• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

AVG or norton 2002 antivirus

#1
which would i benefit from the most. I have a copy of Norton systemworks 2002, but don't like the fact that it is a resource hog.

So would i be better off to go with something else? Also I don't have the cash to buy anything new at the moment.
 
#2
The only thing worthwhile in...

...system works/utilities is speedisk. Of course its always a good idea to have an anti-virus program. If you can get your hands on the corp. edition of NAV get it. With corp. edition you don't ever have to worry about renewing subscriptions. Go to the store and buy a copy

Besides you can't use 2/3's the utilties in system works on XP.

Warez Is Not Permitted: Edited By JJB6486
 
#3
Norton AV 2002 does an awesome job of detecting and handling viruses (virii?) I have never had a problem with it not detecting something.

Besides, there are new virus definitions available through LiveUpdate every Wednesday, so detection of new threats is being added every week.

With a 512MB system, I don't see why the 6 MB of RAM that Norton takes up makes it a "resource hog" :huh:

Better safe than sorry is what I believe. As I said, why get rid of something that does it's job almost perfectly?
Just my opinion...


Cheers!
NetRyder :cool:
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#4
I've said this before, and I'll say it again

if avg cost more money then norton, I would still get avg

at every chance that I have had to compare the two av's, avg found viruses that norton did not.

avg is a much smaller program, and as far as every person I know who has issed both, a beter virus detector

I have
 
B

Burpster

Guest
#5
i think yharn answered his own question .....he has no money so he has to the freebie route

sygate ..kerio are also freebie options




i like Norton AV Pro 2003 myself
 
#7
Originally posted by dealer
at every chance that I have had to compare the two av's, avg found viruses that norton did.
Is there any chance you remember what virus it was that Norton couldn't detect with the latest definitions?
 

damnyank

I WILL NOT FORGET 911
#8
Some folks like Nortons - others don't - so you'll get the pros and cons from both sides - which isn't all bad.

IMHO - I would take your NSW 2002 and only install the NAV 2002. I have never had NAV let me down - so I am a leery of trying AVG - but everyone's opinion I have come to trust on this site continues to recommend AVG. Maybe - someday!

I was a big fan of NSW - but I feel it just keeps getting $hittier and $hittier. As o0RaidR0o stated - some of the utilities that NSW has do not function in XP and/or there are better choices available - some which come as part of the XP tools.

One other thing, if you enable automatic live update in NAV you will receive any updates immediately that Symantec deems urgent - while the lower priority updates will come on Wed.

So there's my 2 cents worth!
 
B

Burpster

Guest
#9
i was responding to the fact he wanted something else :)

with no money you have but 2 routes for a new AV proggie ...lol
 

JJB6486

Retired Mod
Political User
#10
I prefer Norton Corporate Edition. Unlike 2002/2003, it doesnt have any automatic updaters or stuff that runs in the background (other then a small realtime scanner), and takes up a lot less memory and resources then the standard consumer version.

JJB
 
#13
Norton does detect the Anna Kournikova virus.

BTW, I have AVG installed on an old box with 48 MB of RAM, running 98.
I agree ... that would crawl with Norton on it.
Thankfully, I haven't seen AVG in action yet. ;)
 

damnyank

I WILL NOT FORGET 911
#17
Let me interject something here - if we are talking about "how quickly" virus definititions are sent out/updated when a new virus is found/determined to be a threat - wouldn't that depend on the company doing the "threat assessment" (for lack of a better term)??

I am sure most, if not all antivirus programs now detect good ole Anna (what a fine looking woman and a nasty trick on us old men) - however which was the first - is that the necessary question??

Perhaps timely is what we are really talking about - more so than best???

I think most antivirus programs are okay once their virus definitions are brought up to date - so perhaps best would depend more on quickness and ease of updated definitions??

Comments???
 
#18
Originally posted by damnyank
Let me interject something here - if we are talking about "how quickly" virus definititions are sent out/updated when a new virus is found/determined to be a threat - wouldn't that depend on the company doing the "threat assessment" (for lack of a better term)??

I am sure most, if not all antivirus programs now detect good ole Anna (what a fine looking woman and a nasty trick on us old men) - however which was the first - is that the necessary question??

Perhaps timely is what we are really talking about - more so than best???

I think most antivirus programs are okay once their virus definitions are brought up to date - so perhaps best would depend more on quickness and ease of updated definitions??

Comments???
Perfectly true ... and I'm saying I've never had the problem of getting virus definitions late in NAV.
 
B

Burpster

Guest
#19
it seems every other day my little notification window pops up with updates for Norton

i wonder if the professional version is better than the regular version of Norton??
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,960
Messages
673,237
Members
89,011
Latest member
grovo_test