Norton AntiVirus 2008 - Efficiency test

[[deXter]]

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!

[Lasker]

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

[ipodman715]

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

[ntbnnt]

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.

[x-scratch]

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

[1Frothy]

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

[gigapixels Veteran]

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

[acnpt]

Can you explain the boot time a bit more??

6mins????

Doesn't sound correct.

[1Frothy]

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.

Can you explain the boot time a bit more??

6mins????

Doesn't sound correct.

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?

[Nighthawk-F117]

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.

[[deXter]]

@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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

[digitalsoft]

its a shame something so pleasing on the eye sucks.

[Harlem39s Finest]

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

[ahhell]

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

[Lee G. Veteran]

Thanks for the review. I will continue to use NOD32 (Y)

[hjf288]

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....

[ahmz]

Yes, the boot time was increased to 6 minutes, from 2. Mind you, this was on a Pentium-III 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.

[Max Veteran]

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

[BilliShere]

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.

[DreadBoat89]

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

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

[+Warwagon MVC]

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.

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

[ViperAFK]

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

[+Warwagon MVC]

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.

[NienorGT]

P3 or not, the boot time explain why Norton is BLACKLISTED here.

Damn, it's not a single image

[ahmz]

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.