Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 97668 2009-02-23 09:19:00 Norton...Classic Blam (54) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
750619 2009-02-23 09:19:00 LMAO (blogs.pcworld.co.nz)

PC without norton CPU usage...70%.......with nortons...135%!!!

:lol:
Blam (54)
750620 2009-02-23 09:39:00 Thats clever - Nortons Overclocking :lol: wainuitech (129)
750621 2009-02-23 19:19:00 LMAO :lol:

Maybe Norton is what my Eee needs :p (jk)
pcuser42 (130)
750622 2009-02-23 19:24:00 What did you make of the security suite review in this month's issue? Norton & McAfee in the top 3, Kaspersky near the bottom, and NOD32 conspicuously absent, even though they regularly advertise it on the back cover??

Still can't reconcile how 'real world' usage of Norton & McAfee is so much more unpleasant that lab testing, where magazines seem to love them???

I say we get Rodney Hide to do a commission of enquiry, and make sure no kick-backs are occurring!! :rolleyes:
nofam (9009)
750623 2009-02-23 19:36:00 Get Rodney Hide by all means, but ensure that the back is thoroughly kicked. ;) R2x1 (4628)
750624 2009-02-23 19:58:00 What did you make of the security suite review in this month's issue? Norton & McAfee in the top 3, Kaspersky near the bottom, and NOD32 conspicuously absent, even though they regularly advertise it on the back cover??

Still can't reconcile how 'real world' usage of Norton & McAfee is so much more unpleasant that lab testing, where magazines seem to love them???

I say we get Rodney Hide to do a commission of enquiry, and make sure no kick-backs are occurring!! :rolleyes:

Zonealarm SS was also conspicuous by its absence, but I guess they have to draw the line somewhere or testing would go on for weeks.

It's my suspicion that the likes of McAfee and Norton actually write their applications to pass the lab tests so they get a good review and make sales that way (as well as paying PC manufacturers to bundle their inferior software in their build images), rather than designing their product to work well on any PC, any spec, in the real world...
johcar (6283)
750625 2009-02-23 22:28:00 Hmmm, in other words, the screenshot shows that the system is using 70% of the CPU resources while Norton uses an additional 65%? :lol:!!! Renmoo (66)
750626 2009-02-23 22:38:00 Nortons new feature....Auto OVERCLOCK!!!:lol: Blam (54)
750627 2009-02-24 01:47:00 What did you make of the security suite review in this month's issue? Norton & McAfee in the top 3, Kaspersky near the bottom, and NOD32 conspicuously absent, even though they regularly advertise it on the back cover??


From memory here......
The latest PCauthority mag (Aus) tested a few security suites, with the emphasis on malware rather than viruses.
Kaspersky Norton & NOD32 didnt do very well with malware/spyware detection/removal, sort of born out from my experiences (I'd personally still rate Kav excellent for virus detection)
McAfee did rate very highly, I'd say its a good month for them, I doubt they can keep it up.

I dont know why these AV companies cant just build good spyware/malware detection into their basic AV only products(now gradually changing). Some AV only products will hardly detect spyware/malware, requiring that companies separate product for this.
sroby (11519)
750628 2009-02-24 07:33:00 LMAO (blogs.pcworld.co.nz)

PC without norton CPU usage...70%.......with nortons...135%!!!

:lol:


I would have thought 70% of the total usage has been used in the system and Norton is using 65%

I don't see anything wrong with the graph?
Ninjabear (2948)
1 2