Symantec Norton Internet Security 2008 Review Discussion

Are you looking for a gift for that not-so-careful computer user in your life? Need a thoughtful gift that costs less than $100 and "keeps on giving" for the next 12 months? Norton Internet Security 2008 might just be the solution you're looking for.

Read the full content of this Article: Symantec Norton Internet Security 2008 Review

 

id say the free antivirus software are better!!!

 

Can you do some CPU tests? To see how it bogs down your computer? And the load time from the desktop? How large the install is? How Much RAM it uses?

Personally I like NOD32, it's a LOT smaller than other antivirus apps...but that's just me.

 

I'd also like to add the fact that it has a poor detection rate, it has multiple processes and it sucks (Symantec crap).
Eset and Kasperksy make very good suites. Don't get this.

 

Once you go AVG, you never go back:

http://free.grisoft.com/

Still, the team that developed NIS 2008 made a big deal that this year's version was built from the ground up to get rid of bloat and put less stress on system resources.

 

Yeah, but I believe that started with 2007 or 2006. Still, it's not all that great.

 

When it comes down to it, they get an F as they only succeed 50% of the time. During normal operation, NIS 2008 is fine. But when you do a virus scan...it takes 5-10 seconds for me to even pull up the Windows Calculator. Yeah, that's right. So my virus scans always occur at night.

But, during normal operation NIS 2008 has been fine for me...and virus free.

 

I agree. +1

 

Why the hell would I buy Norton for someone for Christmas, oh I know, if I don't like them.

 

I, for one, would love to see some comparisons from all the major AVs. I thought there was a site for that, but I cannot recall it off the top of my head.

 

lol yeah, it's a terrible gift. I would just buy them a gift card to BB and let them choose...

I've used past versions of norton antivirus, and I think norton antivirus itself is a virus! It really does effect how you use your computer because it slows it down so much.

 

Agreed. It's almost like getting Vista Ultimate for someone for Christmas.

 

Same here.. Lean, easy to use, and most importantly, FREE.

Provided you dont go seeking out viruses, and have a good firewall, AVG is more then adequate. Plus, since its so lean, having it run in the background has practically no effect on performance.

 

Norton was good before Symantec bought them...
This will slow down you computer totally..

 

I like to use NOD32 especially on my laptop. Here are some comparisons:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2007_08.php
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2007_11.php

av-test.org also has some good whitepaper reading.

 

If you're paying for internet security I would recommend Kaspersky.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/160/security-suites/products.html

 

Even with a stop watch you wouldn't be able to substantiate this claim.

This review lacks two things:

1. CPU stress testing
2. Virus protection testing.

Without those, all you're testing is the program's GUI.

 

As a longtime reader of NBR (despite the new forum account), I am absolutely appalled that this "review" actually made the home page. This post is really nothing more than a glorified product description worthy of gracing amazon.com.

The only actual user opinion I see is opinion about the installation process. In fact, the review of the installation took up an entire section of the review comparable in length to the section about using the actual software. This is absolutely ridiculous- installation is certainly worth talking about, but NOT to the same degree as the usability of the software. But make no mistake, this isn't about the installation section being too long: it is about the usability section being FAR from comprehensive.

In terms of the reviewing the software's functionality, there is no "reviewing" present whatsoever. Surely the author can do more testing other than just running one anti-virus scan on the computer. That says absolutely nothing about the product- maybe you had way more than just 16 risks on your computer and Norton was unable to catch all of them. We wouldn't know because there's no comparison with other Anti-virus software on the market. There's three basic things a review of software needs to cover, and this "review" contains none of them:

1. Do the features included live up to their claims?
2. Are the features shared by this program and its competitors implemented well, if not better in this particular software?
3. Does this software offer more working features than its competitors?

The only way you can write a decent review about this type of software is compare it to its competition. Yes, it is a lot more work because you need to have access to more software and give each enough face time, but that's why we leave good reviews to the professionals. Being a common consumer does not warrant writing a deficient article like this and passing it off as a review.

It is a disgrace to the legacy of great reviews on this website that this "review" of Norton Internet Security 2008 graced the front page of NBR. I hope Andrew didn't pay anything for this.

I know someone is going to respond to me, "Well, why don't you write a review, smart guy?" That doesn't change the fact that this review is terrible. I never sold myself as a reviewer worth being paid for his work and displayed on NBR. The author of this particular review did and that, I must say, is total nonsense.

 

optomos, AV Comparatives don't like people linking to the tests directly.
AV Comparatives is the site to check for real-life tests. Even though some products score high, it doesn't really mean anything. I wouldn't use free AVs. I just don't like them. AntiVir is good, but it doesn't leave me a great impression. I have AVG at school and I don't like it at all.

 

Basic benchmarks and Task Manager information has now been added to the review so you can see the negligible impact of NIS 2008 on an entry-level budget notebook.

As for the ability of NIS 2008 to identify, quarantine, and remove harmful viruses, adware, and other malware, NIS 2008 does as good as any other anti-virus application ... assuming you update the software on a regular basis.

And, as seen in the benchmarks, I think the folks at Symantec did a good job removing bloat from NIS 2008 compared to previous versions.

I still think it's pricey, but if you need protection it's an acceptable option.

 

While I agree that the review is light on AV testing, as would be expected given the expertise that is required for a thorough evaluation, I will pull up my flame retardant undies and step in defense of the OP to link to a well tested review by PC Magazine's Neil Rubenking on NIS 2008 which meets that request. I offer no additional comments beyond noting that review is available (which happens to give an Editor's Choice to the product).

I use ZoneAlarm ISS personally. There is great debate about what may/not be a good AV product - most of the users posting on NBR are moderate and above power-users who are careful in their web use and free products are adequate in those instances. People need to remember that the paid products are either for those who know less about what they are doing and need the extra help/protection that a comprehensive product can provide, or those who want the extra peace of mind that such products deliver. They're not for everyone, and certainly not in this community. My fire extinguisher stands ready .

 

Crap, they always give that Editor Choice thing to every edition of Norton AV. That's BS.
There are better alternatives to this suite. Why do you keep on trying it and using it? It's like people want to revive **** when they can start from scratch with a better product. Doesn't make sense.
Symantec AVs are good, not great, but good. Detection rate will sometimes surprise you, but the reviewers don't test the AVs daily. They test them once a day, when they make the review then get all the facts somewhat straight, except the fact that Symantec updates just once a day, and Kaspersky does it 4 - 6 even 10 times a day. NOD32 has great heuristics, which are by far the best I have seen in my life. I don't get you people...
And for the record I don't have an AV, tested the best, didn't like the best so I stayed semper fi to my special powers.

 

I have NIS 2008 and as far as I've seen it has given me ZERO negative affects.

And when I do a system scan, I do it when I'm going to be busy or away from the PC so that it's finished when I return. I've used plenty of Norton products, and each one has proven fine in my experience. I've never had a virus or any problems associated to them.

Performance wise, NIS 2008 changes nothing. Sure, during the scan it takes a hit, but that's to be expected when your harddrive is being scoured for harmful data.

I'm not comfortable with free AVs and I don't feel "safe" using them. I don't care what people say, my opinion is that NIS is ONE of the best ways to go. Not THE best, but ONE.

 

Mate, if you're smart enough you don't get viruses. AVs are for people that don't feel safe.

 

Agreed, you can't beat NOD32.

Can't say I would ever let Norton on my computer . . . it is designed for the average user who knows little to nothing about their computer. It's a resource hog.

 

NAV is a pathetic shell of it's former self. The completely destroyed their franchise with poor servicing and forcing their "enhancement" down users throat, bloating the software to what a gig? 700megs? It's a system resource hog that and it's detection and removal it's so sad that it's not even laughable.

I'll go with NOD32, AVG, Kaspersky or Trend Micro.

 

I bought Norton Anti-Virus 2007 (not the whole suite), and when I installed it, my computer was crippled. The hard drive was constantly "grinding" away and the general performance of everything was halved. Norton was constantly connecting to the net and hogging the CPU even more (100%) looking for updates, but they only showed up once a week. When there was a new update, the 100% CPU hogging lasted about a hour as a "Quick Scan" was performed. Worst of all, the computer took 30 minutes to boot up instead of 30 seconds. This was installed on 2 day old install of XP Home, with all of the HP bloatware removed.

I bought NOD32 and my computer was usable again. I uninstalled Norton and sent out a refund request to Symantec, but they never honored it. Typical.

 

How the hell did a Symantec NIS review get on the front page? And get called a review? There was no reviewing involved. I can take a pic of my task manager too and measure my boot time and each time it'll be off by a bit.

There was no test of scan time or anything.

I really hope NBR got a HUGE kick back for this. Front page took a huge credibility loss in my book. AND I MEAN HUGE.

 

I believe that, same as you tebore, that those pictures are not important. What's important is the number of processes and each one's memory consumption. 100 more MB is cute though, but it's doesn't mean anything.

 

It's not the reviewers fault... Not everyone is tech savvy and have the resources to compare other Internet security suites. NBR shouldn't allow this type of software review because it really should be done by experts. You can't say how good the product is or what it can do without comparing it to others. Reviewing notebooks is a different story because even if you don't know much about it there are general guidelines to follow.

 

And if it cracks like hell you know it's not good .

 

I heard of this line before, but its in a movie. A bad movie.

 

First, good review SarahM! I applaud the idea of reviewing software and telling people of their benefits/weaknesses. However...

When you choose to write a review, it should be because of your knowledge in the field, your thoughts about a particular item, and the desire to share these thoughts with other people. In the case of computer security, most people share advice but only a minority of users actually have done any research/work in the field. This review should not have been initiated simply because it didn't give any thorough analysis or objective testing and arguably is more so a baselessly positive spin on a product without much fact/testing to back up the claims.

As far as quality of testing, AV-comparatives.org and AV-test.org have the best quality of work as far as accuracy of detection. All other "reviewers" such as PC-Mag classicaly have either used one of these two testing labs to test the accuracy of their products, or done their own highly biased and useless testing to validate conclusions they made before even initiating the test. People say Norton is bad without actually looking at the detection, and they say NOD32 is the best when, while good, it is not the most accurate. Many people commonly boast that their products (such as AVG, Avast, KAV, NOD32) is the best, but never give much objective reasoning or testing behind their choice. I applaud the discussion of what is the 'best' or 'worse' suite, but only when it is infact an objective discussion, not mindless posting of "AVG rules" or "PC MAG reviewed NIS as 4.5/5" when infact PC Mag is ridiculously bad as far as credibility of testing in the computer security world. Thank you for your review, but I hope that in the future better testing will be done before such software reviews are published.

 

I don't get it. Is the phrase bolded above sarcasm?

 

If I had just posted criticism, it would have been purely negative/critical. I have no personal feelings against/for this particular review, so I wanted that to be clear. In this case it wasn't

 

I think what he meant was the review was written well, with the right idea...but the wrong credentials.

The largest problems with security reviews are that you really need to do an industry wide comparison, and also have a USB stick worth of viruses to throw at all your potential targets for testing. How often do they prevent installation of viruses? What about removal? How efficient are scans? Is there a type of malware a particular product is good against or cannot discover at all? I do not think the review answered much of that, and I think it is mostly from NBR's lack of experience reviewing this types of products.

 

I have used PC's at work where IT is responsible for protection of the windows machines I use. At home I have always used Macs, and never really worried about this kind of thing.

This December marks the end of my first year with a PC notebook for personal use at home. Since I was new to managing a windows machine at home - and with kids using it - I wanted "all in one" protection suite. I tired zone alarm and could not stand it (constant warnings ala vista), and I switched to the Norton 2007 Suite based on the reviews from PC mag and others. It has been fine for my family use. I have not noticed any major problems or slowdowns on my Dell E1505. However, I am still a windows novice and perhaps this is the best place for this kind of software.

 

I am surprised no one mentioned Avast. Also free and very good too.