What about Norton Antivirus 2014?

[Infrared]

I used to have Norton awhile back wasn't that bad it got the job done for what i needed i don't know much on it now though.

 

[Venustus]

I used to have Norton awhile back wasn't that bad it got the job done for what i needed i don't know much on it now though.

It is a decent product and much, much lighter than the "Norton of old"

 

[Infrared]

It is a decent product and much, much lighter than the "Norton of old"

Thank you for the update sounds like i been away for awhile then i will have to give Norton a go again!!

 

[ifacedown]

It is a decent product and much, much lighter than the "Norton of old"

In fact, Norton Antivirus 2014 is light on my netbook.

 

[Venustus]

In fact, Norton Antivirus 2014 is light on my netbook.

Yes, that is what I stated in my post!!

 

[woomera]

norton is not good! period!

 

[Nico@FMA]

Norton is in worst state. Its malware detection rate is low. Its proactive protecion is also very bad.

You are wasting your money buying it.

good products are ESET, F SECURE, EMSISOFT, Bullguard, 360 INTERNET SECURITY, Trend Micro, Kaspersky.

Now thats a sensational comment, i certainly would LOVE (With BIG L) to see ANY data that proofs this claim
Granted in the September 2013 AV comparative report Symantec (Nortons main company) did not score well.
According to a article by Techradar:

Symantec has questioned the validity of these figures, saying these tests don't take all the product's components into account. The dispute means Norton products are no longer submitted for AV-Comparatives Real World test.
* Note that there are other vendors as well who question AV-C results because of conflicting results obtained by other independent labs.
Meaning: If a product receives lets say 90% detection for malware by LAB A and receives 92% by LAB B then its kinda weird if you receive 40% at LAB C while other products rated by LAB A & B have been given low scores and at LAB C they are suddenly top dog.

On a personal note Eugene Kaspersky has been saying much the same thing about AV-C.
So realize that Kaspersky is pretty much always rated top tier by AV-C so why would Eugene question AV-C?
Both Kaspersky and Symantec do have a point, their product is not just some static scanning engine, but its a whole product that makes the program work and thus obtaining its effectiveness and AV-C does not take that into account.
So when i see review web-pages then i take the advise by so called: "Armchair experts" with a grain of salt.

That being said ANYONE with a bit of pc knowhow knows that it really does not matter if you buy Norton/Symantec, Sophos, F-Secure, Kaspersky or ESET you cannot go wrong with any of them. As each of these products feature some of the most advanced packages money can buy and they all are pretty much equal to one another.

Cheers

 

[Koroke San]

Now thats a sensational comment, i certainly would LOVE (With BIG L) to see ANY data that proofs this claim
Granted in the September 2013 AV comparative report Symantec (Nortons main company) did not score well.
According to a article by Techradar:

Symantec has questioned the validity of these figures, saying these tests don't take all the product's components into account. The dispute means Norton products are no longer submitted for AV-Comparatives Real World test.
* Note that there are other vendors as well who question AV-C results because of conflicting results obtained by other independent labs.
Meaning: If a product receives lets say 90% detection for malware by LAB A and receives 92% by LAB B then its kinda weird if you receive 40% at LAB C while other products rated by LAB A & B have been given low scores and at LAB C they are suddenly top dog.

On a personal note Eugene Kaspersky has been saying much the same thing about AV-C.
So realize that Kaspersky is pretty much always rated top tier by AV-C so why would Eugene question AV-C?
Both Kaspersky and Symantec do have a point, their product is not just some static scanning engine, but its a whole product that makes the program work and thus obtaining its effectiveness and AV-C does not take that into account.
So when i see review web-pages then i take the advise by so called: "Armchair experts" with a grain of salt.

That being said ANYONE with a bit of pc knowhow knows that it really does not matter if you buy Norton/Symantec, Sophos, F-Secure, Kaspersky or ESET you cannot go wrong with any of them. As each of these products feature some of the most advanced packages money can buy and they all are pretty much equal to one another.

Cheers

WATCH the funny thing at 14:41

 

[Littlebits]

Norton has had its ups and downs over the years but back in 2009 it once again became an excellent product dropping most of the bloat and becoming light. My main complaint is the increased false positives caused by Norton Community Watch and the inability to add these false positives to the exclusions. Still I would not buy Norton products because they are too expensive and really don't offer any better protection than what many freeware products offer. If I was going to buy a paid AV product it would have to be ESET.

Thanks.

 

[illumination]

All of the suites on the market have their good and bad periods of time, especially when installed at default settings right out of the box. Most suites now days "especially on windows 8.1" will provide decent protection. If you have the knowledge, you can always "tweak" the advanced settings for stronger protection.

 

[viktik]

Now thats a sensational comment, i certainly would LOVE (With BIG L) to see ANY data that proofs this claim
Granted in the September 2013 AV comparative report Symantec (Nortons main company) did not score well.
According to a article by Techradar:

Symantec has questioned the validity of these figures, saying these tests don't take all the product's components into account. The dispute means Norton products are no longer submitted for AV-Comparatives Real World test.
* Note that there are other vendors as well who question AV-C results because of conflicting results obtained by other independent labs.
Meaning: If a product receives lets say 90% detection for malware by LAB A and receives 92% by LAB B then its kinda weird if you receive 40% at LAB C while other products rated by LAB A & B have been given low scores and at LAB C they are suddenly top dog.

On a personal note Eugene Kaspersky has been saying much the same thing about AV-C.
So realize that Kaspersky is pretty much always rated top tier by AV-C so why would Eugene question AV-C?
Both Kaspersky and Symantec do have a point, their product is not just some static scanning engine, but its a whole product that makes the program work and thus obtaining its effectiveness and AV-C does not take that into account.
So when i see review web-pages then i take the advise by so called: "Armchair experts" with a grain of salt.

That being said ANYONE with a bit of pc knowhow knows that it really does not matter if you buy Norton/Symantec, Sophos, F-Secure, Kaspersky or ESET you cannot go wrong with any of them. As each of these products feature some of the most advanced packages money can buy and they all are pretty much equal to one another.

Cheers

 

[Nico@FMA]

Norton has had its ups and downs over the years but back in 2009 it once again became an excellent product dropping most of the bloat and becoming light. My main complaint is the increased false positives caused by Norton Community Watch and the inability to add these false positives to the exclusions. Still I would not buy Norton products because they are too expensive and really don't offer any better protection than what many freeware products offer. If I was going to buy a paid AV product it would have to be ESET.

Thanks.

Yes i totally agree their community is a BIG plus, but its also their biggest downfall as with most community based cloud scanning.
To many people accept files and thus indirectly marking them as save.
One could debate the effectiveness of the Product, but i personally would say that generally the reputation of cloud based scanning should be a bit more strict. And yes they are expensive and true that other products are pretty much equally good in many ways.
As mentioned in my old topic i am a Symantec Endpoint user, and given the additional config and added security settings it does stand out to me. But then again thats personal and totally based upon the local config and requirements.

@ Koroke San jup R-Ware are nasty and it is a given that if you put 10 NEW types of R-Ware at ANY top brand AV then at least 2 will lock up your system.

I remember myself writing in a guide: There is NO true protection and ANY AV can be rendered useless if you do not control your Surf/Pc and Mouseclick actions.
Ask yourself the question: If you are a responsible Internet and pc user who does take care of his/her system then what are the odds that you are going to be infected by: Naked-woman.exe
Or what are the odds that you are going to be rootkit infected by windows 8 crack.exe (Lets say that these fictive files is a new R-Wares)?
Afterall a responsible user does not go anywhere near sites and locations where these malwares are being spread.
Then you will realize that the odds are pretty darn small, and that Norton or any other similar product will do just fine in keeping your data save.

Anyway i am not disputing the testing results as they just do not look good at this point.
But one needs to keep things in perspective before marking a program as bad.

Just saying.

 

[Koroke San]

@ Koroke San jup R-Ware are nasty and it is a given that if you put 10 NEW types of R-Ware at ANY top brand AV then at least 2 will lock up your system.

Also it Url filtering is pretty bad, it mostly caught when malware tries to download plus on-demand scan & 0-day protection is not so good.

 

[cruelsister]

Symantec got rid of a bunch of very talented people over the past few years in order to improve the Corporate bottom line (and the stock price), and it can be seen that the results of this are showing up in product quality.

 

[ifacedown]

Hmm... whatever the case is, Common Sense is the best anti-malware of all. agree to all of you! Thanks much!

 

[Ved]

Norton 2014 is very much light on system resources,but...

sometimes the tray icon becomes unresponsive and many times I struggle to go through its "settings" option on UI.I keep clicking on settings, but it just won't open.

Norton takes a lot of time to disinfect a large file (say .iso or .exe) (unlike Bitdefender, which processes large files very fast).

 

[Venustus]

Norton removed the option of downloading the "full definitions" file and now only uses "smart definitions".
This has certainly had an impact in it's detection capabilities!
Nevertheless it's still a decent product!

 

[Aeonwolf]

Norton is in worst state. Its malware detection rate is low. Its proactive protecion is also very bad.

You are wasting your money buying it.

good products are ESET, F SECURE, EMSISOFT, Bullguard, 360 INTERNET SECURITY, Trend Micro, Kaspersky.

ESET - Good
FS - Bad
Emisoft - Bad
BG - Bad
360 - Bad
TM - Bad
Kasperky - Good +
Norton - Bad
Comodo - Good -

All the other AVs - Bad in my opinion.

 

[Oxygen]

ESE is better.

 

[Oxygen]

ESET - Good
FS - Bad
Emisoft - Bad
BG - Bad
360 - Bad
TM - Bad
Kasperky - Good +
Norton - Bad
Comodo - Good -

All the other AVs - Bad in my opinion..

360 Internet Security is really good.