Norton sucks the big one. McAfee sucks an even bigger one than Norton. AVG is...not so good. Have you tried avast? I use PC-cillin personally, but they seem to have gotten dumb about their definitions today (I just received a definition update and suddenly mIRC is a trojan. Lame.)

I use Norton and Mcafee Corporate over here so can't help ya with other versions. The retail versions are pretty bad. Never do automatic updates, only manual Liveupdates and those seem to work fine for me. Also I usually just download the actual definition files manually (although they are quite big nowadays).

Bitdefender has received high praise from the best German computer magazine (c't).

And yes, Norton sucks. It's a big resource hog.

I had norton Inet Sec: and then i got a virus ! - and i updated the DB every 2 weeks !!! - Now i use the Avast Pro. - its fast, no big updates, not big in memory usage, but seem to have problems with old viruses - I recently have found one in Deluxe Paint II exe file on my old Backup-CD : burglar, or something like that -

The av recognizes it, but cannot delete the virus 🙁 - but is blocking the file -so that it cannot be executed or accessed.

And there is something else: some of my friend were using the Norton Inet Sec. too, and had MAJOR Problems with their Home-Lan (could not enter the Lan-Neighbourhood, and something like that)

In the Dos times, the Norton was really good, but now they are only "AVARAGE"

I have heard some good things about PCcillan, and I might try that after my norton time runs out. The only resources I notice it uses are when using the Security Centre...it doesn't seem to eat much otherwise...but then again I use Symantec 2003 since I don't see any reason to upgrade for pretty graphics and a useless featureless firewall.

I can offer you only NOD32. It si the best.

I saw some advertising shit about NOD, ran it through a couple quick tests, and thought it to be rather bad.

What I see, that everyone advertise in this topic.

Maybe you dont snower 😵

Ohhh and what about your FurerStock

Was flipping through some magazine today (Probly CPU) and they recommend PCCillin.

Well, since they promised to add my existing subscription to Norton 2005...I bit my lip and installed it. What do I think?

I think all the 2k5 bashing is FUD. For some reason its 2x faster than 2003 was! Now it opens when I ask it to, and the gui is quicker. It seems to be updating properly now too. 😁 Well finally symantec did something right...I also don't have to renew my subscription until November 2006! That makes me happy.

Whatever works for you! Those who bash Norton AV retail have usually used the Corporate versions which are much superior, IMO.

If 2005 is faster than 2003 you must have had some pretty serious corruption of your Norton system files/settings (This is ridiculously easy to have happen, too). If you try to load 05 on a system with anything less than 384M RAM the system will slow to a crawl. That thing's the biggest fucking memory hog ever.

Not really, 2003 was fast as well and 2005 just seems more responsive. The GUI doesn't have any delay like 2003 had...when I click options or liveupdate it actually DOES something and does it right away 😁

I find that Norton 2005 is faster even on a toaster pentium 3 I own. I also own an old Celeron and it does slow to a crawl...but then again everything slows that machine to a crawl... 😵

Gotta love symantec, their tech support actually said we could install it on more than one computer and I didn't even buy the 3 user version! So if symantec has a problem with the way our machines are setup they can take it up with their call centre agents in india. 🤣 Not my problem!

As I said:

Avast:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/produc … s.xml?avist.xml
NOD32:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?eset.xml
Kaspersky:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/produc … l?kaspersky.xml
AVG:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml
McAfee:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?nai.xml
Norton:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/produc … ml?symantec.xml

And this page:

https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table

I'm not big on synthetic tests. Those also aren't terribly useful since they don't write reviews of the tests very often to say why VB 100% wasn't assigned.