NAV 2006 vs 2008

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View


Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
than its 2006 counter-part?

I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
scope for this question.

TIA, Eugene

Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it

A couple of rules for NAV.

i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
software.

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008





| A couple of rules for NAV.

| i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
| ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
| software.

| Gaz


Pretty much the Symantec rule of thumb!  :-)

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Two machines i provided support today both had problems directly
attributable to Norton, one NIS360 and one NAV. I bad mouth norton because
their software in general is utterly dreadfull, sucks up resources, and to
be honest, isnt very good.

Gaz




Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008

Gaz, 8/27/2008,9:28:28 PM, wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This may be true of the consumer products but I find the Symantec
Anti-Virus corporate versions to work very nicely.

Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008


| This may be true of the consumer products but I find the Symantec
| Anti-Virus corporate versions to work very nicely.

The same goes for McAfee.

McAfee Enterprise v8.5i is great while the retail McAfee SUCKS!

However I must also state this...
I have seen a trend for both McAfee and Symantec/NAV catch rates to fall.
During the same period, I have seen Microsoft's catch rates rise.

Go figure !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes. Their server av and general corporate versions are fine. We arent
talking about the stuff they sell to people who about IT, but the stuff they
sell to people who dont know about IT.

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



| Two machines i provided support today both had problems directly
| attributable to Norton, one NIS360 and one NAV. I bad mouth norton because
| their software in general is utterly dreadfull, sucks up resources, and to
| be honest, isnt very good.

| Gaz

Good reading...

"Symantec is scrambling to get the bloat out of Norton softwareand stop the
slide in
market share

In 2006, Rowan Trollope, a top executive at Symantec (SYMC), declared war on his
own
engineers. The company's Norton computer-security software was getting so
overloaded with
features that his best friends told him they turn off the software rather than
deal with
the problems it causes. "I realized then we were pigs, taking up way too many PC
resources," says Trollope, senior vice-president for consumer products."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008


Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which is obviously why their top of the line 2008 norton 360 is the most
shambolic piece of security software to ever grace a windows pc.

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it

https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=endpoint_protec
tion11&message.id=15665&jump=true#M15665


I agree with Gaz, based on personal observations and 10 years
professionally employed as a PC technician, Norton is bloated, gets
bloated more with each release, and has long since fallen from the high
pedistal it once was on.

--
Regards,
Dustin Cook,  Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
  


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



Little Charlie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I make my own decisions based on personal experieinces, i use external
information to assist in the process. I have come across enough computers
installed with norton to know that it makes a considerable impact on
performance.

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



$vX2.9304@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Damn, MS... that explains things a bit. :)


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook,  Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
  


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ahh, the joys of usenet and ignorant persons. Without people like you, I
wouldn't have a job. It's ironic in it's own right. Carry on then, sir.

oh, and thanks for the cracker.
 



--
Regards,
Dustin Cook,  Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
  


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Quoted text here. Click to load it
You may be interested to know that the public beta test of NIS2009/NAV2009
is finished and the products are supposed to go "gold" very soon (this
according to someone at wilderssecurity.com who was a beta tester).  I'm
looking forward to reviews to see if the efforts to improve speed and
efficiency were successful.
 


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



Victek wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am sure it will run fast on the reviewers machine, which is likely to be a
quad machine, with three gb of memory and geforce 8800 graphics card..

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



Quoted text here. Click to load it
It' running fine on my PC which has a single core Athlon 64 3800, 3 gigs of
ram and a Gforce 6600GT.  I don't think this is considered "high end" at
this point.  It's obvious though (from using the beta) that they have really
reduced the impact on system resources.  I believe this version is going to
run a lot better on lower end PC's.  Regarding ram, it's so cheap why run XP
with less then one gig or Vista with less then two?  If you're curious you
may still be able to download the beta and see for yourself.

 


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008





Quoted text here. Click to load it
FYI, I see that NIS 2009 & NAV 2009 are available for download on the
Symantec site today.


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it

ROFL, i wouldnt put their final release shit on my pc, there is no way i am
going to put a beta on. Its about as effective as AntiVirus 2008.

You talk of 3gb of ram as if that is mainstream, rather then the absolute
maximum of memory that windows can address. It is quite rare for XP machines
to come out of the box with more then 512mb, even relatively new ones.

Gaz



Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008



Quoted text here. Click to load it
As you see there's not a lot of love for NAV here.  To actually answer your
question I'd say that the 2008 version of NAV is much better then 2006, but
if you're considering getting NAV (or NIS) I would strongly recommend
waiting for the 2009 products which are currently being beta tested.  They
will be better then the 2008 versions in many ways, such as smaller, more
frequent updates, faster scans, and better uninstall routines.  If you're
curious checkout the ongoing thread at www.wilderssecurity.com (in other
antivirus software).


Re: NAV 2006 vs 2008




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I was aware of this fact when posting.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have NAV 2006 on the home computer in question.  I will need to
renew the subscription pretty soon and I fully intend to do it.  I
have two options: just renew the signature updates and stay with 2006
or upgrade to 2008. In 2007 I opted for signature updates only. This
time I'm not sure.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I will. Thank you.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Site Timeline