hobo_man

Hi, I see many people saying that Norton Antivirus is bad but never gave a specific reason besides "It's a resource hog".

Do people who say that don't use it because of the resources it takes up? I've never seen anyone put something bad about it's effectiveness and detection rate..

So is Norton Antivirus actually very effective with high detection rate but people who say it's a resource hog don't use it because it's a resource hog?

crazijoe

I have used NAV, AVG, and McAfee. On one occasion, I had a computer that was infected with a virus. The computer had AVG loaded on it. AVG detected the virus but was unable to remove it. AVG, then was unistalled. The drive was removed and slaved in another computer that was running Norton AV. Norton did not detect any viruses what-so-ever. The drive was then slave into another computer with F-Secure. Not only did F-Secure find the virus and remove it, it also found about 4 more and removed them.

I have found that NAV will only update it's virus definitions on every Wednesday or when you force an update. F-Secure will check for updates every hour.

I don't use Norton Anti-Virus because it is just plain inefective.

jgvernonco

It's not just that it is a resource hog, but that it can easily be turned off by bad code; this is because it is too integrated into the operating system. It will try to block you from doing things to the point that you don't know WHAT is right.

Then, you need a PhD in Computer science to uninstall it, which I think is a great big black mark.

There is just no reasomn to use such troublesome software when there are so many other good options.Also, there is no reason to have programs on your computer without adequate support, and that what you have with Norton. Leave it alone.