Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:26PM EST
See Comments (27)
Norton Antivirus (and its various other incarnations) gets short shrift in hardcore techie circles, namely due to its reputation for being bloated and consuming tons of memory, running slow scans, and causing massive system instability. And those complaints were all justified: Even Symantec won't argue with you on them.
Well I'm here to tell you that Norton has mended its ways, and the 2009 edition of Norton's security tools is revamped, cleaned up, streamlined, and barely recognizable vs. the Nortons of yore.
I've been running Norton Internet Security 2009 for several months now (since its early betas) and am wholly pleased with the dramatic turnaround. Easy to use and positively sipping in its use of system resources, you'll barely notice Norton is installed. No crashes, either.
And that's the point: Symantec's new approach here is not to hijack your system with alerts and toolbars (remember those awful, enormous logos taking up space in the taskbar in older Norton versions?), but rather to sit back and do its work quietly. By default, Norton updates itself in the background constantly -- literally hundreds of times each day -- and runs full system scans when the computer is idle.
Just installing the old Norton used to take 20 minutes or more. The new Norton goes on your PC in less than a minute. Scans are faster too: Norton uses a trust system to mark files it's already scanned in the past and doesn't scan them again if they haven't changed. The result: Super-fast scans whether you're watching them or not. And so far: I'm virus free since I installed the software.
I do have two complaints: First is Norton's insistence on trying to get you to register your software every time you load it (just the full app; if you leave Norton running in the background you get no pop-ups). You can skip these nags, but it's kind of a pain, and there's no "never remind me again" option. Second is the lack of detail in log reports. I know Norton has been streamlined for beginner use, but this has come at the expense of some information that pros would probably like to see. Many entries are simply missing details about what attacks have been discovered. One recent entry in the log just notes "Trojan Horse detected by Virus scanner" but offers no other information on what specific Trojan Horse it was. I usually like to look up these viruses online to find out more about them -- including whether it was an email, IM, or web-based attack -- but Norton is mum on the details. Some entries offer the name of the malware, but some don't, and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it.
But those are minor quibbles. $60 (currently on sale) gets you protection for three PCs, which is a fair price for such a capable tool. But hey, don't take my word for it: Norton came out on top in the recent anti-virus roundup at Maximum PC -- notorious for its hard-core testing -- scoring a 9 out of 10 rating and noting its memory usage is half that of Kaspersky and Avast! If you've been gunshy for Norton in years past, give it a spin next time you need to upgrade your antivirus. You'll be surprised, I assure you.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Well, let's see how more security companies rank the detection engine of the new Norton software... It would definitely be a major shift and change from the old bloated non-usable software if Norton finally managed to make something usable once again.
Well there is no better way to hijack your system than by NOT telling you what virus or Trojan attacked you only they know and I'm sure they know the in and out of those viruses and Trojans as well, I wonder how many virus's and Trojans are written by "FORMER" security personnel or software writers, the rule of thumb is "TRUST NO ONE" especially those entrusted with "Your Security" no matter how much or how little it cost you ...
I liked Norton though yes, it was a slow beast. I'd prefer getting a look at it before deciding.
Linux kids, go for free, stable, up to date. None of this virus worry.
You know I had 2008 of norton then I got 2009 for free since I still had my subscription and guess what withing a month of getting 2009 Norton killed Vista (no it was not a virus I know it wasn't and I know what the f*** I am talking about) tried everything I could to fix it nothing helped and about 8 hours of partitioning my disk moving my files around I managed to get it all working (well Norton did not kill vista it just managed to shove a few svchost.exe's up to around 30%CPU each so it was painstakingly slow (I know it was norton since all of the svchost.exe's went to norton services and unfortunatly they were classified as Required so a reinstall it was))
thanks for the heads-up! i use avast and am more than happy with it. i use spyware doctor that i get thru google pack and for good measure i install spyblaster. i use yahoo toolbar which also has a spyware scan that i come to trust. the article is much more informative than my blog but just wanted to get my two cents in. thanks yahoo tech and bloggers.
I still believe alot of the free anti-virus programs are fine and fulfil the needs.
i love avast no problems no headaches no viruses and it was free free free but if the rumors i heard about avg being bought out are true i guess its no surprise that norton finaly has a stable streamlined antivirus gee i wonder where they got it
Norton, I have used norton for the past 5 0r 6 years, and hope their revamp more than than just words, like in the past years (reports that it was better,utilized less mem.) But,I have never a problem with NIS... other than un-install to reinstall on OS the newest version. Maybe someone could help with this question....NIS lays no claim on box info in regards to firewall capability on its basic pkg, but you it turns off windows firewall, and you can't run a seperate firewall program with NIS installed, Why? Funny, I have had many tell me NIS is a virus itself! Thanks Kudo
1 Posted by coolkyle4@snet.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:29PM EDT Report Abuse
Norton has always been a popular choice among people. I for one, think its still a waste of money. I'm glad to see the new revamped version, but the virus protection is still the same. If you like it, thats kool, but for me I'll stick with ZoneAlarm.