Re: Antivirus software is the new protection racket

Vanguard
Date: 05/13/05

  • Next message: Rlange: "Re: MS Antivirus suggestion" 
    Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:05:03 -0500

    "Sammy" <hhi_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1115935094.322771.280120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Buffalo (nospam) wrote:
    >
    >> Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
    >> Have you ever noticed a slowdown in any Windows system that had a cpu
    > speed of
    >> over 1.5GHz while using only Norton's Antivirus and not any other
    > part of
    >> Norton?
    >> C'mon.
    >
    > Yes. Using Norton 2004 and 2005; With 2005 slowing down more so then
    > 2004; Where as 2004 seems to be slower then 2003 was. :(
    >
    > You must be the only person I can think of who doesn't notice it.
    >

    Does the Parental Control feature still exist in version 2004 and 2005
    (of Norton Internet Security)? If so, did you include it in the
    install? Why? If you included it, you could try disabling it to see
    what happens with performance. (Repeat the same question regarding
    Norton AntiSpam included in NIS.)

    When you say just "Norton", you don't narrow it down much. WHICH
    Norton? Just Norton AntiVirus? Or Norton Internet Security (which also
    includes Norton AntiVirus)?

    I've seen plenty of whiners wailing about Norton's slowdown when in fact
    they aren't talking about Norton AntiVirus compared against some other
    anti-virus only product but are comparing Norton Internet Security with
    *everything* of it installed and/or enabled and thinking that is a fair
    comparison of just its anti-virus component. If you are talking about
    NIS disable its firewall (you cannot choose not to install it), don't
    install the Parental Control feature (if it is still available), don't
    install Norton AntiSpam bundled in the suite, and then compare
    performance loss. Even a Ford Mustang will beat out a Porsche if the
    Porsche is towing a boat.

    For Norton Anti-Virus *ONLY*, I haven't seen much a performance
    difference between it and other anti-virus products (that also achieve
    better than 95% coverage as tested and shown at
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/ (but I have seen some difference in CPU
    usage). High CPU usage doesn't NOT necessarily dictate loss of
    performance. Even if a process runs at Normal priority, it can
    relinquish its process when another wants equal or higher priority
    execution. Even zombies know that trick: run heavily when idle but
    throttle back when inuse.

    Were you comparing ONLY Norton AntiVirus against the other AV products
    regarding performance, or were you comparing the full suite of Norton
    Internet Security against just an AV-only product? It's been awhile
    since I've seen someone purchase *just* Norton AntiVirus when it
    represents 75% of the cost of the suite (i.e., for a few bucks more, you
    get the suite instead of just one component of it).

    Some measurements (not from independent labs, however) show that Norton
    AntiVirus will slow a system by 4% while McAfee VirusScan doesn't slow
    it at all (real hard to believe), but other AV products also slow down
    performance.

    http://reviews.cnet.com/ZoneAlarm_with_Antivirus/4505-3667_7-30898743-5.html?tag=top
    4% drag with NAV compared to system not running any AV program

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Norton_AntiVirus_2005/4505-3681_7-30998882-5.html
    "running Norton AntiVirus 2005 results in the same amount of drag on
    system performance as running McAfee and Trend Micro PC-cillin"

    Too often users claim there is a performance drag but neglect the fact
    that they are running a dirty system. It has been polluted over a long
    time with software installs, often from unknown or untrusted sources,
    been repaired several times or crapware eradicated, and they think that
    a polluted and mended system should perform flawlessly. If you want to
    perform a true test of performance loss, do a fresh install of Windows,
    apply all updates, install the product to be tested, update it, and then
    benchmark it so it isn't hindered by all the other software you run, a
    polluted registry, fragmentation, and other problems that are not the
    fault of the product under test. The running with an 80-pound backpack
    will fare better than his buddy that has a cold, bandages wrapping his
    knees, and given a map written and updated by dozens other users of that
    map.

    I think users forget that Symantec is a software *publisher*. All of
    their products were bought from someone else. They only perform
    development thereafter to maintain a marketing edge for their product,
    even if that edge is nebulous. Symantec is not a software developer.
    That means their goals for their products are different. I've seen the
    same happen with other software publishers. Figure in about 3 years to
    start looking for alternatives, and in 5 years you really need an
    alternative. Norton AntiVirus (and their firewall, too) are outside the
    3-year window, and even outside the 5-year window. So I don't doubt
    there is some degradation with the latest versions of NAV as it is
    getting long in the tooth. Just be sure you are comparing apples to
    apples and not apples to a truckload of apples.

    When I switched from Norton AntiVirus to CA EzAntiVirus, I noticed a
    just perceptible performance increase. However, I have yet to see
    AV-Comparatives (or anyone else providing as comprehensive a test) show
    the coverage for EzAntivirus so I'm in the dark as to it coverage. I
    see lots of users saying to use AVG or Avast simply because they have
    free versions, but their coverage sucks - but then I really don't know
    how good is the coverage by EzAntiVirus.

  • Next message: Rlange: "Re: MS Antivirus suggestion"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Windows XP Problems
      ... I was running Norton AntiVirus 2005. ... >> and trying to reinstall Norton Antivirus (Because of the Live Update ... the Norton Install failed also. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: Which is THE BEST antivirus
      ... My Norton antivirus is set ... I visit Norton website frequently for news ... > automatically receive and install updates and has been so ... I get trojans and worms. ...
      (microsoft.public.security)
    • Re: Windows XP Problems
      ... > running Windows XP home edition. ... > and trying to reinstall Norton Antivirus (Because of the Live Update ... the Norton Install failed also. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: Norton Antivirus 2005 says devenv is a malicious script (help!)
      ... you want to class that as server capable) nor will some other free ones. ... >decided to upgrade my Norton Antivirus from 2002 to 2005. ... > is a malicious script. ...
      (microsoft.public.vstudio.development)
    • Re: message content disappears when I move them from inbox to sub-
      ... Disabling email scanning in Norton 2008 is often not sufficient to ... but only with certain folders. ... Which version of Norton Antivirus? ... among the top three troublemakers for Windows Mail. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.vista.mail)