| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 54846 | 2005-02-23 23:47:00 | NAV 2005 vs 2002 - More of a resource hog? | M_M (6563) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 327732 | 2005-02-25 04:00:00 | Jack, would it hurt to just not spread around complete falsehoods? | Metla (12) | ||
| 327733 | 2005-02-25 04:19:00 | Metla my dear chap, I always speak the truth. Your friend, Jack Trying hard not to upset the moderators. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 327734 | 2005-02-25 05:19:00 | Jack, You have a top end computer that is only used for lite tasks, of course NAV is not going to cause a ripple. | Metla (12) | ||
| 327735 | 2005-02-25 08:27:00 | Jack, You have a top end computer that is only used for lite tasks, of course NAV is not going to cause a ripple. I have it running on a 550Mhz 256MB machine with no hassles what so ever. Of course I don't play games on that machine but hey the issue is that it works fine. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 327736 | 2005-02-25 08:33:00 | as a general rule nortons is a big hoggy but it runs ok......when its working, which is its problem. sorry i've had a guts full of nortons lately. theres better and cheaper alternatives. i havn't tried 2005 but i don't exspect it to be any improvement on previous vers. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 327737 | 2005-02-25 10:38:00 | The easiest way to speed up a computer is to unstall Norton. I replace with Nod32(not free) or AVG(free) |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 327738 | 2005-02-25 11:23:00 | I built 5 comps with identical specs and identical installs of xp just before xmas. 3 then had avast installed on them and two had nortons 2005 (because the boss, bless his heart ordered them ) The three (at the time)with avast were more responsive not to a massive degree but it was noticeable. System scans took less time. Lately the avast systems show a more pronounced edge in responsiveness but this isn't a fair indication due to differing software installs and user settings. Overall I always find symantec products reliable but they are quite invasive and they do have a more noticeable impact on your sytem with norton 2003 being the worst. |
the highlander (245) | ||
| 327739 | 2005-02-25 13:18:00 | I don't run antivirus at all these days. Waste of processing power if you ask me. And oh, I havent been infected by a virus... hmm well... ever. | E|im (87) | ||
| 327740 | 2005-02-25 19:44:00 | I don't run antivirus at all these days. Waste of processing power if you ask me. And oh, I havent been infected by a virus... hmm well... ever.How do you know that then? Are you doing regular online scans instead? Is this with XP as well? | Jen (38) | ||
| 327741 | 2005-02-25 19:59:00 | Since the subject's come up again my 2c worth is that Norton is a leaky ship that you have to abandon eventually. In my expereince it is invasive ("thorough" say the supporters) and a hog. I have removed it from several freind's machines and they are all running sweet with AVG | mark c (247) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||