Norton Antivirus 2009: Gaming Edition


Recommended Posts

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. It scored pretty well on the avcomparatives [better than NOD32 I might add].

For those of you who think Norton AV 2009 is bloated, fear not. I am trying it right now, and when idle, it only uses ~ 4 Mb X 2 processes. That is way better than NOD32. It even gives you a meter showing how many resources it is using and I noticed that it also scans faster.

Not really. Norton AV 2009 did not pick up as much on the side of viruses/sw, mw, etc as NOD32.

It runs with less resources because it isn't doing much!

Trial seems good. One thing that p**ses me right off is that if I want to buy it, on the UK site for Symantec its ?39.99, but on the US site its $39.99. Why is the UK getting ripped off yet again. I mean it's a digital download, not like anything is different.

Because unlike the US, Europe, or most of it, has a lot more consumer protection, and we pay ~25% VAT.

As for resoure, NOD may use a bit more ram. but Honestlyy as long as it's reaosnable I don't care how much ram an app or service use, and it can use as many processes as it wants. what counts, for AV software, is CPU usage, and if and how much t slows down IO ops.

NOD is virtually undetectable in it's effect on IO or CPU. I've yet to see a Norton infected computer, whatever version, that doesn't run like it's clogged up with syrup.

I'm not sure if this is because of what Norton or symantec is doing, or if it's because the users are idiots and the AV software isn't doing it's job, i.e omputer full of viruses and malware.

Because unlike the US, Europe, or most of it, has a lot more consumer protection, and we pay ~25% VAT.

So why isn't it cheaper in the UK where VAT isn't ~25%? What do you mean by consumer protection?

NOD is virtually undetectable in it's effect on IO or CPU. I've yet to see a Norton infected computer, whatever version, that doesn't run like it's clogged up with syrup.

I'm not sure if this is because of what Norton or symantec is doing, or if it's because the users are idiots and the AV software isn't doing it's job, i.e omputer full of viruses and malware.

Normally I'd totally agree with you, but 2009 so far isn't showing any of those signs. Install was very quick and the program seems very snappy. I'm also carrying out a full system scan as I write this and I'm impressed by the lack of slowdown.

So why isn't it cheaper in the UK where VAT isn't ~25%? What do you mean by consumer protection?

Because UK, being part of Europe, is one of thos nations with ~25% VAT and all those consumer protections. They vary form country to country, but here in Nroway for example. Every product has a mandatory "warranty" against production faults for 2 or 5 years, dependign on how long the products is meant to last. This was recently extended to even laptop and cell phone batterias who have to last for 2.5 or something I believe.

Also every manufacturer has to offer at least a 1 year guarantee, none of this 3 months crap.

Normally I'd totally agree with you, but 2009 so far isn't showing any of those signs.

I dunno, I'm still seeing computer we sell with Norton speed up significantly when norton has ben de-infected, but at least the new version seems like it may not need the special remover tool to be able to remove all parts, like the notifyer for example wich you can't uninstall.

granted replacing Norton trial with the F-Secure they get with their internet subscription is kind of like replacing the plague with cholera.

Why should people give it a try if they have AV they're happy with.

uninstalling and reinstalling new AV just to reinstalle the rgeistered one they had that actually works is kind of a mess.

Besides I wouldn't ever let anything norton get in touch with my own computers, I have enough with getting it off other people computers, be it old or new Nortong "my computer is so slow, why is that?"

As I said, either norton steals too many CPU and IO resources, or it sucks at doing it's job and let's everything through for the idiot users who insist on going to dodgy webpages and clickign yes to everything.

I don't know wich it is, but I do know, that every coputer I have seen with Norton on it, ANY version, is slow.

So even if they have improved I see no reason to give them my trust when there is other software out there, that does their job, doesn't slow down IO or hijack the CPU. AV software in't exatly somethign I change every second week. and well personally I don't ven use AV as it is right now.

Well, don't ****ing give it a try then. It's not like I work for them or something. I gave it a try and it works great. I hate the past Norton products but this one is really good. If you guys have a problem with Norton, then don't come to this thread just to bash them, coz I don't think this is the right thread for that.

This Norton bashing is ridiculous! Give the trial a go, before giving your opinion folks. It really is that good.

Yes it is!

I haven't tried Norton since 2004 when it was ****ty. Been using AVG and Avast etc. since then. But when I tried Norton 2009 I really liked it and bought it. Instals in 1 min. and runs really smooth. Best AV I've used in years. Been testing NOD32 and Avira before also.

Sometimes I think "Antivirus Fanboys" are worse than Gamers :laugh:

Unnecessary bashing FTL.

If you deem Norton the antichrist and won't go near them, why the heck are you visiting this topic?

Why should people give it a try if they have AV they're happy with.

uninstalling and reinstalling new AV just to reinstalle the rgeistered one they had that actually works is kind of a mess.

Besides I wouldn't ever let anything norton get in touch with my own computers, I have enough with getting it off other people computers, be it old or new Nortong "my computer is so slow, why is that?"

As I said, either norton steals too many CPU and IO resources, or it sucks at doing it's job and let's everything through for the idiot users who insist on going to dodgy webpages and clickign yes to everything.

I don't know wich it is, but I do know, that every coputer I have seen with Norton on it, ANY version, is slow.

So even if they have improved I see no reason to give them my trust when there is other software out there, that does their job, doesn't slow down IO or hijack the CPU. AV software in't exatly somethign I change every second week. and well personally I don't ven use AV as it is right now.

+1!!

Well I will try it out and see what I think. I currently have NOD installed and it takes up about 45mb of memory and on average 5-10% CPU usage. It's not going to kill me to try this...

+1!!

-1

Its one thing to like something that you already have, and not see a need for trying out an alternative.

Its quite another thing to hate the alternative and thread-crap with phanboi insults, while refusing to actually challenge your beliefs on the matter.

I gave it a go, now I already posted that Norton 2009 antivirus is a brand new product which is light and easy to use tho it fails too many times at detecting spyware and trojans.

Regarding gaming edition, it is complete none sense! this version is identical to the regular 2009! the difference I see is in skin and instead of quiet mode you can gaming mode, both do the same thing.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences 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

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!