systemworks, and Norton Firewall. In 2007 I saw that Symantec had released Norton 360 as a consolidation of their main PC security and maintenance components, and was happy to try it out.

I have been using the various Norton suites for several years now and have never really had any major issues with them. In the past, Norton has let you customize just about every setting. You could recieve updates when/if you want, you could schedule your scans or do them manually, and most importantly, you get detailed descriptions of what Norton is doing! With Norton 360, it appears that Symentec is trying to take the term "user friendly" to new levels.

In the previous versions of Norton, during updates you were presented with a little window that had a list of all of the components that were being updated, their file sizes, and the progress of each individual download and installation. You were also able to see if a particular update failed at the moment it failed.

In Norton 360 you are just presented with a progress animation, no details whatsoever other than "downloading" and "installing". You could have had a computer freeze, or an error, and you wouldn't know until it supposedly finished. You also don't know if you are actually downloading updated virus definitions, or just some little miscellaneous Norton update that could have waited until another time.

Also, you have no option regarding automatic updates or scanning on computer startup. Sure, you can turn off various features, but then you will be presented with a scary red X on your system tray icon. Who wants that? You are also forced to enable Automatic Windows Updates for the exact same reason.

I am the kind of user that will happily manually update or scan every day or every couple of days. But I don't like to be forced to do it by a piece of software. The protection that I have recieved from Norton 360 has been top quality as per the usual Symentec standard, but the experience of using the product is making me lean toward alternatives.

The single mistake they made with this product is in not including features for an experienced user who doesn't want to be coddled.

* * * * *

Before going into the details, SYMANTEC: where's the "selective scanning" had gone?? I spent like 15 minutes trying to find how to scan a folder/file individually with no luck!

I was also dissapointed by this. More than once after finding this out have I caught myself right-clicking on a file to scan it.

The usual cleaning stuff and a defragment program.

Hm... coming from using Norton Systemworks for many years, I was somewhat dissapointed with 360's optimization feature. As with the updates, this also does not show any sort of file details, percent fragmented, percent of optimization being completed. The native Windows defrag tool is more useful in terms of the imformation displayed.

I'm totally IMPRESSED with how Norton 360 deals with the system resources issue!

I was as well. Before I uninstalled all of my old Norton programs, I counted the background programs running and I think I had 8-10 (don't recall exactly). With 360 they've managed to integrate several services into one, ccSvcHst.exe, which controlls Live Update notifications and manages other events for the program; and ccApp.exe which I believe is an active session of the antivirus program. There are a couple of others as well, but nowhere near the bloat I had previously.

So, no issues with LUCallBackProxy.exe for you guys?

I uninstalled Norton 360, installed BitDefender, and my computer runs sooooo much faster, especially at boot. And I don't exactly have a slouch machine (Pentium D @ 3.0 Ghz, 3GB RAM, Win XP Pro SP2).

So, no issues with LUCallBackProxy.exe for you guys?

LUCallBackProxy.exe is a process that runs in the background (sometimes multiple instances of it) when the Live Update is connecting to the Symantec web server. This will normally occur after a PC reboot. It should go away after about 10 minutes or so, when the update is complete.

Did you have more specific problems with it?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!