NAV 2006 vs 2008

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eugene F.
  • Start date Start date
E

Eugene F.

Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
than its 2006 counter-part?

I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
scope for this question.

TIA, Eugene
 
Eugene F. said:
Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
than its 2006 counter-part?

I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
scope for this question.

TIA, Eugene
Click to expand...

A couple of rules for NAV.

i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
software.

Gaz
 
Little Charlie said:
Many will jump at the chance to bad mouth Norton. They are ignorant of any
facts and simply parrot back to you what some other >mindless parrot told
them.
Click to expand...

Two machines i provided support today both had problems directly
attributable to Norton, one NIS360 and one NAV. I bad mouth norton because
their software in general is utterly dreadfull, sucks up resources, and to
be honest, isnt very good.

Gaz
 
Gaz said:
>"Gaz"


Two machines i provided support today both had problems directly
attributable to Norton, one NIS360 and one NAV. I bad mouth norton
because their software in general is utterly dreadfull, sucks up
resources, and to be honest, isnt very good.

Gaz
Click to expand...

This may be true of the consumer products but I find the Symantec
Anti-Virus corporate versions to work very nicely.
 
badgolferman said:
This may be true of the consumer products but I find the Symantec
Anti-Virus corporate versions to work very nicely.
Click to expand...

Yes. Their server av and general corporate versions are fine. We arent
talking about the stuff they sell to people who about IT, but the stuff they
sell to people who dont know about IT.

Gaz
 
David H. Lipman said:
From: "Gaz" <[email protected]>


| Two machines i provided support today both had problems directly
| attributable to Norton, one NIS360 and one NAV. I bad mouth norton
because
| their software in general is utterly dreadfull, sucks up resources, and
to
| be honest, isnt very good.

| Gaz

Good reading...

"Symantec is scrambling to get the bloat out of Norton software-and stop
the slide in
market share

In 2006, Rowan Trollope, a top executive at Symantec (SYMC), declared war
on his own
engineers. The company's Norton computer-security software was getting so
overloaded with
features that his best friends told him they turn off the software rather
than deal with
the problems it causes. "I realized then we were pigs, taking up way too
many PC
resources," says Trollope, senior vice-president for consumer products."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Click to expand...

Which is obviously why their top of the line 2008 norton 360 is the most
shambolic piece of security software to ever grace a windows pc.

Gaz
 
Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
than its 2006 counter-part?

I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
scope for this question.

TIA, Eugene
Click to expand...
As you see there's not a lot of love for NAV here. To actually answer your
question I'd say that the 2008 version of NAV is much better then 2006, but
if you're considering getting NAV (or NIS) I would strongly recommend
waiting for the 2009 products which are currently being beta tested. They
will be better then the 2008 versions in many ways, such as smaller, more
frequent updates, faster scans, and better uninstall routines. If you're
curious checkout the ongoing thread at www.wilderssecurity.com (in other
antivirus software).
 
As you see there's not a lot of love for NAV here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was aware of this fact when posting.
To actually answer your
question I'd say that the 2008 version of NAV is much better then 2006, but
if you're considering getting NAV (or NIS) I would strongly recommend
waiting for the 2009 products which are currently being beta tested. They
will be better then the 2008 versions in many ways, such as smaller, more
frequent updates, faster scans, and better uninstall routines.
Click to expand...

I have NAV 2006 on the home computer in question. I will need to
renew the subscription pretty soon and I fully intend to do it. I
have two options: just renew the signature updates and stay with 2006
or upgrade to 2008. In 2007 I opted for signature updates only. This
time I'm not sure.
If you're
curious checkout the ongoing thread atwww.wilderssecurity.com(in other
antivirus software).
Click to expand...

I will. Thank you.
============================================================
 
Many will jump at the chance to bad mouth Norton. They are ignorant of
any facts and simply parrot back to you what some other mindless
parrot told them. I prefer Avast..but to answer your question
directly I would ask Norton on the phone or in email. There may well
be some details there that will shed light on your query. To conclude
i have used every version of Norton AV ever produced. I never had
trouble with Norton as an application or did my PC ever get infected.
I simply now prefer a free AV product like Avast. Good luck on your
quest Eugene.
Click to expand...

https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=endpoint_protec
tion11&message.id=15665&jump=true#M15665


I agree with Gaz, based on personal observations and 10 years
professionally employed as a PC technician, Norton is bloated, gets
bloated more with each release, and has long since fallen from the high
pedistal it once was on.
 
Little said:
"Personal observations" do not measured performance data or
scientific testing under controlled environment make. Polly want a
cracker?
Click to expand...

I make my own decisions based on personal experieinces, i use external
information to assist in the process. I have come across enough computers
installed with norton to know that it makes a considerable impact on
performance.

Gaz
 
"Personal observations" do not measured performance data or scientific
testing under controlled environment make. Polly want a cracker?
Click to expand...

Ahh, the joys of usenet and ignorant persons. Without people like you, I
wouldn't have a job. It's ironic in it's own right. Carry on then, sir.

oh, and thanks for the cracker.
 
"Symantec is scrambling to get the bloat out of Norton software-and stop
the slide in
market share

In 2006, Rowan Trollope, a top executive at Symantec (SYMC), declared war
on his own
engineers. The company's Norton computer-security software was getting so
overloaded with
features that his best friends told him they turn off the software rather
than deal with
the problems it causes. "I realized then we were pigs, taking up way too
many PC
resources," says Trollope, senior vice-president for consumer products."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Click to expand...
You may be interested to know that the public beta test of NIS2009/NAV2009
is finished and the products are supposed to go "gold" very soon (this
according to someone at wilderssecurity.com who was a beta tester). I'm
looking forward to reviews to see if the efforts to improve speed and
efficiency were successful.
 
Victek said:
You may be interested to know that the public beta test of
NIS2009/NAV2009 is finished and the products are supposed to go
"gold" very soon (this according to someone at wilderssecurity.com
who was a beta tester). I'm looking forward to reviews to see if the
efforts to improve speed and efficiency were successful.
Click to expand...

I am sure it will run fast on the reviewers machine, which is likely to be a
quad machine, with three gb of memory and geforce 8800 graphics card..

Gaz
 
"Symantec is scrambling to get the bloat out of Norton software-and
I am sure it will run fast on the reviewers machine, which is likely to be
a quad machine, with three gb of memory and geforce 8800 graphics card..

Gaz
Click to expand...
It' running fine on my PC which has a single core Athlon 64 3800, 3 gigs of
ram and a Gforce 6600GT. I don't think this is considered "high end" at
this point. It's obvious though (from using the beta) that they have really
reduced the impact on system resources. I believe this version is going to
run a lot better on lower end PC's. Regarding ram, it's so cheap why run XP
with less then one gig or Vista with less then two? If you're curious you
may still be able to download the beta and see for yourself.
 
Victek said:
It' running fine on my PC which has a single core Athlon 64 3800, 3 gigs
of ram and a Gforce 6600GT. I don't think this is considered "high end"
at this point. It's obvious though (from using the beta) that they have
really reduced the impact on system resources. I believe this version is
going to run a lot better on lower end PC's. Regarding ram, it's so cheap
why run XP with less then one gig or Vista with less then two? If you're
curious you may still be able to download the beta and see for yourself.
Click to expand...
FYI, I see that NIS 2009 & NAV 2009 are available for download on the
Symantec site today.
 
Victek said:
It' running fine on my PC which has a single core Athlon 64 3800, 3 gigs
of ram and a Gforce 6600GT. I don't think this is considered "high end"
at this point. It's obvious though (from using the beta) that they have
really reduced the impact on system resources. I believe this version is
going to run a lot better on lower end PC's. Regarding ram, it's so cheap
why run XP with less then one gig or Vista with less then two? If you're
curious you may still be able to download the beta and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

ROFL, i wouldnt put their final release shit on my pc, there is no way i am
going to put a beta on. Its about as effective as AntiVirus 2008.

You talk of 3gb of ram as if that is mainstream, rather then the absolute
maximum of memory that windows can address. It is quite rare for XP machines
to come out of the box with more then 512mb, even relatively new ones.

Gaz
 
Back
Top