| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 112538 | 2010-09-10 11:32:00 | Norton review from NZHerald | nedkelly (9059) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1136173 | 2010-09-25 12:32:00 | I would for the record straight like and give my side of things so this thread doesn't remain a one sided (and ill-informed) beat up. Whilst I do agree with many of the posters here that older iterations of Norton Internet Security (NIS) were bloated and caused more problems than they solved, Symantec re-wrote the codebase for NIS in late 2009. The result of this work was that NIS has become a significantly faster and improved product from its 2010 edition onwards. I know this because unlike some of the posters in this thread (who seem to be touting uninformed and largely emotive heresay rather than informed fact), I have actually used and reviewed NIS from early versions in the 90's through to the current 2011 version which I am still using now (along with other AV software). Prior to writing the article I also compared NIS to other anti-malware/virus packages (most of which NIS 2011 whipped handily in terms of system resource use and system speed). Additionally I also carefully researched and checked independent benchmarkers to verify that the NIS performance before writing the article. I wonder how many of the detractors here have bothered to do likewise before going on the attack? Last but by no means least I do not recieve any monies for writing for the Herald. Believe it or not I review gadgets purely for the love of it and not the money, although after reading the comments in this thread I am really beginning wonder why I bother. Thankyou. |
patrick pilcher (13268) | ||
| 1136174 | 2010-09-25 12:56:00 | gold standard for PC security???? what a load of BS. anyone on this forum will tell you that norton cause all sorts of problems on their pc's. our PC at home used to have norton AV on it and would crash quite reguarly. since getting rid of nortons and putting ESET nod32 AV on the pc, we have had no problems at all. your review is full of lies |
GameJunkie (72) | ||
| 1136175 | 2010-09-25 12:56:00 | Not to labour the point but some indeopendent verification can be found at www.passmark.com or download.cnet.com I thinkm you'll also find most australian PC magazines also have similar findings |
patrick pilcher (13268) | ||
| 1136176 | 2010-09-25 13:21:00 | I actually like norton Security software :rolleyes: The more idiots that use it the better. It brings in loads of work in repairs, since the people have infected PC's, turns a good PC to a crippled heap of crap, causes crashes ---- Norton = $$$ for me :D Lab tests mean bugger all - real life, results will always differ. Time for another "real test" -- got the perfect HDD here at the moment, its loaded with infections. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1136177 | 2010-09-25 13:50:00 | Time for another "real test" -- got the perfect HDD here at the moment, its loaded with infections. You should get patrick pilcher to visit you to show the results ;) |
stu161204 (123) | ||
| 1136178 | 2010-09-25 14:26:00 | Yes Symantec have tried to improve their products recently but if you ask me it's too little too late . I think they are finally realising that people are starting to take notice of how bad a track record their products actually have . Even I used to use Norton Antivirus since 2002 or so as "everyone else used it, so it must be good" but in the past couple of years switched to free alternatives (after trying NOD32 for a time) You can't just sell blatant rubbish to people for that many years without consequences . They sat there releasing year after year the same old bloated piece of junk that still lets your computer get infected far too easily, while trashing your registry all to hell and at the same time several other companies were making some pretty good names for themselves . It would take an exceptionally good product, and I mean nothing short of damn amazing from Symantec now for me to ever consider going near NAV again . Here's an example: Single executable of only 1MB, less than 1% CPU usage, detects 100% of viruses, costs $5 for a lifetime subscription, and doesn't even need to be installed . Just download, save and run . I think something like that might just be enough to redeem them . I reckon Comodo with Defense+ is damn near impossible to beat right now, especially since it's FREE . Where's that great screenshot of Norton failing miserably, showing a clearly infected PC and all the while claiming that everything is just fine and dandy? Can't remember who posted it but it was pretty good . I think Patrick here needs to see it . |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1136179 | 2010-09-25 19:27:00 | Where's that great screenshot of Norton failing miserably, showing a clearly infected PC and all the while claiming that everything is just fine and dandy? I need that as well :D I went to a friend's place and found out that her computer had Norton on it. I immediately removed it and put on MSE and now it runs faster as well :D |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1136180 | 2010-09-25 20:01:00 | I changed my parents pc from Norton to NOD32 and they noticed a difference and they are not very tech savvy | nedkelly (9059) | ||
| 1136181 | 2010-09-25 20:53:00 | I would for the record straight like and give my side of things so this thread doesn't remain a one sided (and ill-informed) beat up. I know this because unlike some of the posters in this thread (who seem to be touting uninformed and largely emotive heresay rather than informed fact), I have actually used and reviewed NIS And many of us have to fix machines crippled by Nortons, Rather then just running ill-informed testing. If the real world results are completely the opposite then all your "informed fact" is worthless and shouldn't have been published. For the record I removed the latest version of Nortons off a young ladies laptop a couple days back and she was so impressed with the resulting performance increase I got a big hug. Which beats whatever they paid you to write that crap. Plus along with the overall performance increase she saved a yearly fee, has a superiour product installed and I saved myself the effort of having to resurrect her PC when the inevitable happens and Nortons kills it. Death by virus is easier to fix then death by Nortons. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1136182 | 2010-09-25 21:10:00 | Not to labour the point but some indeopendent verification can be found at www.passmark.com Disclosure Symantec Corporation funded the production of this report and supplied some of the test scripts used for the tests. Personally I'd say that makes the report biased and not independent at all. Who knows how Symantecs scripts are configured to benefit their own product. |
stormdragon (6013) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||