View Full Version : Norton AV 2005.
Dark Liquid
08-01-2005, 13:42
Right. I was thinking of getting Norton Antivirus 2005 for my new system, so I went and read a few reviews of it and most of them said that it was a good enough program, but that it would use up a lot of system resources. How much slower will this program make your system when installed?
Dark Liquid
08-01-2005, 15:00
Depends on the system.
P4 3.4c, 1gig pc4400 ram, DFI lanparty pro875b Rev. B, WD raptors (Raid 0).
I wouldn't think it would slow it down that much.
Shouldn't have any problems but, your inviting Norton haters.
Neo Master Kill
08-01-2005, 15:13
Dude your right, i dispise norton 100%. It let 211 viruses into my system a few years back. I wouldnt even dare put it back on my computer unless it was an emergency. I dont trust it at all!
Personally I think some of the free ones do just as good of a job. Norton is overrated.
Dark Liquid
08-01-2005, 15:19
211 O_O; okay that's quite a lot. Hmm Norton was the only one I was gonna consider paying for seeing as I hate mcafee, and I can't really afford Symantec's Corparate client. :( What are the free AV's like?
Neo Master Kill
08-01-2005, 15:20
I know AVG (http://www.grisoft.com) but me personally would recoment Trend Micro PC-Cillin. Its great!!!
I use anti-vir and so far not a problem. I've used alot of different av's over the years.
get it here: www.free-av.com/
Dark Liquid
08-01-2005, 15:29
Okay. i'll try out Anti-vir and AGP.
Thanks guys :D
i have been told that norton anti virus is completly useless..
and that i should use AVG...
same with adaware...
i think the popular ones are bad because viruses can get round them.....
or is there some other reason, please correct me if so,
come to thinkof it norton anti virus is ****....lol, actually now thinking of all the viruses ive ever had, major and not so mahor ones....it really is bad in that case.. :rolleyes:
i have been told that norton anti virus is completly useless..
and that i should use AVG...
same with adaware...
i think the popular ones are bad because viruses can get round them.....
or is there some other reason, please correct me if so,
come to thinkof it norton anti virus is ****....lol, actually now thinking of all the viruses ive ever had, major and not so mahor ones....it really is bad in that case.. :rolleyes:
Not true.... I believe norton just adds to may ingredients to the mix. I was never fond of all in one fix it type programs. Norton is a good scanner from what I read but, it isn't any better than some of the free ones. If you have an older machine it WILL HAMMER the **** out of it.
As far as getting around them, anti-virus and spyware scanners are retroactive (which means they fix the problems after they come out) As long as you keep your .dat files updated viruses can't just get around them. In other words the program is only as good as it's updates.
dangerous_dom
08-01-2005, 15:51
Well obviously most of you have not tried 2005 then. 2005 is a serious improvement over the other Norton AV's (2002 up were quite good though IMO). I don't notice much of an impact on my system at all, although I do sometimes disable it when playing some games that really push my PC. I am no Norton fanboy and have no preference over any product maker, but i have always been happy with Norton. AVG really is not as good as everyone thinks, but it is free. Plus i see more of an inpact on system resources with McAfee which i personally don't like. PC-Cillin has been aropund for donkey's year, I'm sure was using it over ten years ago, so they should know what they are doing (im told updates are a little in-frequent though). You wont regret 2005, but then everyone has had a bad experience with something at some time. Every AV will miss something that another utility with catch - thats the nature of viruses.
Most problems come when you wait a few months before installing AV software. The scanners are very good at protecting your system from infection, but cleaning an infection that was already there is a different matter. Any of the publicised scanners are fine usually.
Norton is more notable for all the extra stuff you can do, whereas many others (free ones in particular) don't really do much past basic scanning. Which may be all you want, its main function is an AV scanner after all...
I guess it's all personal preference. Sometimes you just never know until you try a few different things once in a while.
Fireblade
09-01-2005, 03:58
If you re-consider buying one, I can heartily recommend Panda (http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/platinum_is2005/#e9) (the one I use personally), but NOD32 (http://www.nod32uk.com/home/home.htm) came out top in a [very] recent test by some security firm whose name/links to which have completely escaped me :D
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.