Norton Security Suite or MSE?

Which one would be better for protection and lighter?

From a few threads I've read, Norton has improved greatly and isn't a resource hog anymore. And I've read alot of good things about MSE.

Here are the links: Comcast.net Security - Norton™ Security Suite
http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/

The Norton to me is for free because I'm using comcast.

 

MSE all the way

 

I dropped the pre installed Norton early from my unit. Support put me on hold with telephone music for a half hour. No way am I going to pay for that. It also interferes with other applications. MSE causes no compatibility problems. It works fine with Avast.

 

Norton might have been the best antivirus but it just lost with all the other new ones coming out, especially the ones that are free to many users.

 

I use Microsoft Security Essential with Windows Firewall. its really good.

MSE protects really well, and as of yet i not have any problem with it and No False-Alarm.

It caught a virus or two, and it seems to clean really well. it wins in comparo against virus scanner shootout; in detection and removal.

the program runs very light, update fast and silently. it is really unobtrusive.

i got to hand it to microsoft, this program really had a lot of positive effect on me.

 

They're both extremely lightweight and robust options. I'd say it comes down to the money - if Comcast does provide Norton IS to you for free, I'd say to go with it. When I used NIS10, it made no noticeable impact on my system at all, and its firewall was very effective at at the same time unobtrusive. Its biggest one-up over MSE is the speed of its updates (every few minutes) and the invisibility of the updates (seemingly no impact on CPU or hard drive usage, even when I have Process Explorer open looking for it).

I'm using MSE since my Norton license expired, and it's also proving to be a great option.

 

Both are solid options. It's just up to you if you want to drop the dough for Norton.

 

MSE has been quite good actually. Light on resources and has been out of the way. I was pleasantly surprised. Led me to give up Avira which I had been using consistently for over a year till recently.

 

I just downloaded MSE.

Had to take out Norton Internet Security cause I tried to update it to a 1 year subscription for free ^^... My subscription was to last 365 days but I couldn't turn on the firewall, the scan, it was pretty much dead but it had 365 days of subscription. Since it was useless, I got MSE.

Happy atm. First scan took only 7 minutes and the highest my cpu went was 54%, but I had other things at the background so I'm sure it's lower than 54%.

 

MSE does have a tendency to be CPU intensive during it's scans (up to 56% utiliziation), but it's not really an issue and I haven't noticed any significant slowdowns except on maybe old single core cpu's and you were running the scan with several other programs in the background at the same time.

I personally use MSE, and if I'm running a full scan of my system (which is rare), then I don't run other programs in the background.

I've set MSE to run daily quick scans of my system and updates, it's pretty quick in doing so and I have a few things running in the background at the same time (such as Chromium and possibly streaming videos), but I don't notice any slowdowns.

Norton while good lost pretty much because it's still a program for which you have to pay for (which is completely unnecessary in this day and age for proper av protection).

 

My biggest problem with MSE is that it doesn't warn you of infected sites and is willing to allow scareware to not only appear but to disable MSE and install viruses. Sure you can get around it by killing the process via task mgr and booting FF in safemode and turning off JV script but for the average user they would have no clue what was happening. So for me MSE is a big fail just for that issue alone.

Avast 5 Free wins hands down, it scans very fast, updates itself regularly and warns you if a site is about to launch scareware or is potentially an attack site. I have yet to run into false positives. I sued to use MSE but now it's Avast all the way. Avira Free was also very good but dropped it because of my problems with the updates.

 

You'd be surprised just how much scareware goes through Avast or Avira as well.
Scareware is rather ominous in how it gets things done, so it's not surprising it gets past av protection of any kind.
Yeah, MSE is not perfect in that regard, but in order to protect yourself from that, then simply use adblock and don't click on everything on the net.
Common sense is an important factor here as well.

 

I'm taking about blatant scareware, where the browser closes, and you get a popup message on the center of the screen with the only choice to click on yes. You can also increase the sensitivity on Avira and Avast.

That's my problem with MSE, it should shutdown this blatant BS.

 

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Welcome to AV-Comparatives.org

That will give you some decent testing on which to weigh out your choices.

 

So should Avast, Avira and Norton, and yet I've seen all 3 of them being disabled by blatant scareware.
As I said earlier, antivirus programs are rather weak right now in picking up and disabling scareware in the first place (the success rates vary, and Avast managed to let through a simple hijacker into my fathers computer AFTER it detected and supposedly 'prevented' it).

Having an antivirus program in it's own is not always enough.

 

The best thing is for the user to be educated and vigilant, since antiviruses are really a 2nd level defense and should not solely be relied on. That being said, MSE is a good low resource consuming AV and I would definitely recommend it.

 

I was recently running Norton and I got infected by a scareware (" AV Security Suite"). I reinstalled the OS just to be safe, and I'm now using MSE instead... we'll see how that goes.

 

scarewares are that much of a problem that you have to reinstall the OS?

 

Well, probably not. I actually seemed to have gotten rid of the scareware fine using Malwarebytes. BUT... I don't have a way of knowing for sure if anything might still be lurking... or the malware could have messed with the OS in a way that might leave security holes or make it less stable. So my attitude is that after a malware infection, I can't 100% trust the OS anymore unless I reinstall from scratch. So my policy is that if I get any malware, I reinstall the OS. This is only my third malware infection in the last 15 years.

 

Since it's free why not try out Norton and see if you like it. It's all personal preference. I really liked NIS2009 but frankly I still prefer MSE over everything else; never really had any issues with MSE's performance and I found it the least obtrusive. MSE may not have all the bells and whistles, but that along with its minimalist design is what I like about it.

 

I got a NAV2010 license, but still using MSE. I want a lightweight AV that protects me "silently". MSE does that greatly!

 

Both Norton and MSE are light and equally effective (I think MSE tops out in some cases though) at what they do.
The only difference is in the fact that MSE is completely free (and Norton cannot beat that, especially since MSE is equal if not slightly better).

 

Onlything I don't like about mse is that when I turn on my laptop, sometimes MSE is off and I have to manually turn on MSE.

 

The only thing bad I can say about Norton is sometimes it's too quite. Once installed it's virtually hands free (unless you have an unconnected external backup drive like I do). In that case, it will pop up to warn you to backup your computer data.

If you want to tinker, you can take the time to safe connect the safeguard website mechanisms, which once done, will make scans even easier. It's unlikely MSE or any free security is just as good since a security suite can do so much more. Free applications are limited by default. That's why they're free!

 

Security suites are an overkill to begin with, with most programs that use those functions being resource hogs (sans Norton and one or two more paid ones).
Why pay for something that from a users point of view is never used to begin with?
False sense of security and fear?
Give me a break.
I don't plan being ruled over by fear and false sense of security because those aspects are just tools used by others to control you in the first place.

Windows Vista/7 native firewall is modifiable to the extent to allow you full control over inbound/outbound connections which is why it's pointless to have an extra software for those functions.
Adding to the fact that hardware firewalls in routers are infinitely better compared to software ones (which can be broken easily enough by a hacker or a person determined to get inside your system - no security suite will protect your from your own stupidity either).

I find it laughable to see people spend tons of money on software that is totally useless to them and then end up with a product that usually slows their system down, and allows nasty infections to get through either way, while most individuals who use free software virtually never (or rarely) get those kinds of problems to begin with.

 

Let me get this straight, so you're saying that if we all junk our paid security software and replace it with freeware, our systems will be safer?

 

No ... that's not what I'm saying at all.
The point of that post was to show that your system is usually just as safe with a decent freeware like when it is with a decent paid program.
Besides, paid programs aren't the cream of the crop.
You have ample examples on this site alone where security threats go through them and in some cases causing more problems to the OS than worth

 

No security system is foolproof but it's a fact that some are better than others at stopping threats--especially when divided into specific categories.

That said, some freeware can hold it's own against security systems you pay for, but only in one specific category. Security suites, on the other hand, are designed to give you the best overall protection (along with other perks) and not operate as "one trick ponies" as freeware security systems are. This is their greatest fault and limitation.