Avast internet security 2014 vs Norton Security 2015
- Thread starter wisd0m
- Start date
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
What are your thoughts about utilizing the Manual Sandbox, SafeZone for online shopping, or tweaking the Firewall, in avast Internet Security. If none, then I strongly suggest Norton Security 2015.thank you all for your time and information
I did trial avast Sandbox, but I noticed sometimes applications did not run, or failed to work after installation. Sandboxie may be better for this sort of testing software.
The SafeZone is an isolated environment using an older version of Chrome/Chromium (didn't check which one), and prevents any keyloggers or capture recordings. There's also Notepad in SafeZone, although no idea what that would be used for.
A clean system with an updated, secure browser with trusted browser extensions is more than enough to do task for online shopping/banking. IMO, eliminates the SafeZone.
avast Firewall isn't the simplest, but the Trace feature adds a nice touch to know what processes are connected to where in the world.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 50
If I was the only one using this pc I think that sandbox and safezone are great features but since this pc is used by more than just me and mostly by kids they don't really care about sandbox or other features they only know they are dealing with a virus or malware when the antivirus software tells them that so until now i used avast hardened mode on moderate and protected avast with a password so they can't add exclusions and worked well for me
thank's for your reply
- Jan 28, 2014
- 444
I think if you already familiar with the whole features in Avast, and since it's already performed well it can protect your PC while being used by kids, then I'd suggest stick with Avast, unless you had a plan to understanding how a new Norton IS 2015 works, and how you can configure it properly to fit your need just like Avast in hardened mode, then I see no reason to switch. Yes I am Norton's user but I'm not a fanboy, when it comes to file reputation I think Norton is a bit better, if you don't mind with FP then you can turn trust files based from Symantec and Community, although I choose based from symantec to reduce FP. Download insight is something that I really like from Norton, to keep our system clean and only running trusted and clean files. Regarding the vote..I vote for Norton because it's already works for me and performed well to keep my PC clean, not because in terms of detection and blah blah, but in the end..both programs are excellent and I do recommend it to my friends
- Jul 2, 2014
- 1,689
It depends on the system and the available resources actually. Avast flushes the memory and brings it down to 5MB every 10seconds, which is why it's considered light and one of the best for low-end systems. Moreover when you have a low-end system, one of my system had just 256MB RAM, I could barely run the scanner in Norton while I was fine with Avast.
But on another system with 4GB RAM, Norton was quite light. So you see the difference.
The context of light antivirus more specifically deals with when you've a resource-constraint system.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
If you are experienced user just Windows Defender in Win 8 can protect you.
If you are inexperienced user, or reckless, clicking everything you see, sooner or later you'll be infected whatever security software you're using.
Specifically RAM usage doesn't determine how light is your AV, unless you have system that has very little work memory. It's very rare nowadays. System responsiveness, opening, writing the files (whatever the method or motive is), boot time, and cpu utilization on scanning by real time protection components determines how an AV impacts your system.
Yes, I can agree, if someone here knows something about Norton (and many other things), then @n.nvt knows.
I am always in business to educate people how to protect themselves when using computer and browsing the internet. Not to blindly rely on an AV to protect them. My point is, both Avast and Norton are good programs, my vote will go to Norton because of it's SONAR, and that doesn't mean Avast is bad.
Thanks
If you are inexperienced user, or reckless, clicking everything you see, sooner or later you'll be infected whatever security software you're using.
Specifically RAM usage doesn't determine how light is your AV, unless you have system that has very little work memory. It's very rare nowadays. System responsiveness, opening, writing the files (whatever the method or motive is), boot time, and cpu utilization on scanning by real time protection components determines how an AV impacts your system.
Yes, I can agree, if someone here knows something about Norton (and many other things), then @n.nvt knows.
I am always in business to educate people how to protect themselves when using computer and browsing the internet. Not to blindly rely on an AV to protect them. My point is, both Avast and Norton are good programs, my vote will go to Norton because of it's SONAR, and that doesn't mean Avast is bad.
Thanks
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
Raul90
Level 14
- Feb 5, 2012
- 658
Why don't you try both at separate times...I'd go with Norton first(SONAR really is best). When I try something out like what I did with BD, I created a partition just for it and let it stand for 10-20 days. Then switch to Avast IS. You'll get a good feel about both and will help you base your decision with regards to your experience and preference. As the guys said, both are good programs so since you have Avast free (no firewall, sandbox etc there) now it'd be good to try both suites.
- Jun 20, 2011
- 1,000
- Status
Similar threads
