Symantec Campaigns Against Free Antivirus

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a funny ad. Not quite accurate, but close enough. Plus, the woman is kinda cute, and that's always a plus in an ad.

I'm not a fan of Symantec (see last paragraph below), but NAV is the one Symantec product that I actually recommend. I don't recommend any of their other "security" products.

I was a fan of AVG 7.x, but now that they're forcing everyone to v8, which isn't free, I no longer find any reason to recommend it. Even if you can use it beyond it's 30 day trial (I haven't tried), it's annoyance-ware/nag-ware until you buy it, and I won't use that.

[citation][nom]ag3nt smith[/nom]My free version of Avast scans webpages; blocks hackers and scans my e-mail. NOD32 30-day trial can be downloaded over and over again and it scans e-mail and webpages. [/citation]It's great that Avast provides all those additional protections, however, having to download a "free trial" every 30 days isn't the same as free, unless your time is worthless. My time isn't worthless, and (ignoring my opinion about some people) neither is the time of anyone I know.

To everyone bashing Norton as bloatware, slow, etc: Prior to to the release of Norton Antivirus 2009, I would have agreed with you. Until they redesign all their other "endpoint protection" products, that complaint might apply to every Symantec product except NAV 2009, however, NAV 2009/2010 are completely different from any version you've used before. If you haven't tried them, at least research them before bashing them.

Frankly, Symantec has a history of screwing up every product they've ever purchased by turning it into bloatware, and/or removing it's best features, and/or letting it languish, and/or making it incompatible or unstable. Hopefully, NAV 2009 is just a start and Symantec will start producing decent products, but I'm not betting on that.
 
It's funny how 99% of the time when someone says they have a virus/spyware/malware on their PC.....it's when they were using Norton. It's also funny how free antivirus products repair the problems Norton let happen in the first place.
 
I have already had experience with the newest versions of Norton AV and Norton 360.

I still don't like them and they still have problems which need to be ironed out.

Norton tries to cover too many bases at once and there's "not enough" user control over the product settings. It's still Bloatware.
 
[citation][nom]montezuma[/nom]Talk about wasting two minutes of my life. That was one of the dumbest goddamn, pieces of shit "commercials" I have ever seen. I will laugh when Microsoft's "free" anti-virus program outperforms Symantec's shit program.Unlike that dogshit commercial tries to tell people, Microsoft's anti-virus program is not free, since you need Windows to run it. I figure that that is the least Microsoft can do since I gave them $300 for the OS.[/citation]

Wow, you bought a full retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate Edition? That's rather silly, seeing as an OEM copy would have ran you $175, which is quite a bit less. At the same time, neither seems especially unreasonable, when games cost $50, professional applications cost hundreds, and plenty of other software is rather pricey. I'd say $300 for the OS that it all runs on is a steal.
 
[citation][nom]cscpianoman[/nom]free.avg.com has v8.5 for free. I'm not sure where you got the not free part? Would you mind elaborating?[/citation]Does it prompt you to upgrade to the paid version the every time you login (or the first time you login each day)? That's annoyance ware. It takes my time, therefore, it's not free.
 
[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]Does it prompt you to upgrade to the paid version the every time you login (or the first time you login each day)? That's annoyance ware. It takes my time, therefore, it's not free.[/citation]

I think everyone here can agree on the fact that free refers to lack of costing actual currency, not your precious time you could spend playing Cryfag.
 

It does NOT do that except when there is a new version(and maybe a few rare other times. i mean very rare). The rest is a small banner in the program it self.
 
[citation][nom]manjyomethunder[/nom]I think everyone here can agree on the fact that free refers to lack of costing actual currency, not your precious time you could spend playing Cryfag.[/citation]I don't think there is anyone who would agree to that. There are many forms of payment besides currency. Trading products and/or services predates currency and is still fairly common.

If your time isn't valuable, fine, mine is. BTW, if your time isn't valuable, I've got a minimum wage job for you.
 
[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]It does NOT do that except when there is a new version(and maybe a few rare other times. i mean very rare). The rest is a small banner in the program it self.[/citation]Glad to hear it, I tried 8.0 once and hated it, so when 7.5 updates ended, I gave up on AVG.
 
I personally have over 100 clients using Avast! home. Many of them previously had Norton antivirus, Norton system works, or 360. Avast! while not doing as much as systemworks or 360 does PLENTY. It protects the customers well and catches and removes viruses with much less fuss then my experiences with Norton. Avast has a light memory footprint usually around 50MB if you have all options running. By contrast I have seen several instances of the newer verisons of Norton using over 100MB. Why would anyone want to pay for somthing that doesnt work as well and uses more of their valuable system resoruces? When Symantec learns to put out a product that is light on system resources, fast, foolproof to use, and reasonably priced I will switch customers back. Until then sorry Symantec you wont be getting any sympathy or money from my clients or me.
 
ok i been using norton for many years and i can say it was bloatware before the 2009 software version since then it has been fast, responsive and reliable. it has saved my computer on numerous occasions. it takes up little to no computer resources. and i am currently running NIS 2010 and i couldnt be happier. As someone who repairs computers i would whole heartily recommend norton. They apparently fixed their past problems.
 
The best antivirus is still common sense. Overall, I've been running AVG on my XP partitions for years, and the only time I got a virus was my stupidity. AVG is very light on resources, and does work. Then again, if I'm that paranoid about a site while I'm running XP, I just don't visit it.
 

Try avast. I hear good things about it.

If you want to pay, Trend Micro is very good and safe. Its kill first(so its gone before you even see the infected file) ask later works great for people who do not know what to do. Very safe


True, i went years without ANY anti virus and never got ANYTHING. This was even back in the Win98 days
 
Norton products are shit. Full stop. Stop making my job as IT support so difficult. Go away Norton! Take your bloated and resource hungry 'Solutions' and shitty firewall away. Im sick of getting called in the middle of the night because your shit blocked another "allowed" MAC address for no reason at all. Dont get me started on NAV 2009.
 
[citation][nom]Renegade_Warrior[/nom]Norton is nothing more than Bloatware.[/citation]
And yet I read all the time that the 2009 version is much faster and more efficient since they went back to the drawing board and did a complete re-write. I don't think it can be called "bloatware" anymore.
That said, when products like Avast! are at least as good anti-virus as Norton ever was and don't cost a cent, and since Windows has had a firewall built-in since XP SP2 (not to mention the free 3rd party alternatives like ZoneAlarm and Comodo), why exactly would I use Norton if I didn't have to? Basically the only mileage I got out of Symantec products was the individual malware removal tools when someone on the family computer clicked something they shouldn't have. Those removal tools are free, btw.
 
[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]ok i been using norton for many years and i can say it was bloatware before the 2009 software version since then it has been fast, responsive and reliable. it has saved my computer on numerous occasions. it takes up little to no computer resources. and i am currently running NIS 2010 and i couldnt be happier. As someone who repairs computers i would whole heartily recommend norton. They apparently fixed their past problems.[/citation]Yes, Norton has gotten better, but I still would not recommend it and even if someone wanted me to install it on their system, Other tools would be needed to insure full protection.

So I would say that either you have been extremely lucky or you have had other security software on your system along side Norton.

Speaking from a security view point, it sounds more like you would find it easier to wipe a drive and do a fresh install rather than to clean a Malware infestested drive which takes more experience and preferably, training in the Boot Camp @ SWI.
 
If Norton had its way, serving the internet would be like crawling through the intestine of a beached bloated whale.
 
[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]I don't think there is anyone who would agree to that. There are many forms of payment besides currency. Trading products and/or services predates currency and is still fairly common.If your time isn't valuable, fine, mine is. BTW, if your time isn't valuable, I've got a minimum wage job for you.[/citation]

The two seconds of my time it takes to close AVG's advertisements isn't valuable, but I don't think that I could work a minimum wage job in that short amount of time.

If your time is so valuable that you can't simply dismiss minor annoyances for the sake of say, not spending $80 or so on anti-virus, perhaps you should be at a business meeting or preparing a pie chart for one, rather than here on TomsHardware.
 
Norton blows. I hope Microsoft runs their asses out of business. They have the worst AV program out there.
 
I remember when Norton utilities where the best you could get and where actually really great.... Then they release Norton 2000 or something and it all went down hill. I swore them off then and have not been back since and I have seen little evidence that they have improved things. Ghost is the one shinning product they have and even it may be less useful then it was, since windows comes with a nice back up utility that works really well.

Norton if you want to prove your products better then freeware then perhaps you should provide a better product? I am sure its quite possible so get to work lest ye join the ranks of the dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom