Why do people hate Norton?
 

One thing I have noticed consistently across many different kinds of message boards, is that no one recommends Norton Firewall or anti-virus when the question of Internet Security is raised. In fact many responders dissuade the poster from getting Nortons. Why is that?

I have had Nortons for as many years as I have had broadband, and have not had any issues or problems at all. It is unobtrusive, updates often, inexpensive and effective.

I am not being a shill here, just curious to know where the bad feelings come from.

I wasn't aware of any Norton hate.

McAfee, on the other hand...

Firewall: It's resource-heavy, it's not very configurable, it causes problems with many of the things I do on the net. It blocks a lot of non-standard internet applications, such as bittorrent. It may be possible to work around those issues. My workaround was to get a product that just does what I want it to do.

Norton has been known to cause crashing, and system instability. It also generates alerts for things which are perfectly normal. It's too damn fussy.

Anti-Virus: Norton AV is quite simply defective. If you scan a PC with another product, after it has already been scanned with Norton, you will discover virii that Norton simply did not detect. It also suffers from the same problem of being resource-heavy.

Put simply, neither product is the best in their field, and why would you possibly wish to use anything less than the best? The odds are your PC is laden with virii and spyware, unless you run another product in addition to Norton. I will always recommend a product other than Norton, because Norton is not the best. It's a popular brand, but what kind of a basis is that to make a decision?

most programs for Norton are great,I used AntiVirus & Utilities more than 6 years.I don't have any problems with them.

Norton just isn't good enough. When it scans it seems to miss everything that it is scanning for. There are better applications out there, and they do a much better job than Norton ever will.

Besides Norton may have that auto-update thing and specific scanners for specific viruses, but they never seem to work. I recently ran Norton on a virus invaded PC and Norton found 7 viruses, i then ran XoftSpy and this found something in the region of 350 infections. I then ran AVG anti-virus and this found a few more infections. The PC also claimed to have blackworm on it, but Norton failed to find it, whereas AVG did but was unable to deal with it.

As for the Norton firewall, i think that we can all agree that even Windows firewall does a better job than this.

In conclusion there are more reliable, and better options on the market.

there big different between Viruses & Spyware,Norton AntiVirus for all viruses types and also can find famous spyware.isn't that mean is bad program,is make for protection from all viruses.and XoftSpy can scan for spyware not viruses.
that why we see alot programs for protection from spyware

I also ran AVG anti-virus and this found viruses that Norton didn't. I'm not saying it's a bad program, just that it's not a fantastic one. I know that Norton primarily scans for viruses, but also scans for spyware. i know this because when i ran Norton on my folks computer it found over 300 spyware entries. All of them were tracking cookies though, nothing too serious.

When i used to use Norton i thought that it was the best on the market, but now that i have found the internet and the viruses/ spyware becomes more common i have had to look into alternatives and found that other programs do a better job at a cheaper, sometimes free price than Norton.

AVG for anti-virus. Good program, free and reliable.
Zone-Alarm for firewall. Simple effective and most of all, free.

These are just suggestions. I have had no trouble with either of these programs, and they do the job that i installed them for.

Well I've been a Norton AV user for 3 years and every year, their AV seems to, well, as everyone says its resource heavy >_<

At first I was thinking twice if I were to trust AVG free because... its free. But I gave it a go and, so far so good :) Its not resource heavy compared to Norton as well :D

The Anti-Virus consumes nearly as many (often more) resources as Windows and doesn't work as well as a lot of others. Sure, Mcaffee is worse. But just about every other one is better.

I use AVG on my Windows boxes.

Personally I think there's no reason to pay for PC security. It'd be like paying the police, firemen, or paramedics $100 every year to come and help you during an emergency (yes I do realize we pay for them with taxes, but not the freeloaders). You just need to bundle a few programs (Zone Alarm, AVG Free and Spybot), and you have free PC security. The only time when you would pay more is when you need special features such as scanning over a network or other services meant for the business (personal editions should always be free).

Thanks for the input - in the spirit of open debate, I am going to respond to some of the points raised.

Configurable - I have not found that Nortons interferes at all with my online gaming, bit torrents, my home network, or my web server. I found the configuration settings to be intutive, although maybe claims they are not extensive are grounded.

Resources - It is true that Norton is resource heavy. But on today's computers is that really an issue? Yes, on my P2 I can tell its there, but on my P4, you would never know.

Cost - Personal judgement of course, but I would never trust the integrity of my system to a free program. They have absolutely no obligation to you.

Last point - something I have noticed too is that Nortons seems to be a lot more effective if you install it on your computer right after the windows installation. If you wait until many other programs are installed, or heaven forbid, the computer is already infected, you will not have a satisfying experience.

:edgartpg:

In my experience Norton products are resource hogs and offer me no advantages compared to freeware solutions. Case closed.

What does this mean?

And non-free ones don't? Companies trying to make a profit cut corners in quality and security to keep costs down and stick to a schedule. Free programs are written so that a good program exists without the ulterior motive of money. There are software versions where profitable ones turn out to be better (A lot of graphics people prefer Photoshop to GIMP). There are software versions where free ones are better than profitable ones (Eclipse vs. the Visual Studio IDE for one). All-around, there's no clear trend. Both Free Software and For-Profit Software can be good, and both can suck.

If you are having a heart attack, would you want to go to the hospital that has the freeware defibulator, or the hospital where they have the for-profit defibulator?

Beg pardon, that is not the spirit of open debate. There's no way that you can call what you just did a debate. It's more just you giving your reasons to stick with Norton. I've got no quarrel with whatever you want to use, but you aren't really arguing from an open-minded standpoint with these kinds of arguments.

Maybe you don't use your PC for much of anything heavy-duty, but when I'm using Dreamweaver, Word, Firefox, my protection suite, and a few other things all at once, my resources become alarmingly scarce. My PC is an Althon 64 3000 with 1GB of ram, so it's more than adequate for those sorts of applications, in theory.

Nor do Norton, or McAfee. The shrink-wrap license specifically states that if the sofware b0rks your PC, or fails to prevent intrusions, that's tough luck, pal. Norton were a brand you could trust, when I started using computers. That was back when the company was still a small codeshop, before the days of Symantec. These days, the name has no connection to the products from back in the day. If you want to go for a name brand, feel free; don't believe that it makes you any safer though.

Unless the computer is already virus-laden by the time you install it, it won't make a bit of difference. There's no technical basis for that to be the case. You're simply failing to take into account the fact that a computer is compromised as soon as it hits the net without protection these days. Withthat in mind, I always install whatever firewall and AV I'm currently using before I even plug in a network cable.

On the other hand, if you were to keep that same PC off the net, but install all kinds of safe software, such as MS shrinkwraps, freeware verified virus-free on another PC, etc.... and then install your protection suite, whether Norton or otherwise, the PC would be just as safe. Fact.

Double Post:
OK, now I just know you're just a corporate schill.

I'm no fan of Symantec Antivirus (or norton, whatever) for a lot of the reasons stated above. Especially the interfering with an awful lot of the system processes.

However, McAfee enterprise does the trick for me, and I don't know why people hate it that much. Maybe I'm missing something, here. Feel free to enlighten me if I am.

On the topic of antivirus software, I'm trying to find an alternative to the Symantec Corporate we're using at work, but I prefer something with functions similar to the Symantec System Center. (where you can deploy clients to the workstations and distribute virus definitions from). Does anyone know of some software packages that offer the same functions?

I am expressing favour for one side of the issue. How is that not a debate? I even concede a point!

we can't all be as cool as you...

I have a similar system - vs.net ide, word, acrobat, inexplorer, full norton suite, winamp, and a host of utilities too numerous to mention concommitantly. Runs smooth as silk. Check for malware.


Obligation in terms of support, and online resources. Who out there has not used Norton's reference to diagnose problems and find removal solutions. Yeah, that's free to use, but someone pays for it. They do an excellent job of helping you resolve your situation if you encounter trouble.

Thanks for the lesson. I've never used a computer before.
My point isn't about how safe it keeps the computer, but about the user experience. If you install Norton late, even on a clean computer it doesn't seem to act as predictably as when you install it early. Not claiming this as a 'fact', just my impression.


It's a joke for Christ's sake.

There used to be a bug in Norton Anti-Virus, maybe about editions around 5-7 years ago, that if you uninstalled Norton, it removed a file or edited your registry or corrupted something...I don't remember quite what, but it did something that rendered all your network connections useless. This flaw was acknowledged by Norton and they conceeded that there was no solution, there was no way to repair these problems without completely formatting your computer and reinstalling Windows.

Since then I'm off Norton products for good.

That's a sly way to retain your clients. Let them leave only under serious penalty!

It's not a debate when your mind isn't open. You're fixed quite firmly on the notion that Norton is the only way to go, in defiance of the facts. That's fine, and you can get as angry as you like, but it's not a debate.

Dreamweaver is more resource-heavy than vs.net by a long way. Firefox is also more resource-heavy than iexplore. Naturally my system is entirely free of malware, but I have made application choices with a substantially greater memory footprint than yours. It's not about malware, it's about having a finite supply of RAM.

Oh well, if you want to change the meaning of the word "obligation", in order to prove your argument, then go right ahead. Personally, I've never found that I had a problem I couldn't handle with my own tools, but then my computer is maintained properly, and operated safely.

You need lessons if you think that the stuff you are talking about has any technical basis. Don't post bullshit and then get upset when someone calls bullshit on it.

Well there's no technical basis for that impression of yours, none whatsoever. There's nothing about it that supports your argument that Norton is the best, and it's actually pretty much a non-sequitur. Why'd you even post this thread if you're not interested in listening to what people have to say?


Sure, you say that now. It's not just that one comment, anyway. You sound like a guy with an anti-OSS/FS agenda to push. Well, that's fine, like I said. We're all entitled to our delusions. Just don't expect me not to call it like I see it.

I use Norton AV and Firewall, along with Ghost on my newer computer, and AVG and Zone-Alarm on my older one. I supplement both with Ad-Aware and Spy-bot, and they normally do a better job than any other scanner, purchased or free.
While Norton is resource heavy, I run Maya a lot and normally see very little slow down, and if you've ever used Maya, you know how intense it can get on system resources.
As for Zone-Alarm, most of the time it bugs the crap out of me when navigating the web with Firefox, so I shut it off and turn it back on later, since I have an 'always on' connection.
It doesn't do much, but doing a daily or every-other-day scan with AA and SB really helps.

I always thought Norton was a pretty creepy guy. Maybe they should take him off the box. :P

Wow, a quote war in the computing forum. This is surprising.

Anywho, I used Norton AV for a while since it was free, but after that ran out, I went out and got AVG. I definitely have to say that it takes up fewer resources, and the boot time for my computer is much lower.
I also got Norton firewall for free, but I still kept that one after the free licence expired because I am too lazy to configure a whole new firewall ( I had very particular settings that I made, which accumulated over time into quite a bit of custom settings), and it is not nearly as much of a resource hog as the AV was.

Anywho, that is my story.

Also, Soluzar, you are an idiot, and have no idea what a debate is. Openmindedness is a non-issue in debate. It is purely a presentation of differing viewpoints and the support behind them, viewing the personal opinions of the debaters as immaterial. Gordon can present whatever reasons he has for believing what he does, and you can present whatever reasons you have for believing what you do. Just because he presents a perception that clashes with your own does not mean it is not a debate. You do not know what you are talking about.

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.