Norton Hate

[inoesomestuff]

i know that many people hate norton anti-virus but i am confused about why they hate it so much =\ it takes up a large chunk of memory and there are some better alternatives but can u guys explain why it sux so bad?

[Malicious Intent]

Because you can't call a virus that kills other viruses "anti-virus".

[the great one]

The amount of memory it uses is a big downfall,although I find it catches viruses very well.
If you're just using Norton antivirus it's not so bad, but if you're using their internet security then it takes a lot of resources.

[.:sp00ky:.]

"it takes up a large chunk of memory and there are some better alternatives"

didnt you just answer your own question..

[ratbag]

i have been using Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition for years and i've had no major virus infections it catches everything conflicts with nothing and I would use nothing else and I would recomend nothing else

[Matt865]

It's shite at removal.

[ratbag]

It's shite at removal.

i disagree its always worked perfectly for me and any pc i've installed it on and that has been many many pc's over the years

[Lehk]

NAV sucks because it slows the hell out of your computer and the installer/uninstaller is fucked up, my dad let his free NAV subscription that came with his computer expire and the damned thing wouldn't uninstall, just crashed, and it wouldn't reinstall in order to resubscribe. as far as i know it's still half installed on his machine doing nothing but wasting space.

NAV isn't the only one guilty of suckage, MaCrappy is even slower (20-30% slowdown of an athlon 2200+ 512[at the time] megs of ram.

H+BEDV's Anti-Vir is good, AVG is good, ClamAV i have heard good things about.

[ratbag]

i have not seen these performance hits and i have never had a problem uninstalling Nortons

[MPXX]

NAV is slower than molasses at scanning for viruses...took like 90 min to scan my 150 GB of total space while NOD32 only took 12 min and has a way better virus bulletin than Symantec's and NOD also uses a lot less resources than NAV

[the great one]

NAV does take a long time to scan,but it is effective nonetheless.I had used AVG before and it let too many viruses get past.

[RACKnRAIL]

I tend to agree that it's a resource hog and a bitch to uninstall if not done right. I wouldn't ever put it on an older system, that's for sure. A P4 with a gig of ram, perhaps. I don't mind the corp version though, as ratbag metioned. It's not as big a hog as it's paid 1 year version or system works is and it doesn't expire. I have been using eTrust AV myself lately.

[Malakai1911]

NAV is slower than molasses at scanning for viruses...took like 90 min to scan my 150 GB of total space while NOD32 only took 12 min and has a way better virus bulletin than Symantec's and NOD also uses a lot less resources than NAV

I couldn't have said it better myself, and that is the sole reason Nod32 is my top reccomendation.

[tsafa1]

virus protection is the most important thing running on my computer it think. I have a lot of contraband to protect. Norton has done a great job for years. I just upgraded to norton 2005. I never tried to unistall so i don't know how much of a problem that is. As far as memory usage.. what does it use 10 mb. I think minimum memory on any pc these days should be 500 mb. Standard is 1 GB. I think of upgrading to 2 GB of mem sometime soon too. As far as how fast it scans, I never timed it . For 420 Gb i just leave it over night. I think speed is definetly related to thoughroughness and cpu speed.

So like i said, I don't play around with virus protection. Everything is negotiable except that. I think I you are fileshring you have to go with either a name like norton or macafee.

[maynoth]

www.grisoft.com
AVG is FREE and just as good if not better than norton... not to mention it uses like 1/50th the resourses that norton does... I switched and will never look back...