Norton 360 V2

My one and only real experience of Norton 360 was last year, undoing the damage it did to the PC my Mum had bought only a few months before. It had managed to get itself stuck to being installed but refusing to run or work, and it wouldn't uninstall. Eventually I used Symantec's removal tool from their website (the very existence of such a 'tool' makes you wonder what the original product is doing to your system), which true enough did remove it, but left enough of a trace of the original installation that wouldn't allow 360 to be re-installed. In the end I formatted the entire system and put AVG Free on there instead.

Pure evil, I'd never use a Symantec anti-virus product in my life purely out of principle.
 
Some peeps live in the past, like say 2002

Norton was ALWAYS a good AV but Bloated and heavy on resources but got bit better each year.

Since 2007 build it has been very light on them, this inc's 360v1 and now v2.

Mos peeps who shoot of their mouths about it have NOT even tried it.

360 is more basic and user friendly inc auto defragging HDD while PC is idle etc so its good for a family that do not know much about PC's so I install on all customers Rigs.

They would not have a clue on Nod32 or other and its only a AV afterall and ESS (I use this) is still new and kinda buggy still.

If you know a bit more you then use Norton 2008 packages to get more advanced settings etc.

The complete Norton Internet Security 2007 package installed use less CPU and Ram than my Nod32 AV did.

Every year I waste many days/weeks (over a period of months) testing (inc Beta) each new AV/IS packages to try work out what's best for myself and customers as I cannot have hassle or comeback that can be avoided.

I think I know a bit more than someone who does not test anything and listens to heresy or goes by past experiences for 6 years ago.
 
bledd. said:
norton =
surreal-pistol-25.jpg
Click to expand...


PMSL!!! ROFL!!! LMAO!!! ROFLEMAFAOOO!!!!!


Norton should be added to the word filter.
 
helmutcheese said:
Some peeps live in the past, like say 2002

Norton was ALWAYS a good AV but Bloated and heavy on resources but got bit better each year.

Since 2007 build it has been very light on them, this inc's 360v1 and now v2.

Mos peeps who shoot of their mouths about it have NOT even tried it.

360 is more basic and user friendly inc auto defragging HDD while PC is idle etc so its good for a family that do not know much about PC's so I install on all customers Rigs.

They would not have a clue on Nod32 or other and its only a AV afterall and ESS (I use this) is still new and kinda buggy still.

If you know a bit more you then use Norton 2008 packages to get more advanced settings etc.

The complete Norton Internet Security 2007 package installed use less CPU and Ram than my Nod32 AV did.

Every year I waste many days/weeks (over a period of months) testing (inc Beta) each new AV/IS packages to try work out what's best for myself and customers as I cannot have hassle or comeback that can be avoided.

I think I know a bit more than someone who does not test anything and listens to heresy or goes by past experiences for 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

Hm, I see your point here. I agree, Norton 360 is a more friendly applicaiton for those less in the know and I have heard (but not tested as I have a soloution that works) that v2 is better on general system resources compared to v1 and that their other packages have done the same since the '07 versions. However, I have found that if a PC is not of a decent modern spec, Symantecs software is still to resource hungry and will impose a general sluggish effect throughout the system, namely network communications and disk access. Compare data security to true crypt, there is no comparisson, true crypt for that, backup, acronis takes it hands down.

"The complete Norton Internet Security 2007 package installed use less CPU and Ram than my Nod32 AV did"

This sadly I cannot agree with, I have seen this comparison in the flesh and do not agree. Again general network communications and disk access were impaired when using NIS '07 compared to NOD32.

I think you are right that Symantec is improving their softwares performance and in my opinion, Eset and Symantec are the best in the anti malware field.

I would like to put forward the following to Mike1983

If you are looking for the best performance with a little more "hands on", I beleive my suggestions earlier on in this thread are the best route.

If you are looking for a suite that will do it all, a friendly GUI but with a small performance hit, Norton 360 v2.


Feel free to criticise my comment helmutcheese but I beleive it is a fair one and that the bold part sums it up for Mike1983 nicely.
 
I don't mind your opinion, I know what it was like on my PC and it used less than Nod32.

This could vary from set up to set for for multiple reasons.

I have never been one to listen to heresy, I try for myself.

Nod32 is not the "be all and end all" and their ESS is buggy crap (I own it) and I'm trying to sit out a few builds and see if they get their act together.

The support sucks too and they break more than they fix with each build on ESS.

What I do mind is some peeps talking crap about something they have not used or have used a older build from years ago. ;)
 
Things must have improved for Norton - they invested quite heavily promoting the fact that 360 wasn't as slow as it used to be!

These so called "security suites" are plainly targetted at new and/or naive PC owners. See how heavily Norton is promoted in PC World? All the lights, bells and whistles?

If you are a savvy PC user, and have even an ounce of common sense, steer clear of these "security suites" - I had Mcaffee Internet Security OEM on my Dell laptop and a more rank and fetid piece of software I have yet to see. If you must, install a lightweight AV such as Avira Antivir and a freeware firewall too.

If you are competant enough not to expose yourself to risk you can get away without a realtime scanner - simply manually scan any dodgy downloads!

I know this seems a novel concept for some but its one I adhere to. And I've never had a virus in 10 years of PC ownership.

Remember kids, malware is not airborne.

;)
 
EDIT: SORRY, DOUBLE POST, PLEASE REFER TO THE LATTER

helmutcheese said:
I don't mind your opinion, I know what it was like on my PC and it used less than Nod32.

This could vary from set up to set for for multiple reasons.

I have never been one to listen to heresy, I try for myself.

Nod32 is not the "be all and end all" and their ESS is buggy crap (I own it) and I'm trying to sit out a few builds and see if they get their act together.

The support sucks too and they break more than they fix with each build on ESS.

What I do mind is some peeps talking crap about something they have not used or have used a older build from years ago. ;)
Click to expand...

I have not tried Eset's Smart Security, personally I am happy with a hardware firewall for inbounds and NOD32, not that it ever picks anything up (just apply a little common sense) but as it is so resource friendly on my system, why not? Never liked software firewalls. Oh, and I cannot agree more with your last statement where people have a strong opinion on what they haven't even tried.

EDIT: SORRY, DOUBLE POST, PLEASE REFER TO THE LATTER
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
I don't mind your opinion, I know what it was like on my PC and it used less than Nod32.

This could vary from set up to set for for multiple reasons.

I have never been one to listen to heresy, I try for myself.

Nod32 is not the "be all and end all" and their ESS is buggy crap (I own it) and I'm trying to sit out a few builds and see if they get their act together.

The support sucks too and they break more than they fix with each build on ESS.

What I do mind is some peeps talking crap about something they have not used or have used a older build from years ago. ;)
Click to expand...

I have not tried Eset's Smart Security, personally I am happy with a hardware firewall for inbounds and NOD32, not that it ever picks anything up (just apply a little common sense) but as it is so resource friendly on my system, why not? Never liked software firewalls. Oh, and I cannot agree more with your last statement where people have a strong opinion on what they haven't even tried.

Ratbag, I don't know if it was intended not but your post sounds like you are a little up your own there. Remember, Mike is one of the guy's who in your post is reffered to as naive and is looking for advice, not some guy saying if you run a real time AV scanner you must have no common sense.
 
I recently encountered Norton 360 V1 on a system that had been infected with a load of malware. Scanned it and got everything cleaned up using a different PC but couldn't get Norton to turn on the Auto-Protect, Intrusion prevention and E-mail scanner no matter what I did. Tried all the fix-it programs on the Norton site and trawled through a load of guides but ended up having to disable Norton and installed Avast instead as the owner of the PC couldn't find her registration details so I didn't want to re-install it if I couldn't re-enable it. Her husband will be back in a few weeks time and I'll chat to him then as he normally looks after their PCs.

I must say though that this incident brought back memories of Norton always being useless once the PC was infected with anything and, even though the PC didn't seem too sluggish with Norton running, I still don't think I'd recommend it to anyone.
 
Last edited:
...Nod was fine until the new version. Never felt the same after that plus took about 6 hours longer to scan the same drives.

Trying Avast at the moment :)
 
Antar Bolaeisk said:
I recently encountered Norton 360 V1 on a system that had been infected with a load of malware. Scanned it and got everything cleaned up using a different PC but couldn't get Norton to turn on the Auto-Protect, Intrusion prevention and E-mail scanner no matter what I did. Tried all the fix-it programs on the Norton site and trawled through a load of guides but ended up having to disable Norton and installed Avast instead as the owner of the PC couldn't find her registration details so I didn't want to re-install it if I couldn't re-enable it. Her husband will be back in a few weeks time and I'll chat to him then as he normally looks after their PCs.

I must say though that this incident brought back memories of Norton always being useless once the PC was infected with anything and, even though the PC didn't seem too sluggish with Norton running, I still don't think I'd recommend it to anyone.
Click to expand...

You should really remove norton as although disabled, it's emulated network drivers and more are still installed and running. Go to www.symantec.com/symnrt to download the Norton Removal Tool, specifically ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/removal_tools/Norton_Removal_Tool.exe

The software is self explanatory and will remove all traces of Symantecs software from your system.
 
I would but unfortunately she's using the Norton back-up tool and while I showed her others she's a complete technophobe and has learnt how to use Norton and will only use that.
 
pistol.jpg


imagine holding that and pulling the trigger :p

edit, how did i manage to mis-spell pistol :D "pisol"

will change it later
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom