- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Well i cannot say bad things about Avast as they do have a good product. Yet while this might sound like i am a Symantec/Norton fanboy the fact is that Symantec has put together a seriously good line-up of solutions. Specially its Internet Security and End-point solutions are world class. Where rival programs might have a seriously good firewall but might lack removal capability or have a seriously good antivirus engine but lack for example Zero-day protection... Usually with other brands they always lack in some respect.
Symantec however has developed their solutions in such way that it really does not have such drawbacks or weak points.
Their solutions just have a near perfect synergy and you as the end user enjoy probably one of the very best protection suits available on the market. What i am saying is not that Symantec is the best and bla bla, but what they do have mastered into a art is the right balance between individual components within their products. Performance, Capability, Usability and so on its all there and it works. Their firewall is good, their AV engines are world class, and all other features are on top of their game as well.
So you want something that is doing exactly what it does promise without any fuzz and bla bla? Then Norton does fill that spot pretty darn good.
Something that cannot be said about the bulk of the programs out there.
On top of that most wonder why Norton does not use sandbox capabilities, well NEWS FLASH
Now that is another reason i can add to the endless list of reasons why i would stick with Norton because it does not matter if you like Symantec products or not. Their products are world class, reliable, easy to use, lightweight and in all honesty have been setting the bar for many in the past decade.
Everything else is just personal taste and preference because technology wise its all there.
On a side note: Most software preference's are usually feeling based and feelings do not protect your computer. I see so many users totally fixated at layers and you need to have this and that, and 90% of those fixated users just go by feeling. In my line of work i come across LOTS of people who get their "feeling" hurt at least twice a month.
Yet the funny part is amongsht those people you virtually never see a Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos user. And if you eventually run into such a user then usually its not their software that did screw up, but its their own actions that caused the system to break.
My point here is that you deffo do not have to like a brand, but historical facts & achievements and real world performance speak louder then a whole list of fancy abilities that most brands feature.
So again let me be the evil man and just say: Don't just focus on detection rate and features.
And for heaven sake stop trying to come up with a exotic mix of security apps, because you are again looking for features that fuels the sense of security rather than the actual level of security (And again i am not saying that security apps are useless or bad). And if ram usage is a problem then just do yourself a favor calculate how much your security plugins, extentions and apps actually do use, then you will see that combined it uses many times more RAM then a solution from the 3 names i mentioned earlier. That said and the real kicker is that down the line (when all pro vs cons have been weighted) a package from Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos (Or even Mcaffee lol) would smoke any exotic combo any day any time without being the best or have the highest score (component wise).
Ask yourself the question what protection you actually need? Do you really really need that fortknox type of security to stop that 1 in a trillion infections that is so bad it will force you to reinstall your pc? or what terrible danger are you shielding yourself against that Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos cannot protect you against? Down the line it just means that if those programs cannot satisfy your security needs then it means you are exercising unhealthy computer habits, since if your computer habits are healthy then any of those programs will offer you much more security then you actually would need for your everyday browsing and computer needs.
Kind Regards,
Nico
Symantec however has developed their solutions in such way that it really does not have such drawbacks or weak points.
Their solutions just have a near perfect synergy and you as the end user enjoy probably one of the very best protection suits available on the market. What i am saying is not that Symantec is the best and bla bla, but what they do have mastered into a art is the right balance between individual components within their products. Performance, Capability, Usability and so on its all there and it works. Their firewall is good, their AV engines are world class, and all other features are on top of their game as well.
So you want something that is doing exactly what it does promise without any fuzz and bla bla? Then Norton does fill that spot pretty darn good.
Something that cannot be said about the bulk of the programs out there.
On top of that most wonder why Norton does not use sandbox capabilities, well NEWS FLASH
Now that is another reason i can add to the endless list of reasons why i would stick with Norton because it does not matter if you like Symantec products or not. Their products are world class, reliable, easy to use, lightweight and in all honesty have been setting the bar for many in the past decade.
Everything else is just personal taste and preference because technology wise its all there.
On a side note: Most software preference's are usually feeling based and feelings do not protect your computer. I see so many users totally fixated at layers and you need to have this and that, and 90% of those fixated users just go by feeling. In my line of work i come across LOTS of people who get their "feeling" hurt at least twice a month.
Yet the funny part is amongsht those people you virtually never see a Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos user. And if you eventually run into such a user then usually its not their software that did screw up, but its their own actions that caused the system to break.
My point here is that you deffo do not have to like a brand, but historical facts & achievements and real world performance speak louder then a whole list of fancy abilities that most brands feature.
So again let me be the evil man and just say: Don't just focus on detection rate and features.
And for heaven sake stop trying to come up with a exotic mix of security apps, because you are again looking for features that fuels the sense of security rather than the actual level of security (And again i am not saying that security apps are useless or bad). And if ram usage is a problem then just do yourself a favor calculate how much your security plugins, extentions and apps actually do use, then you will see that combined it uses many times more RAM then a solution from the 3 names i mentioned earlier. That said and the real kicker is that down the line (when all pro vs cons have been weighted) a package from Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos (Or even Mcaffee lol) would smoke any exotic combo any day any time without being the best or have the highest score (component wise).
Ask yourself the question what protection you actually need? Do you really really need that fortknox type of security to stop that 1 in a trillion infections that is so bad it will force you to reinstall your pc? or what terrible danger are you shielding yourself against that Symantec, Kaspersky or Sophos cannot protect you against? Down the line it just means that if those programs cannot satisfy your security needs then it means you are exercising unhealthy computer habits, since if your computer habits are healthy then any of those programs will offer you much more security then you actually would need for your everyday browsing and computer needs.
Kind Regards,
Nico
Last edited:
