Vista v.s. Norton

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by John King, Jul 9, 2007.

  1. John King

    John King Guest

    When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
    security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
    Norton which I now use on XP?
    Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?

    Your help will be much appreciated

    John King
     
    John King, Jul 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. Well, a great many people would argue that you should dispense with
    "Norton" on WinXP, as well. Any number of other anti-virus applications
    would have a much lower impact upon your system's performance. I once
    used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
    Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP. However,
    when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton Internet Security
    2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially higher than the
    preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less expensive
    solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of GriSoft's AVG
    (http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ) and the free version of
    AVAST (http://www.avast.com/). Additionally, I was pleasantly surprised
    to see a very noticeable improvement in my PC's performance, once I'd
    replaced the Symantec product.

    No, Vista has no built-in anti-virus capability; you'll still need to
    install a 3rd party application for this purpose. Vista does include a
    firewall that's adequate when properly configured, and Windows Defender,
    an anti-spyware/adware tool.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

    Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
     
    Bruce Chambers, Jul 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John King

    Milo Guest

    Vista as an operating system offers highten security with UAC ( for
    prevention ) and among other things, but its not an antivirus by itself or
    which has a mechanism to( filter and identify ) viruses and ( delete )such
    if ever you or anyone accumulated it. Yet it has with it a built in Windows
    Defender for spyware and malware you would encounter on the market today.
     
    Milo, Jul 9, 2007
    #3

  4. There are two different issues implied by your question:

    1. Do you still need an antivirus program with Vista?

    2. Should you use Norton Anti-Virus as your antivirus program.

    The answer to question 1 is yes. Although there are many security
    improvements in Vista, it does *not* contain an antivirus program and
    you still need one.

    The answer to question 2 is no. As far as I'm concerned, whether on
    Vista or XP, Norton Antivirus is the single *worst* product on the
    market. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't allow *anything* Norton on any
    of my computers.

    I recommend the freeware Avast! instead.
     
    Ken Blake, MVP, Jul 9, 2007
    #4
  5. John King

    David Guest

    Wow, its hard to take anyone seriously when they make blanket statements
    such as you have. You bias is unwarranted and you basically just come
    off looking foolish when you say no one should use NAV. The only "pain"
    I've had in loaded NIS is the lengthy installation time. For function
    and "impact", it's running as nicely as reviews and my expectations
    presumed it would. Could you please move your box down a block or
    two? Your ranting about Norton is wearing thin.

    Dave
     
    David, Jul 10, 2007
    #5
  6. John King

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    Norton will never ever be installed on another machine I use. That thing
    became Live Update toast and toasted itself on a routine basis, and I had to
    reinstall the thing numerous times back in year 2001.

    The machine with Vista pre installed came with Norton and the first thing I
    did was uninstall the whole Norton nightmare suite.

    I went to my solid as a rock NOD32.
     
    Mr. Arnold, Jul 10, 2007
    #6
  7. John King

    The Sand Guest

    I don't know about "need to" in regard to Norton but I have Norton 360
    on two computers (one running Vista) and I love it...
     
    The Sand, Jul 10, 2007
    #7
  8. I'll second that! I'm currently running Norton 360 on my 32-bit notebook and
    I plan to also install in on my 64-bit desktop. Both running Vista Ultimate.
     
    David A. Spicer, Jul 10, 2007
    #8
  9. John King

    phypps Guest

    I also agree.
    I suspect most Norton bashers are basing their opinion on (much) older
    versions of the software.
    Maybe not unreasonably so either in all fairness, as in the past Norton was
    a hog and could slow many a system to crawl from time to time.
    But.... things have moved on.
    Norton 360 is not an upgrade but a new program written with Vista in mind.
    Vista itself handles "background" tasks much more intelligently with regard
    to performance.
    I have 360 on Vista Ultimate x64, MS updates on auto, and Media Centre
    updates its TV guide as well.
    Together they all work very nicely and I have to admit I hardly know they
    are there.

    Phypps
     
    phypps, Jul 10, 2007
    #9
  10. John King

    Victek Guest

    I also agree.
    Regarding Norton Internet Security (NIS), I've supported computers with NIS
    2006 and NIS 2007 installed and they were painfully slow to boot. When the
    systems were finally booted there was still a noticeable impact on
    performance caused by NIS, and these were not "much older" versions of the
    product. I've also experienced the problems with LiveUpdate breaking,
    difficulty installing/uninstalling, etc. When things go wrong they can be
    hard to straighten out, especially for novice users. This hasn't happened
    often for me, but I haven't notice much improvement in recent versions with
    regard to these issues. On the upside, I have heard good things about
    Norton 360 - apparently it impacts performance much less. I haven't had a
    chance to test it yet, but there's a mostly positive review at this site:

    http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_security_suites.asp
     
    Victek, Jul 10, 2007
    #10
  11. John King

    Bob Guest

    OK, I have had Norton on my XP for several years with no problems. Now I
    have a new system with Vista and McAfee installed. All was well until I
    upgraded to Ultimate now I get all kinds of messages saying I'm not protected
    ie., everything in McAfee seems to be disabled. Any thoughts as to how to
    proceed?
     
    Bob, Jul 10, 2007
    #11
  12. John King

    Ken Blake Guest


    It's *my* opinion, and like all opinions, yes, it reflects my bias. My bias
    is anti-Norton; yours is pro-Norton. I think my bias is warranted and yours
    unwarranted ; you have the opposite opinion. That's fine. The OP is free to
    take the opinion (and bias) of whichever of us (or neither) he prefers.
     
    Ken Blake, Jul 11, 2007
    #12
  13. John King

    David Guest

    I guarantee you have something else unrelated to Norton that is bogging
    down your start up. What kinda processor, how much memory, etc? I've
    installed NIS on two laptops and there is no discernible difference.
    wait... i lied. I gain control of the desktop faster than when i run
    the kludgy and FREE (which is what it is worth) AVG. I'm particular
    enamored with McAfee either, which came on both our Vista laptops.

    I"m not affiliated with Symantec--just a reasonably happy customer of
    some of their products. No axe to grind, as does the "MVP" here. sigh.

    Dave (NOT an "MVP")
     
    David, Jul 11, 2007
    #13
  14. John King

    David Guest

    There is a difference between our opinions: you are blinded by your
    hatred of NIS, despite the FACT that many people and organization
    happily run it and prefer it to other internet security suites. I don't
    make blanket statements that YOUR favorite anti virus program is without
    any redeeming features. Next time, I humbly suggest you just tout the
    positives of the program you feel most suited to the task, and skip the
    total condemnation of a product that a number of other posters in this
    thread have mentioned works quite well from them. (Which, BTW is
    exactly what I expected, given the popularity and usefulness of NIS)

    oh, and i have nothing against disagreement. :)

    Dave
     
    David, Jul 11, 2007
    #14
  15. John King

    The Sand Guest

    The reason I joined this forum is for tech help. One of the mai
    reasons I like Norton is their tech help support. They are really nic
    and will stay on it until everything is resolved. To me that i
    important
     
    The Sand, Jul 11, 2007
    #15
  16. John King

    Victek Guest

    Try uninstalling McAffee, rebooting, and then reinstalling it.
     
    Victek, Jul 11, 2007
    #16
  17. John King

    Arjan Guest

    That's the reason why it costs more and more each year.
    The same with Vista, you don't only pay for the OS itself, you pay for the
    Help you can get by using Microsoft Helpdesk for example. Vista could be a
    Lot cheaper if you were a Computer "specialist".
    Just buy e.g. a RAM and place it into your computer, and you'll have the
    rights to buy Win. Vista for a much lower price because they expect you to
    solve your own Software/Hardware problems because you "are" a "specialist".
    At least, that's what I read...
    Anyway, it was a bit off topic
     
    Arjan, Jul 11, 2007
    #17
  18. John King

    Dennis Guest

    Well, I'm running NAV for quite a no. of years already. I don't have
    problems with it. Yes, other's say your system is slower compared to a system
    without one but the impact is not significant at all. The important thing of
    having an antivirus is to protect yourself and degraded (a bit) performance
    is a price of having protection. Since RAM price is becoming cheaper each
    year then upgrade RAM to boost performance.

    I have also tried AVG and McAffee products.
    AVG Free - Good because its free and realtime "protection". Not too Good in
    terms of protection.
    McAfee - Bad on Performance. Slows my system down compared with NAV. Good in
    terms of protection.

    This is of course based on my experience.
     
    Dennis, Jul 13, 2007
    #18
  19. John King

    Crito Guest

    Defender, UAC and the built-in firewall stops 99.99% of the threats I'm
    likely to encounter today. And for the other .01% it's much easier and
    safer to restore from backups than try to clean my system of the
    infection. I can do a complete restore of a Vista Business installation
    from DVD-RWs in about 20 minutes. No worrying about "did I get all of
    it?" or "did cleaning that file corrupt it?" In fact, it's not just my
    practice it's security industry best practice commonly referred to as
    the three Rs. After a system compromise you should always repartition,
    reformat and reinstall (or restore) from scratch.
     
    Crito, Jul 13, 2007
    #19
  20. John King

    Bob Guest

    Victek,
    Based on many of the posts, I uninstalled only the Virus checking portion of
    McAfee
    and then installed 'Avast' and all is now well with the world. McAfee seems
    to like this new arrangement. Thanks for you suggestion
     
    Bob, Jul 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.