# who agrees??? DOES NORTON SUCK?!?!?



## littshepkid02 (Sep 13, 2005)

i think it does


----------



## ebackhus (Apr 21, 2005)

I vote yes.


----------



## bry623 (Apr 8, 2002)

No problems here, I don't like McAfee.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2005)

norton is slightly better then mcafee but this never means that it is not bad. Norton is useless most of the time. Generates more problems then it fixes. McAfee is the same. On top of that McAfee annoys the heck out of user. I would prefer the virus in my system then having NAV or McAfee. So my vote is " pretty yes sugar on top "


----------



## kodi (Jun 30, 2004)

YES, it's a resource hog


----------



## littshepkid02 (Sep 13, 2005)

lol 12%


----------



## hopper (May 21, 2005)

PurpleSky said:


> norton is slightly better then mcafee but this never means that it is not bad. Norton is useless most of the time. Generates more problems then it fixes. McAfee is the same. On top of that McAfee annoys the heck out of user. I would prefer the virus in my system then having NAV or McAfee. So my vote is " pretty yes sugar on top "


Exactly. Unintrusive AVG for me since early 2001. Never infected.


----------



## whodat (Mar 13, 2005)

ewido is not too shaby :sayyes:


----------



## topspeed007 (Sep 16, 2005)

hopper said:


> Exactly. Unintrusive AVG for me since early 2001. Never infected.


I think not.

How do you know...if the system doesn't pick up a virus does that mean you are virus free???
and also the fact that you never have been infected is to do with your surfing habits/email not your antivirus product

Norton provides (along with many other corps) an internet security tool which as far as i'm aware works as well as any other on the market. I run internet security 2005 and have had no problems at all, and am reasonably confident that my system is as secure and virus free as can be (for practical online use)
At the end of the day its a case of personal preference..you picked AVG, I picked NAV

:smooch:


----------



## whodat (Mar 13, 2005)

what ever works for you
free country
keeping your system clean is the end goal here....


----------



## Scooped (Sep 9, 2005)

I try to stay away from Symantec's products.

Norton for example, is a resource hog, constantly causes problems, and isn't even all that effecient in finding malware (You can look at nearly any test results if you don't believe me).

Basically, AVG Free > Norton, imho.

But again, as whosdat said, in the end it's just about keeping your system clean. :wink:


----------



## V0lt (Sep 14, 2002)

AVG rocks. Norton products suck big time.


----------



## Spatcher (Apr 28, 2005)

What about my personal favorite, avast! ?

I will admit that AVG pwns McAfee (never tried Norton), but IMHO avast! pwns AVG


----------



## Tumbleweed36 (May 14, 2005)

Hi,

I use AVG free on one machine and Norton on the other just to compare what is happening with each. There does not appear to be any difference in the two machines on a regular basis. The two programs do the same thing if you are just using the virus programs. 

I think if you use the Norton Firewall and the Norton Systemworks together, you need to have some computer knowledge to configure it to work like it should. Those with little or no software experience might have some difficulty with the Norton products if using the suites.

Therefore, if a non-experienced user, I suggest you choose AVG. The bottom line, if you know what you are doing and work with Norton, it works fine and does not interfere or hog that many resources from my machine. Either program is efficient and becomes a background resource to use on a daily basis.

Oh, I love these personal opinion questions. So much contraversy.

The premise of the original question suggests that Norton is not a great product. Therefore I doubt if the answers will reflect a true picture of what the product actually is because the original question plants a negative before the poll is taken. Therefore, negative responses are more likely to be answered in this poll. That is my two cents worth.


----------



## Scooped (Sep 9, 2005)

Tumbleweed36 said:


> The premise of the original question suggests that Norton is not a great product. Therefore I doubt if the answers will reflect a true picture of what the product actually is because the original question plants a negative before the poll is taken. Therefore, negative responses are more likely to be answered in this poll. That is my two cents worth.


On the other hand, symantec users may find me ranting on symantec rather offensive and be eager to fire back with biased reasons why NAV doesn't suck. Therefore, your intellectual thoughts on this controversial topic being biased, are in fact false.



On a less intelligent note, I'd say to get the full picture on how AVG and norton perfom, you need to be an average stupid user, which you do not appear to be (especially after that last reply).

I'm not on windows to often anymore, but AVG has never failed me.


----------



## DumberDrummer (Oct 27, 2003)

Every experience I've ever had with Symantec has left me shaking my head. 

Free software all the way!

I use AVG, btw, but I disable that annoying e-mail scanner..


----------



## greyknight17 (Jul 1, 2004)

Count me in guys :grin:

Never liked Norton either since it's usually the culprit behind many problems (ran into a handful recently too). Also a huge resource hog as some have said already.

AVG fans everywhere...me too :grin:


----------



## Chevy (Jul 25, 2003)

I've been using Symantec products for many years, bot individual installs and enterprise managed, and always had good results.

I am a fan of AVG, but I also like Panda (especially their managed setup), Mcafee, and ezTrust is pretty decent.

What I tell my clients is this - no one AV program is flawless. Always seek a second opinion via an online scan like Trend Micro. Now, keeping that in mind, base your primary/installed AV on cost first, performance second.

For example:

APP #1 costs $69.95, is 90% effective
APP #2 costs $49.95, is 80% effective
APP #3 costs $29.95, is 70% effective

I would go with #3, spending less, and rely on frequent (weekly or twice weekly) online scans to pick up the slack.

If I know a customer to be unable/unwilling to keep up with additional maintenance, then I go with a more comprehensive installed app.


----------



## whodat (Mar 13, 2005)

glad your with us joe

i just used avast, and it found 3 in the system volume that the others didnt.

i think users that run marginal memory size find slowdowns with norton and macfee.

if they would pump up their systems, they would be good to go :sayyes: 

imho.


----------



## siftekhar (Sep 12, 2005)

both and norton and mcafee does :-(

i am happy with nod32 .. kav and avg isnt bad either


----------

