Symantec's AV is more resource heavy, and less effective than other solutions. This is reason enough to not recommend it. Your claim that a P4 can lose a bunch of speed and still work is true, but not really a good argument. Isn't it better to have more speed than less? If you get at least the same performance with less penalty using AVG, isn't that the better option?

Symantec's AV has hosed many people's machines. Once you deal with rebuilding someone's system because their AV has corrupted their database, or killed Windows you kind of take a dislike to that AV program. Also Winfax is quite possibly the worst application I have ever, EVER had to deal with. Not entirely related, but same company.

So a free solution cannot be as good as one you pay for? I've ran into this attitude a bunch of times, but it's still amusing. If you feel better giving away your money, regardless of what return you get for it, then whatever floats your boat.

"Thanks for the lesson. I've never used a computer before." You have used the same applications, have been uninterested in alternatives regardless of their potential merit, for years. You are comfortable with your choices, and don't notice what you are missing as you've not experienced it. Your machine might be 10% faster if you used different AV, but you don't miss it. It's just like how you can enjoy roast a lot better if you haven't had prime rib recently. Ignorance is bliss.

Double Post:
I very much like Kaspersky's AV stuff. www.kaspersky.com

I've also had good experience pushing AV out to clients with Trend Micro's Office Scan.

http://www.trendmicro.com/en/product...e/overview.htm

edit: You try to spell Kaspersky two times fast.

The general concensus on Symantec software: it's shit. Along with being a total resource hog, it just doesn't so what it's supposed. The AV can't pick up most viruses, and the FW is way too picky and isn't configurable at all. Now I know most of say that Symantec is doing a good job, but how in God's name can you say that for sure? Just because you scan with only one AV doesn't mean you're safe.

I work at Staples and I see first hand the slowdown that Norton causes, even on our top-end computers. AMD64s with 1GB of RAM act like Pentium IIIs. I grit my teeth everytime someone comes into the store and asks where Norton is.

I use NOD32 AV, and Sygate Pro FW. NOD is about $20 cheaper than Norton, and doesn't hog up resources because it's coded in C++. Sygate was UNFORTUNATELY just bought out by Symantec and was dicontinued, but it still is doing a hell of a good job. Between this and my router I haven't had a single problem. Also, as an added bonus, Firefox is a good browser defence against spam and other bullshit that gets sent in via cookies.

Every now and then I'll test with AVG free and a couple spyware apps, but I haven't found any threats in the last 2 years.

Why does Norton AntiVirus suck?

Space/Resource hog. I've been successfully able to install and run AVG on computers that norton wouldn't even begin to install on. And I've been able to run it on a Pent 133MHz computer without hardly a slowdown. Try THAT with Norton.

But honestly, McAfee is MUCH worse than Norton or AVG. McAfee is the Windows ME of AntiVirus programs.

The fact that Gordon isn't listening to a word that anyone says makes him an idiot. My own idiocy is an unrelated matter, and one which I have no interest in disputingn with you. What's the point of starting a thread to 'debate' if you don't want to hear any other viewpoints than your own? His arguments are spurious, and his attitude stinks. I'm not going to let your accusation of idiocy spoil my day, to be blunt. Hell, I'm not even going to let it spoil my hour.

Gordon Freeman has not refuted any of the points which were presented to him, nor has he addressed any of the criticism aimed at Norton products. Yet still he congratulates himself on his open-mindedness, and continues to present spurious arguments against free solutions.

With regards to the suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd suggest that I at least know my stuff when it comes to the technical aspects of the debate, which is more than can be said for Gordon Freeman!

Norton Corporate Edition isn't that bad truth be told, its like Norton AV with all the shit taken out.

yeah, our university forces us to use symantic antivirus, but it's pretty decent compared to norton AV itself. i really don't like the random scans though... when i'm playing far cry or something, it gets annoying to have to alttab out and end the process.

I agree with Sir VG. Norton SW has just become bloated and a resource hog over the years. While it has worked as intended, it jsut had a lot of features that I didn't end up using a lot. Sure, I could've excluded this from my installed package, but I'm a fan of the complete install. Even at minimum, Norton was a pig. I've used NOD32 for a couples years now, and I love it. It is "minimalistic." At some point, I do wanna pay for it.

Who said that he did not want to hear the opposing side? Just because he is arguing for Norton does not mean that he is a gung-ho norton fanboy. In case you have trouble in reading comprehension, I would like to let you know that he has presented arguments which are contrary to the position you hold. Whether or not these are effective is not the point here. Nor does he congratulate himself on his openmindedness. Nonetheless, you are still an fool, and I would suggest you spend some time doing research into what a debate is.:juggler:

Even with AVG out there, I've been virus free for maybe 3 years...and I don't use Norton.

And I'm not on a Mac, either.

Its a nice addition to have, but yeah, resource whore.

The only thing in Norton that I still find useful is the Protected Recycle Bin. Other then that all of their tools are ineffective and over bloated, with many alternatives to use. For firewall, I use Zonealarm, for antivirus: NOD32 (which is so minimal as it is effective: its uses unnoticable resources on a Celeron 300 running WinXP). Never had any kind of problems ever.

Even Speed Disk, which was awesome, got crapped up in their 2003 set of utilities, before it was literally the best defrag tool but now its slow and ineffective. O&O, while it doesnt do as good of a job as Norton 2002, is miles ahead of Norton 2003.

This thread got a little out of control. Thanks again to everyone for their input. I have read with interest all of the thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many fair and easily substantiated claims have been levelled against Norton, but others are lacking context, anecdotal proof and in one or two cases, even a rational frame of mind. In my research I could find no corroboration whatsoever that Norton Firewall is less effective than the windows firewall, and plenty of testing reports that suggest that all the major Firewall brands for home use perform at roughly the same level.

It hardly matters. People choose what they choose for a litany of reasons, some reasonable some not. Still, surprised and impressed that a discussion about this arcane subject can arouse such vehemence.

Back in the day, Norton Disk Utilities used be not jsut recomended but required to keep Macs funtioning. If you system was failing a quick run through Norton would sort all the shit out.

Not anymore.

Now, Norton Disk Utilities and otehr bullshit software install crap right in the very heart of the Darwin kernal that runs OSX slowing every single process down to a crawl. It's just horrible.

That's not too surprising, considering that the Windows firewall doesen't even check on outbound traffic - spyware ahoy!

Second that, or third, or fifth, whatever the finally tally is coming to. After all, why settle for less when there is a more effective and less resource heavy program out there that is totally free?

Norton Anti-Virus is slow, cludgy, resource-hogging and basically takes the piss out of my laptop. With Anti-Virus running in the background, I can't get anything else done. Ad-Aware works much better and it's free.

I use Zone Alarm for a firewall, so I've never had to use Norton's firewall stuff.

On the other hand, Norton PartitionMagic 8.0 does what it's supposed to do and does it very well.

That might make sense if Ad-Aware was an antivirus program.

That's because Partition Magic wasn't originally done by Norton.

I used Systemworks 2002 for quite a while. I did like it a lot, because it kept me protected and it wasn't very noticeable. When I changed to Kaspersky, and then to NOD32, I noticed a huge difference, both in resource uses and in efficiency. Virus that Norton couldn't find were eliminated by Kaspersky, and the same thing happened with NOD32. I can't say I wouldn't ever install a Norton product in my machine again, but for the time being I'm doing pretty well without it.

PartitionMagic isn't a Norton Product.

EDIT: DEAR GOD WHYYYYY??????????????

Strangely, I have Partition Magic 8.0 without any Symantec Branding. I have it as PowerQuest.

Yep, Norton took over PowerQuest a year or two ago. I prefer Acronis these days, it appears to be as reliable as Partition Magic and handles ext2/3 and ReiserFS as well - comes in handy when preparing a Win/Linux dual boot system.

Which, upon reflection, does not. But it's okay. I have NOD32 now.

*smiles*

Told you, it's an awesome tool.

If you want to pay for an AV solution, pay for NOD32. If you want it free, use AVG.

I used Norton for about two years, and replaced it with a (free) suite from my ISP about six months back. My reason? Norton is the most bloated piece of software I have ever come across. One day I got the notion to find out what all of my processes were, and I had about ten from Norton. And they weren't small processes either.

Ever since I switched, I've noticed my PC boots a heck of a lot faster (P4 3Ghz, 1Gb RAM here, so it's not that my PC can't cut it). I don't get infected much, so I can't comment on Nortons effectiveness, but I can tell you one thing - everyone I know (at home) who uses Norton has switched at one point or another. Even the ones who aren't expert users.

Anything corporate edition isn't as bad. For some reason when they make home editions, it's dumbed down and jampacked with junk you don't need. Even McAfee corporate editions aren't bad. But yes, main reason Norton is terrible is because it's a huge resource hog. That's the only bad thing I found about it.

And if you have all the annoying alerts on, you'll get asked for permission before you start anything. Annoying. If you get hit by a virus, fat chance you'll get it off by scanning. AVG is a good one to have.