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
1136193	2010-09-26 09:44:00	One thing that may not be obvious, is the actual files scanned, Nod32 scanned a lot more than Norton did on doing the exact same test -- so the question should also be asked, if Norton is so good, why cant it even see the other 33924 files that Nod32 can see. My guess is better archive/container file handling. Example; while scanning, MSSE (my personal preference) will dig through ZIP, RAR, CAB, ISO, IMG-type formats. I've even seen it digging through EXE's and MSI's! GZ's too! How many AV's have reasonably wide container file support? I'm sure the 'odd' formats (like 7z, LHZ, CSO, etc) are still skimmed over though.	ubergeek85 (131)
1136194	2010-09-26 10:34:00	This is what I get on all 4 files	Agent_24 (57)
1136195	2010-09-26 10:46:00	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 . NZ herald should pay you, becuase if youput your time into this, you should be rewarded . I don't believe in these media empires getting people to do work for free . I believe you weren't influenced in anyway by third parties, and I believe that nortons has totally rewritten the code and it is a lot better than it used to be . This is becuase it needs to be, as they have competiton from lightweight and free products such as Microsofts free antivirus software, and nod32 . You do however need to relive that people on here have used this brand of security software, and been let down by the product in the past and have written it off . So you shouldn't take any criticism personally, it comes with the territory when people get things published in the media, there is always a critique, and not everyone will agree with you	robbyp (2751)
1136196	2010-09-26 20:49:00	Norton 're-wrote' the code for Norton360 as well , what a dog that was. Would you buy security software from a company that CANT BE TRUSTED with your credit card details. Symantec investigating customer credit-card data theft news.cnet.com "The Attorney General's office in New York came to the conclusion that the "automatic renewals" clauses were buried under lengthy terms of service, and ordered Symantec and McAfee to be clear and up-front with their customers when it comes to these fees." www.techspot.com The method of testing must be looked into. Symantec have in the past been far to slow to release sig's that detect the latest virus's. This may be why the rate better with 'in lab' testing than actual real world use. But, FREE antispyware productions STILL have a far better detection rate than Symantec & most other Pay AV products.	1101 (13337)
1136197	2010-09-26 21:09:00	One last comment. the PC techs here, with at least 50 years combined experience, all Regularly remove Symantec AV products from customers PC's, with good reason. :badpc: I have NEVER had a customer ask me to put Norton back on after they saw how much more responsive their PC was without it. As for the PC-Mags glowing reviews. A quote from a US PCMagazine tech (not published in the mag): : "I would never install a product that cant be removed"	1101 (13337)
1136198	2010-09-26 22:19:00	Hahahahahaha.... *cough* ...ahahahahaha.	Bozo (8540)
1136199	2010-09-26 22:31:00	Excellent post there WT, very well done! After a recent run-in with a virus at work, with it running McAfee, I'm tempted to do a very well documented setup myself, similar to yours, only without the pre-infected machine. I'll *try* and infect it. Looks like I know what I'm doing tonight after some LOTRO! :D Pat, It's great to have you here on PressF1, please do stick around. I wouldn't take anything written here as a personal attack on you, but as you can see from the zeal, Symantec products have a lot to live up to in the "Real world", especially where people who make a living off the products shortcomings are concerned ;)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1136200	2010-09-26 23:11:00	Thanks Chill. As per your own Comments, there was never anything meant personally against Patrick. It was only proving that Norton is not as good as some reviews make out, with proof supplied. You want to get infections :eek: Easy -- just vist this Porn Site (www.youtube.com). :devil	wainuitech (129)
1136201	2010-09-26 23:14:00	"I would never install a product that cant be removed" Nothing can't be removed ;) It's just that some programs are harder than others.	pcuser42 (130)
1136202	2010-09-26 23:17:00	Thanks Chill. You want to get infections :eek: Easy -- just vist this Porn Site (www.youtube.com). :devil you %%$%^^ **&&&**^$$:illogical :p:p	Metla (12)
1 2 3 4 5