who agrees??? DOES NORTON SUCK?!?!?

~~littshepkid02~~ · 09-15-2005, 12:30 PM

i think it does

ebackhus · 09-15-2005, 01:10 PM

I vote yes.

bry623 · 09-15-2005, 01:36 PM

No problems here, I don't like McAfee.

09-15-2005, 02:01 PM

norton is slightly better then mcafee but this never means that it is not bad. Norton is useless most of the time. Generates more problems then it fixes. McAfee is the same. On top of that McAfee annoys the heck out of user. I would prefer the virus in my system then having NAV or McAfee. So my vote is " pretty yes sugar on top "

**kodi** · 09-15-2005, 03:21 PM

YES, it's a resource hog

~~littshepkid02~~ · 09-15-2005, 07:15 PM

lol 12%

hopper · 09-16-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleSky

norton is slightly better then mcafee but this never means that it is not bad. Norton is useless most of the time. Generates more problems then it fixes. McAfee is the same. On top of that McAfee annoys the heck out of user. I would prefer the virus in my system then having NAV or McAfee. So my vote is " pretty yes sugar on top "

Exactly. Unintrusive AVG for me since early 2001. Never infected.

~~whodat~~ · 09-16-2005, 07:12 AM

ewido is not too shaby

topspeed007 · 09-16-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopper

Exactly. Unintrusive AVG for me since early 2001. Never infected.

I think not.

How do you know...if the system doesn't pick up a virus does that mean you are virus free???
and also the fact that you never have been infected is to do with your surfing habits/email not your antivirus product

Norton provides (along with many other corps) an internet security tool which as far as i'm aware works as well as any other on the market. I run internet security 2005 and have had no problems at all, and am reasonably confident that my system is as secure and virus free as can be (for practical online use)
At the end of the day its a case of personal preference..you picked AVG, I picked NAV

~~whodat~~ · 09-16-2005, 02:31 PM

what ever works for you
free country
keeping your system clean is the end goal here....

Scooped · 09-16-2005, 05:43 PM

I try to stay away from Symantec's products.

Norton for example, is a resource hog, constantly causes problems, and isn't even all that effecient in finding malware (You can look at nearly any test results if you don't believe me).

Basically, AVG Free > Norton, imho.

But again, as whosdat said, in the end it's just about keeping your system clean.

**Fox** · 09-16-2005, 06:03 PM

AVG rocks. Norton products suck big time.

**Spatcher** · 09-16-2005, 06:18 PM

What about my personal favorite, avast! ?

I will admit that AVG pwns McAfee (never tried Norton), but IMHO avast! pwns AVG

Tumbleweed36 · 09-16-2005, 06:26 PM

Hi,

I use AVG free on one machine and Norton on the other just to compare what is happening with each. There does not appear to be any difference in the two machines on a regular basis. The two programs do the same thing if you are just using the virus programs.

I think if you use the Norton Firewall and the Norton Systemworks together, you need to have some computer knowledge to configure it to work like it should. Those with little or no software experience might have some difficulty with the Norton products if using the suites.

Therefore, if a non-experienced user, I suggest you choose AVG. The bottom line, if you know what you are doing and work with Norton, it works fine and does not interfere or hog that many resources from my machine. Either program is efficient and becomes a background resource to use on a daily basis.

Oh, I love these personal opinion questions. So much contraversy.

The premise of the original question suggests that Norton is not a great product. Therefore I doubt if the answers will reflect a true picture of what the product actually is because the original question plants a negative before the poll is taken. Therefore, negative responses are more likely to be answered in this poll. That is my two cents worth.

Scooped · 09-16-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed36

The premise of the original question suggests that Norton is not a great product. Therefore I doubt if the answers will reflect a true picture of what the product actually is because the original question plants a negative before the poll is taken. Therefore, negative responses are more likely to be answered in this poll. That is my two cents worth.

On the other hand, symantec users may find me ranting on symantec rather offensive and be eager to fire back with biased reasons why NAV doesn't suck. Therefore, your intellectual thoughts on this controversial topic being biased, are in fact false.

:P

On a less intelligent note, I'd say to get the full picture on how AVG and norton perfom, you need to be an average stupid user, which you do not appear to be (especially after that last reply).

I'm not on windows to often anymore, but AVG has never failed me.

**DumberDrummer** · 09-16-2005, 09:57 PM

Every experience I've ever had with Symantec has left me shaking my head.

Free software all the way!

I use AVG, btw, but I disable that annoying e-mail scanner..

greyknight17 · 09-17-2005, 04:17 PM

Count me in guys

Never liked Norton either since it's usually the culprit behind many problems (ran into a handful recently too). Also a huge resource hog as some have said already.

AVG fans everywhere...me too

Chevy · 09-21-2005, 09:22 PM

I've been using Symantec products for many years, bot individual installs and enterprise managed, and always had good results.

I am a fan of AVG, but I also like Panda (especially their managed setup), Mcafee, and ezTrust is pretty decent.

What I tell my clients is this - no one AV program is flawless. Always seek a second opinion via an online scan like Trend Micro. Now, keeping that in mind, base your primary/installed AV on cost first, performance second.

For example:

APP #1 costs $69.95, is 90% effective
APP #2 costs $49.95, is 80% effective
APP #3 costs $29.95, is 70% effective

I would go with #3, spending less, and rely on frequent (weekly or twice weekly) online scans to pick up the slack.

If I know a customer to be unable/unwilling to keep up with additional maintenance, then I go with a more comprehensive installed app.

~~whodat~~ · 09-22-2005, 04:40 AM

glad your with us joe

i just used avast, and it found 3 in the system volume that the others didnt.

i think users that run marginal memory size find slowdowns with norton and macfee.

if they would pump up their systems, they would be good to go

imho.

bokchod · 09-22-2005, 05:05 AM

both and norton and mcafee does :-(

i am happy with nod32 .. kav and avg isnt bad either

View Poll Results: does norton suck!?!?!?!?!?!?!
yes	24	80.00%
no	6	20.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

09-15-2005, 12:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
~~littshepkid02~~ Permanently Banned Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 70 OS: 2000/xp	who agrees??? DOES NORTON SUCK?!?!? i think it does

09-15-2005, 01:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
ebackhus Manager, Design Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: SATX Posts: 14,254 OS: WinXP Pro SP3/Windows 7 RTM My System Blog Entries: 28	I vote yes. __________________ ----------------------------- There are no dumb questions, unless a customer is asking them. Help in the fight against cancer and other serious illnesses.

09-15-2005, 01:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	No problems here, I don't like McAfee. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

09-15-2005, 03:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
kodi Moderator Hardware Team Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 7,397 OS: Windows 7-Ultimate 64 Bit My System	YES, it's a resource hog __________________ Brian

09-15-2005, 02:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
PurpleSky Guest Posts: n/a OS:	norton is slightly better then mcafee but this never means that it is not bad. Norton is useless most of the time. Generates more problems then it fixes. McAfee is the same. On top of that McAfee annoys the heck out of user. I would prefer the virus in my system then having NAV or McAfee. So my vote is " pretty yes sugar on top "

09-15-2005, 07:15 PM	#6 (permalink)
~~littshepkid02~~ Permanently Banned Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 70 OS: 2000/xp	lol 12%

09-16-2005, 07:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
~~whodat~~ Register user Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,931 OS: XP	ewido is not too shaby

09-16-2005, 02:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
~~whodat~~ Register user Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,931 OS: XP	what ever works for you free country keeping your system clean is the end goal here....

09-16-2005, 05:43 PM	#11 (permalink)
Scooped Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 58 OS: Triple Booting: XP/Slacky/FreeBSD	I try to stay away from Symantec's products. Norton for example, is a resource hog, constantly causes problems, and isn't even all that effecient in finding malware (You can look at nearly any test results if you don't believe me). Basically, AVG Free > Norton, imho. But again, as whosdat said, in the end it's just about keeping your system clean.

09-16-2005, 06:03 PM	#12 (permalink)
Fox TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,752 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	AVG rocks. Norton products suck big time. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W, ABIT IP35-E, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800, PNY 8800GT, 320GB Seagate * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!

09-16-2005, 06:18 PM	#13 (permalink)
Spatcher Henry Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,484 OS: Mac OSX	What about my personal favorite, avast! ? I will admit that AVG pwns McAfee (never tried Norton), but IMHO avast! pwns AVG __________________ JohnThePilot: Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon (a nation without a language is a nation without a heart) John Butler Trio: Go take a step outside, see what's shakin' in the real world - Good Excuse Paul Kelly: Just add a dollop of tomato sauce for sweetness and that extra tang - How to Make Gravy

09-16-2005, 06:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
Tumbleweed36 Asst Manager Hardware Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 19,652 OS: XP Professional	Hi, I use AVG free on one machine and Norton on the other just to compare what is happening with each. There does not appear to be any difference in the two machines on a regular basis. The two programs do the same thing if you are just using the virus programs. I think if you use the Norton Firewall and the Norton Systemworks together, you need to have some computer knowledge to configure it to work like it should. Those with little or no software experience might have some difficulty with the Norton products if using the suites. Therefore, if a non-experienced user, I suggest you choose AVG. The bottom line, if you know what you are doing and work with Norton, it works fine and does not interfere or hog that many resources from my machine. Either program is efficient and becomes a background resource to use on a daily basis. Oh, I love these personal opinion questions. So much contraversy. The premise of the original question suggests that Norton is not a great product. Therefore I doubt if the answers will reflect a true picture of what the product actually is because the original question plants a negative before the poll is taken. Therefore, negative responses are more likely to be answered in this poll. That is my two cents worth. __________________ ---------- I don't receive email notifications of replies to subscribed threads. (Internet provider policy) Therefore, if I don't respond to your post within 24 hours, please send me a reminder PM and include the link to your thread.

09-16-2005, 09:57 PM	#16 (permalink)
DumberDrummer Cymru am byth Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 5,385 OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 My System	Every experience I've ever had with Symantec has left me shaking my head. Free software all the way! I use AVG, btw, but I disable that annoying e-mail scanner.. __________________ Living with Louie dog's the only way to stay sane _____________________________________________ ... and with those words so begins my lifetime of longing for the devil's warm embrace

09-17-2005, 04:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
greyknight17 Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New York Posts: 14,331 OS: Windows 98 & Windows XP Home/Pro My System	Count me in guys Never liked Norton either since it's usually the culprit behind many problems (ran into a handful recently too). Also a huge resource hog as some have said already. AVG fans everywhere...me too __________________ Please do NOT PM me. Post whatever questions you may have in the forum and we will take a look at it when we get to it. If you have waited for more than 3 days, you may then and ONLY then PM me for assistance. I will take a look at it. Adaware :: CWShredder :: HijackThis :: Panda ActiveScan :: Spybot S&D Anti-Spyware Tutorial :: Spyware Prevention Tools

09-21-2005, 09:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
Chevy Retired Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Notlob Posts: 5,452 OS: Vista Ultimate My System	I've been using Symantec products for many years, bot individual installs and enterprise managed, and always had good results. I am a fan of AVG, but I also like Panda (especially their managed setup), Mcafee, and ezTrust is pretty decent. What I tell my clients is this - no one AV program is flawless. Always seek a second opinion via an online scan like Trend Micro. Now, keeping that in mind, base your primary/installed AV on cost first, performance second. For example: APP #1 costs $69.95, is 90% effective APP #2 costs $49.95, is 80% effective APP #3 costs $29.95, is 70% effective I would go with #3, spending less, and rely on frequent (weekly or twice weekly) online scans to pick up the slack. If I know a customer to be unable/unwilling to keep up with additional maintenance, then I go with a more comprehensive installed app.

09-22-2005, 04:40 AM	#19 (permalink)
~~whodat~~ Register user Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,931 OS: XP	glad your with us joe i just used avast, and it found 3 in the system volume that the others didnt. i think users that run marginal memory size find slowdowns with norton and macfee. if they would pump up their systems, they would be good to go imho. Last edited by whodat; 09-22-2005 at 04:42 AM.

09-22-2005, 05:05 AM	#20 (permalink)
bokchod Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 56 OS: Win XP Pro Sp2 My System	both and norton and mcafee does :-( i am happy with nod32 .. kav and avg isnt bad either __________________ Seek inspiration for it's a state of mind that can make a man divine.