What's Norton 360 doing?

[kansenji]

They are rubbish, frankly.

Just had to sort out yet more problems caused by 2008!

That's strange, I've used Norton Internet Security 2008 & 2009 for two years, without a single glitch. NIS 2009 uses very little resources (there is a resource meter supplied in the programme). You must have had a messed up installation, or other conflict on your PC.

I've had 13 years' experience of many different antiviruses/security suites (I've tried just about all of them) and the latest Norton Internet Security software is by far the best such software available at the moment. Whereas, from the 2004 to the 2007 versions, it was AWFUL!

Most similar softwares seem to suffer from failed installations from time to time, leading to such "rubbish" remarks. I found Bit-Defender to install so badly on my PC, that I got a "blue screen of death" twice, immediately after installation and had to do a complete re-format & re-install of Windows EACH time! Yet most people seem to have no such problem with it.

[kansenji]

And you work for who??

Norton is a known resource hog.!!

PS, you are about a YEAR late !!!

No, Norton Internet Security WAS a resource hog, until the 2008 & 2009 versions came out. Now it uses less resources than (almost) all other internet security suites.

[EntityOnline]

I think I'd be far more inclined to Stick with ESET than ever go near Norton/Symantec again. If something has a resource meter then the question has to be asked... Why does it need one in the first place?

[KDS]

NIS2008 is a real "dream" on my PC. It just does a efficient job virtually silently. The Identity safe & log-ins features work really well too.

Please don't knock the Norton 2008/2009 products without trying them first (not that anyone would . . . .).

I wouldn't call it a dream but the newer ver of Norton is not bad, works well and better than the older ver of norton. I'm sure many of us had a bad experience with Norton in the past.New one is not bad fast less of a resource hog etc. I use avast free and fast and love it

[kansenji]

I think I'd be far more inclined to Stick with ESET than ever go near Norton/Symantec again. If something has a resource meter then the question has to be asked... Why does it need one in the first place?

The meter is there to prove to all the "Norton is terrible & hogs resources" doubters out there, that the latest Norton DOES NOT use up a lot of resources. HOW else could they prove it?

The meter is to show how good the new Norton product really is, compared to the previous versions & "knock the doubters on the head". The whole of Norton Internet Security Suite 2008 was re-written (re-coded) from scratch; it was then further improved in the 2009 version. No doubt they will find further improvements for the 2010 edition (expected about September/October).

Norton Internet Security has shown up in several recent tests to be the most secure product on the market (much better than ESET, which I used to use; which is not in this particular review/test). NIS 2009 was determined in the recent PC ADVISOR REVIEW to be the BEST of the 9 suites tested.:


HERE ARE THE RESULTS IN CHART FORM .

HERE IS THE FULL REVIEW .

I hope the links above are of interest.

[Captain_Cretin]

Well, they could point to a meter that is not coded by them!!

I cannot comment on the current versions because I have never used them, but I WILL comment on magazine reviews.

ALL the magazines have the same weakness, the majority of their income comes from adverts; that is why the older versions of Norton were never slatted for being resource hogs when THEY were reviewed, Norton (among others), spends a LOT of money advertising their products. it is the same reason you see rave reviews for big budget games, only to find they are ***** when you try them out; if you see a ***** review it is usually for a company you have never heard of, with the big boys they always toe the line.

[EntityOnline]

Well, they could point to a meter that is not coded by them!!

I cannot comment on the current versions because I have never used them, but I WILL comment on magazine reviews.

ALL the magazines have the same weakness, the majority of their income comes from adverts; that is why the older versions of Norton were never slatted for being resource hogs when THEY were reviewed, Norton (among others), spends a LOT of money advertising their products. it is the same reason you see rave reviews for big budget games, only to find they are ***** when you try them out; if you see a ***** review it is usually for a company you have never heard of, with the big boys they always toe the line.

In this case I tend to agree.

I'll be the first to Admit... I like ESET. Always have. I know some others do a similar or in a few cases better job but for my own reasons I stick with ESET.

However... Haven't found many that perform better.

In the case of Symantec/Norton I've never seen it beat ESET on performance level.

Remember magazines also review on how easy something is for the general public. Still doesn't mean that said something performs better than something they rate less.

Better trust the likes of virusbtn.com and av-comparatives.org.

What is really interesting is the the Microsoft offering seems to perform really well. http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report22.pdf

may well be worth a consideration if you happened to be looking.

[fred_anon2000]

I used Norton since Windows 98. I had to stop using that excellent program when Symantec shafted their loyal followers and refuse to bring out a Windows XP/X64 version.

[kansenji]

I used Norton since Windows 98. I had to stop using that excellent program when Symantec shafted their loyal followers and refuse to bring out a Windows XP/X64 version.

Yes, lots of companies failed to support XP 64-bit.

However, I am running Windows 7, 64-bit & Norton Internet Security 2010 runs beautifully on it; so you can confidently return to Norton if you upgrade to Windows 7. The firewall is amazing & just runs silently in the backgound. Since the 2008 versions of its security products were re-coded, they use little in the way of resources & I particularly like the tiny "Pulse Updates" that update definitions every few minutes (no regular big update to slow the computer down).

One thing about Norton; you can buy their software MUCH cheaper by checking prices on their own download shops (via their main page) in places like Hong Kong & India! Just use an online converter to see prices in £'s. My 3-user version of NIS2010 cost only about £14 via Hong-Kong a few months ago.

[timeless]

prolly said it before, and l will say it again... norton is bloatware, back in the day it was good but so much crap has been added that all it does is slow your system down.. tho lm not knocking its virus protection capabilities ld much rather use a less system intensive program and opt for something that does the same job while using less system resources.