Thanks for all your replies. I have installed NIS on my parents computer as they use it just for browsing few sites. I was really surprised how fast boot time was (dual core+2gb ram)and at this moment norton process is taking only 9mb RAM..even ESET SS which i have on my main laptop takes more ram than that!
Why no one prefers Norton ?
- Thread starter Arpith
- Start date
- Status
- Dec 4, 2013
- 1,308
A few ppl pay for security solutions nowadays.Why no one don't prefer Norton? Because it has no free product. If you want to use Norton you have to pay some. So that ppl goes free products (qihoo, avast etc)
Norton has decent AV, If you want to use Norton first time here is a giveaway (6months)
Norton has decent AV, If you want to use Norton first time here is a giveaway (6months)
- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
Really Norton is one of the most old & respectable AV Company, it is a good antivirus but i think because critical bugs & slow down is the reason why People don't use it.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Norton:
Vs
ESET:
[/TROLL OFF]
personally, Norton is a good product with a good behavioral system. But, the customer support was not here when i wanted help and the product take so much time to start an unknown program.
Norton need to be more "commercial" and more on "support" to get more people on them software, like ESET and Avira.
Actually Norton has gone the industrial way, there home products are now more side show imo.
Norton:
Vs
ESET:
[/TROLL OFF]
personally, Norton is a good product with a good behavioral system. But, the customer support was not here when i wanted help and the product take so much time to start an unknown program.
Norton need to be more "commercial" and more on "support" to get more people on them software, like ESET and Avira.
I like Norton girls
Thanks for sharing and also some of the review sites or AV comparing sites(which i normally dont follow) place norton products on top 3..so maybe it is worth trying..
I agree old product was really pain in the wrong place..but NIS 2014 has really surprised me..I had installed it months ago and today I noticed this
I agree old product was really pain in the wrong place..but NIS 2014 has really surprised me..I had installed it months ago and today I noticed this
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
Norton:
Vs
ESET:
[/TROLL OFF]
personally, Norton is a good product with a good behavioral system. But, the customer support was not here when i wanted help and the product take so much time to start an unknown program.
Norton need to be more "commercial" and more on "support" to get more people on them software, like ESET and Avira.
I've found the correlation
The bigger company it is = Harder to get support (unless you are business user)
We all know no security suite is 100% life saver..So if we club norton with other ondemand scanner then it might take the system load down.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
Norton Business Products are better as compared to Norton Home products.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
And probably every's companies...
- Dec 4, 2013
- 1,308
its true its better then Norton Home products
- Sep 17, 2013
- 1,492
Simply because Norton has lost capability to detect and remove malwares. Also malware detection rate keep varying. So i was never able judge how to compare with others.
So i advice keep away from it.
if you decide to use it then make sure you use malwarebytes along with it.
So i advice keep away from it.
if you decide to use it then make sure you use malwarebytes along with it.
- Mar 28, 2014
- 497
Norton and Symantec built a very, very bad reputation along with McAfee awhile back because they frequently came prepackaged and it was often hard to get rid of them - they acted like a virus, essentially. Also, they seemingly used scare tactics to keep/get their customers.
Few examples/sources:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/syman...e-tactics-to-sell-full-version-products/66812
http://imgur.com/8jnh7
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item4140
Not sure if or what they changed since.
Few examples/sources:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/syman...e-tactics-to-sell-full-version-products/66812
http://imgur.com/8jnh7
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item4140
Not sure if or what they changed since.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
Prepacked with what?
I don't think that reputation had some impact or going to have some impact on Symantec's reputation.
Avast has also the tactics for bringing the customers to pay for Internet Security.
Not considering the free products as they don't count in this case, Norton was fifth on the market share of the paid security software.
Though I could probably use it and stay malware-free for many years, I don't feel the requirement to download and use a third party AV, when Windows 8 has it's own - (MSE for Windows Vista, 7).
However, I may decide to recommend Norton for other PC users, whether there is a 6 month license promo or they can get it for free (via ISP or giveaway). Now I am not sure how the 6-month promo license works, because it was released for an older version that was not compatible with the latest Windows 8.1 OS, and it's not advised to install an incompatible software.
Comments about Norton being bloated, scareware, low detection rates obviously don't understand or haven't used the product in many years.
However, I may decide to recommend Norton for other PC users, whether there is a 6 month license promo or they can get it for free (via ISP or giveaway). Now I am not sure how the 6-month promo license works, because it was released for an older version that was not compatible with the latest Windows 8.1 OS, and it's not advised to install an incompatible software.
Comments about Norton being bloated, scareware, low detection rates obviously don't understand or haven't used the product in many years.
- Norton used to be bloated, but has drastically improved and they're listening to community feedback.
- Norton may have used scareware pop-ups and auto-renewal for customers to keep in paying for their software. (Who hasn't?)
- Norton may disregard older definitions when Smart Definitions are activated, this is help cut down bandwidth and concentrate on current threats. It could explain why it performs low in on-demand malware pack scanning, how old is the malware that you're scanning? Is it a current threat world-wide?
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Most of the allegations are plausible and the soul reason i am saying this is simple.
Every AV company regardless of source will warn people about all kinds of things and they do that in their own way.
However you have to realize that Norton, Mcafee, Sophos are undisputed business leaders in the industry, while their market share might not be as big as other products their market share in the industry is unmatched.
So ANY bad comment that could hurt their name is a shot worth trying, as other brands have tried to chip away parts of their industrial market share, using all kinds of allegations regardless if they are true or not.
Another thing is there are some Norton and Symantec products out there that are actually clones of their older products as highlighted in the top article, these programs look exactly the same while they have been altered by hackers and such.
I have been a Symantec/Norton user for over 15 years and the company i work for is one of the biggest market leaders in the world when it comes to computer security related things, our department in the EU alone has over 15000 Client pc's over 800 Servers and a huge amount of Tablets and smart phones and its all being secured by Symantec and i can state beyond the reasonable doubt that i have NEVER EVER seen ANYTHING that would put Symantec in a bad spot and i have NEVER come across any other AV vendor (other then Symantec and Sophos) who take their business software and the service that comes with it as serious as they are doing.
We are not talking about just a few packages of 30 dollars a piece, i am talking about multi-million dollar contract and services. Or do you really think that our company does have the luxury to f*ck around considering that our clients are directly connected to us?
O boy o boy o boy, i would like to see how the Dutch, Belgium and German government is going to react if thats the case considering they are just some of our clients.
I would pay money to see my boss his face when thats happening or how fast people would lose their job, my boss after beating you down with a wet tuna and then sueing you to kingdom come would almost put a contract on your face if any of the crew would screw up like that.
If our network goes down due to malware or intrusion based things it will cost us, almost a million each hour we are offline.
That being said its true that Symantec and others are picky about downloaded and installed software and yes they do have false positives just like ANY other product, but these are being flagged as Suspicious and not as W32/Trojan (Prime example Trentmicro actually flags legit software as W32.somename trojan) Now ask your self the question is that called scareware tactic?
And i challenge anyone go to Symantec or Norton site and download any AV program you see fit, and post me screenshot that shows they have been prepacked or have been loaded with the crap some have mentioned, or better yet show me where Norton or Symantec scares you to buy their full product other then the fact you are using a trial version that is a PAID product by default, other then the warning that says you are not being protected if the Trial ends (Which EVERY paid AV will show you/notify you)
I am not a Symantec fanboy but i absolute go ballistic about these kinds of news articles.
Symantec has been sued more then 50 times since they opened shop and they WON every single lawsuit now i wonder why that is? Maybe they are right and others try to discredit them.
Or take Mcafee as a example they suffered so many lawsuits that i am even amazed they are still around...
On a technical note i want to say that it is really hard to detect all kinds of wild malware as their algorithm and source code can mimic legit software, and yes this will trigger the protection by most AV programs, (Its called rather save then sorry)
A example is: My own program got flagged by Symantec (Suspicious.5A) just because the source was UPX compressed.
Now everyone who does have software knowledge knows that UPX is the MOST used compression for Batch to EXE programs which is being used by malware creators.
And because 80% of all the UPX packed EXE are malicious they have flagged it as dangerous by default, as the new generation of UPX packed compression contain some really advanced malware and you cannot risk your system being infected.
Randsom ware is a prime example.
If Symantec is being sued for scareware, then i can name at least 15 other major brands that would have to sit in the same seat as Symantec...
But thats just me saying it.
Last edited:
My organization uses Symantec and they set it to run the scan daily at some time. It uses minimum 25% of CPU during scan and slows down the system eventually, detection not so good AFAIK(there were few infections in my colleague's system). Worst AV as per my opinion.
I suspended the Symantec using resource monitor! Thats the only way to use the system.
I suspended the Symantec using resource monitor! Thats the only way to use the system.
- Mar 28, 2014
- 497
With PCs. You know, the so-called bloatware. When it comes to personal experience, I've had problems on family members' PCs having "McAfee Security Shield" constantly running in the background when they didn't even install it - on a fresh new PC.
On the other hand, I have never used any Symantec or McAfee products and such, I have no right to judge them. I was just stating what I've heard from before, but I didn't keep up with their updates at all. If they fixed them, then it's great.
- Status
Similar threads
