IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Kaspersky vs Norton
Khabarov
post 2.12.2005 04:06
Post #1


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 16.11.2005
From: Mississauga,Canada




People, what do you think the better product : Kaspersky or Norton , but if you say Kaspersky , I wanna ask why Norton best seller in the World?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyW
post 2.12.2005 04:12
Post #2


Kaspersky Fan I
********

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 1444
Joined: 8.04.2005
From: UK




Norton gets pre-installed on many machines when you buy the computer from a shop, and many retailers here in the UK stock Norton and McAfee in their stores. Very rarely do you see other AVs on display. I'm sure it's the same in many other western countries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thelostsoul
post 2.12.2005 04:24
Post #3


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 13.11.2005




Norton looks nice, and is verypowerfull, but is the biggest resource hog ever. When I installed Norton and looked at the comit charge, it was like running 3 or 4 KIS's. KIS also has the fastest response time to new threats (acording to PCMagazine a couple issues ago) and I'm pretty sure av-comparisons.com or something like that said that Kaspersky's scanner is the most powerfull.

Norton also come with many pre-installed configurations. These make things much easier for beginers, but advanced users want to be notified of everything and choose what to do when it happens. So Kaspersky, which doesn't have too many pre-installed configurations, is ideal for these advanced users.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chuck_IV
post 2.12.2005 05:01
Post #4


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 30.07.2005




QUOTE(TonyW @ Dec 1 2005, 07:12 PM)
Norton gets pre-installed on many machines when you buy the computer from a  shop, and many retailers here in the UK stock Norton and McAfee in their stores. Very rarely do you see other AVs on display. I'm sure it's the same in many other western countries.
*


Exactly. The novice/uninformed computer user doesn't know anything else. All they know is what comes on their machine and what they see on store shelves, thus why Norton is so popular.

Norton is a hog and slows down your machine. More and more people are realizing this and that there are better alternatives to Norton out there. It's a slow process, but other AV's/Suites are taking away Nortons market share.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7of9
post 2.12.2005 05:10
Post #5


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 13.11.2005




yes, Norton is only #1 seller AV b/c it's the main antivirus around the world that ppl know of when you say an AV and it's pre installed on just about 95% of the PC market.

As for is it better. NO, the last good version of Norton's AV was the 2003 version. Every version since has gotten MORE and More blotted in it and does NOT to as good as a job finding virus are Kaspersky does.

Aslo, Kasp only adds 2 system resorces and it very Ram friendly... Install the newest trial version of Norton 2006 and you will see it add around 8 or more processes running on your PC and you do not need all of them, even if you turn then off (the ones not needed) you still have like 6 or more running and you can see a system slow down.....

But that is just my 2 cens... I know tons of ppl that will ONLY use Norton and nothing else.


--------------------
KIS 2013 v13.0.1.4190
======
Windows 8 RTM x64
DFI Lanparty 790GX-M2RS
8GB OCz PC2 8500
AMD Phenom 2: 3.0Ghz Black Edition
2 EVGA GeForce 285 GTX PCI-E v2.0 x16
3 Seagate HDD Totaling 1.5TB
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
abuttayeb
post 2.12.2005 05:45
Post #6


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 22.09.2005
From: Vancouver, Canada




Dont be fooled by the so called "good" reviews Norton and McAfee get. They pay for those reviews. I left Norton b/c my PC was infected with 3 virusus and I knew it but Norton could not detect them. I tried few othe AVs but found nothing is more powerful than Kaspersky. no wonder some AVs use the kaspersky engine. btw, IMO F-Prot comes in 2nd after Kaspersky.


--------------------
Think OUTside the Box
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leo Max
post 2.12.2005 05:49
Post #7


Kaspersky Fan I
********

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 1363
Joined: 26.05.2005
From: California, USA




QUOTE(abuttayeb @ Dec 1 2005, 05:45 PM)
Dont be fooled by the so called "good" reviews Norton and McAfee get. They pay for those reviews. I left Norton b/c my PC was infected with 3 virusus and I knew it but Norton could not detect them. I tried few othe AVs but found nothing is more powerful than Kaspersky. no wonder some AVs use the kaspersky engine. btw, IMO F-Prot comes in 2nd after Kaspersky.
*


Dont' forget F-Secure uses Kasperskies engine too. wink.gif Any ways Kaspersky is the best. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ivorr
post 2.12.2005 06:27
Post #8


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 5.07.2005
From: João Pessoa, BRAZIL




Kaspersky simply KILLS Norton. It uses better and newer technologies, it's detection rate is higher in possibly every kind of malware and viroses imaginable and (as already said...) is also a lot lighter on the system resources than Norton and also is the world's fastest Anti-Virus manufacturer to respond to new security threats and actually protect their loyal (myself included) customers from these nasty things. Think that's enough... isn't it? :] (I cannot even start to count how many times I was saved from a new nasty malware because of Kaspersky's active and updated protection! It's a Russian miracle! Hehe). I love it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BlueZannetti
post 2.12.2005 06:46
Post #9


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: 9.04.2005




QUOTE(Ivorr @ Dec 1 2005, 09:27 PM)
Kaspersky simply KILLS Norton. It uses better and newer technologies, it's detection rate is higher in possibly every kind of malware and viroses imaginable and (as already said...) is also a lot lighter on the system resources than Norton and also is the world's fastest Anti-Virus manufacturer to respond to new security threats and actually protect their loyal (myself included) customers from these nasty things. Think that's enough... isn't it? :]  (I cannot even start to count how many times I was saved from a new nasty malware because of Kaspersky's active and updated protection! It's a Russian miracle! Hehe). I love it.
*
Ivorr,

Although this discussion is uniquely inappropriate for this particular subforum, it is useful to examine objective facts when they are available.

As for tests, the most comprehensive and objective one that I know of is www.av-comparatives.org. Examine the reports closely. For all practical purposes, demand detection statistics are identical. Retrospective results favor KAV, but KAV is not best-in-class here.

Norton has a major Achilles heel, and that is its LiveUpdate module. It doesn't have the stability it should. However, KAV is not without periodic problems either, all products have them.

Lest everyone forget, the change in update strategy this year bordered on a major fiasco and left many exposed for an extended period. In my own installations, an update can fail and bring KAV down with nary a whimper. It can also incur more substantial issues and yield an unrecognized inability to update. These issues have been documented by a number of posters here and at the Ice Systems KAV forum. In my own case I've had machines with signatures almost 3 weeks out of date.

I own multiple KAV WS licenses and vastly prefer it over Norton myself. However, simple examination of the facts says that both products, along with with some others, occupy the top tier of AV performance. It is not a category reserved for a single product.

Blue
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marik
post 2.12.2005 08:19
Post #10


Advanced Member III
*****

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 684
Joined: 27.07.2005




I used Norton 2003 before...and then one day it expired (it was legal of course). Then I start using AVG, and sometime later my computer goes nuts. THEN the repair shop puts Pc-Cillin Internet Security on, and boy did it slow the system down.

So after a reformat, I put on KAVPP and everything has gone well since. Of course now, I have KIS on, because it's the best protection program I've ever seen.

SO....Kaspersky > Norton. biggrin.gif cool.gif


--------------------
Science is truthful! Religion is all LIES!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ivorr
post 2.12.2005 08:26
Post #11


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 5.07.2005
From: João Pessoa, BRAZIL




QUOTE(BlueZannetti @ Dec 2 2005, 01:46 AM)
Ivorr,

Although this discussion is uniquely inappropriate for this particular subforum, it is useful to examine objective facts when they are available.

As for tests, the most comprehensive and objective one that I know of is www.av-comparatives.org.  Examine the reports closely.  For all practical purposes, demand detection statistics are identical.  Retrospective results favor KAV, but KAV is not best-in-class here.

Norton has a major Achilles heel, and that is its LiveUpdate module.  It doesn't have the stability it should.  However, KAV is not without periodic problems either, all products have them.

Lest everyone forget, the change in update strategy this year bordered on a major fiasco and left many exposed for an extended period.  In my own installations, an update can fail and bring KAV down with nary a whimper.  It can also incur more substantial issues and yield an unrecognized inability to update.  These issues have been documented by a number of posters here and at the Ice Systems KAV forum.  In my own case I've had machines with signatures almost 3 weeks out of date.

I own multiple KAV WS licenses and vastly prefer it over Norton myself.  However, simple examination of the facts says that both products, along with with some others,  occupy the top tier of AV performance.  It is not a category reserved for a single product.

Blue
*


You're absolutely right about this category not being reserved for a single product. However, when you plus all the meriths and areas in which KAV performs in a high level of satisfaction, the choice is quite obvious: KAV is OVERALL superior as a whole package "in itself" (specially in the future KIS' case) than Norton's as far as the overall feeling of satisfaction goes. I'm not saying KIS is perfect. FAR from it (if you "look back in time" it's possible to reach some of the most annoying critics directed to KLabs 'ever' " heh. I don't expect the most complete perfection comming out of this product, but I'm highly satisfied with it since a long time. It's stronger on things Norton simply misses (Like for example the attack against TROJAN HORSES - a big annoyance of mine in the past, in a time when I DID use Norton among many other Anti-Virus manufactors and vendors). I understand your concern about the all-around caution rounding the Anti-virus, but I'm still happy enough with KAV to put it in a higher level than all it's competitors (with the exception of AVK). Anyway, i agree with many things you've just said and respect your oppinion, which's based on numbers; on facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bigc73542
post 2.12.2005 09:33
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 8.04.2005




Don't get me wrong I am running Kav5 but if you think norton is a bloated no good program I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about or you are working for a competitor. Norton Internet security 2005 runs lighter on all three of my computers than Kav does. All of these so called experts that are always posting that norton is just a bloated hog have never used it or they would know better. I have used norton for years and it is getting better every version. And yes it comes preinstalled a lot and gets advertised a lot also. But they do make a very good product regardless of what all of the little kiddies and unknowledgable people believe or would like to believe and it does have a very good detection and cleaning rate also.

bigc


--------------------
The only secure computer is unplugged
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MaFi0s0
post 2.12.2005 09:39
Post #13


Advanced Member II
****

Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 14.11.2005
From: Australia




QUOTE(Ivorr @ Dec 2 2005, 02:26 PM)
(if you "look back in time" it's possible to reach some of the most annoying critics directed to KLabs 'ever' " heh
*

When? and what was said?

I think KAV kills NAV i used to use NAV before i ever heard of Kaspersky, then one day i realised it was shit and decided to test some AVs i downloaded a file with 200 virii in one, KAV came out best it detected about 180 and norton detected something like 120, at the time i also had access to 0 day trojans and was marvelled at Kasperskys response time(2 hours?), i was sure they bookmarked every trojan site and kept a sharp eye on them, one other thing, NAV used to purposely produce false positives for trojan clients whereas KAV didnt.
but for some reason KAV now detects trojan clients.. why KL? mellow.gif

As for what gets stocked on shelves, I was looking at an AV section at a big eletronics store last week just for amusement, funnily enough ZoneAlarm pro was there, A friend of a friend once broke into a zone alarm protected computer with subseven using brute force, the screenshot was posted on a security website back in 2000, i might have it on my old HDD or on a CD-R somewhere but i dont think i will be seeing it again.
They also had really cheesy looking noname $20 AV and Anti-trojan programs, the boxing was like a 50's style nofrills i-cant-believe-its-not-butter product.
I think its just pathetic, NAV is a perfect example of how all a company has to do is just throw money around to get there product to sell no matter how good or bad the product is.

Mandriva Linux 2006 also claims in there installation that Symantec Partition Magic has issues and should not be used.
Symantecs strength isnt quality its quantity they have a wide product range, I remember using Norton internet security 2000 and norton system works 2000, they seemed like good products but from what 7of9 said i doubt there 2006 products are as good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thelostsoul
post 2.12.2005 09:40
Post #14


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 13.11.2005




Here are the facts bigc:

I just installed NIS'06 for testing purposes, and after rebooting twice, I went into the task manager and saw two Norton / Symantec processes using 28,000k+ commit charge EACH. There was not a single other process running using more that this, not even explorer.exe!
KIS'06, on the other hand, has two processes, one with about 8,000k or less, and the other with about 1-2,000k or less.

Needles to say, I removed it within 45minutes of installing it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mvdu
post 2.12.2005 09:42
Post #15


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 18.06.2005




NIS still runs heavier on my machine. Just looking at the number of processes and memory usage lets me know right away. And also, KAV is USUALLY quicker to respond to threats (especially non-ITW trojans and malware.) And KAV is improving at a faster rate IMO. That's my opinion.



QUOTE(bigc73542 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:33 AM)
Don't get me wrong I am running Kav5  but if you think  norton is a bloated no good program I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about or you are working for a competitor. Norton Internet security 2005 runs lighter on all three of my computers than Kav does. All of these so called experts that are always posting that norton is just a bloated hog have never used it or they would know better. I have used norton for years and it is getting better every version. And yes it comes preinstalled a lot and gets advertised a lot also. But they do make a very good product regardless of what all of the little kiddies and unknowledgable people believe or would like to believe and it does have a very good detection and cleaning rate also.

bigc
*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MaFi0s0
post 2.12.2005 09:44
Post #16


Advanced Member II
****

Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 14.11.2005
From: Australia




btw subseven crew, sdbot creator, psychward creator, and other trojan makers, all agree KAV is better then NAV, so you cant really argue with that
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mvdu
post 2.12.2005 09:52
Post #17


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 18.06.2005




QUOTE(MaFi0s0 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:39 AM)
As for what gets stocked on shelves, I was looking at an AV section at a big eletronics store last week just for amusement, funnily enough ZoneAlarm pro was there, A friend of a friend once broke into a zone alarm protected computer with subseven using brute force, the screenshot was posted on a security website back in 2000, i might have it on my old HDD or on a CD-R somewhere but i dont think i will be seeing it again.
*


Wow, interesting story. Do you think he could do the same to ZAP today? Or other software firewalls like Outpost and KAH?

Back on topic, though, I'm not saying NAV is a bad AV - it's good, in fact - but I believe KAV keeps me safest from every possible malware.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MaFi0s0
post 2.12.2005 09:57
Post #18


Advanced Member II
****

Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 14.11.2005
From: Australia




QUOTE(mvdu @ Dec 2 2005, 03:52 PM)
Wow, interesting story. Do you think he could do the same to ZAP today? Or other software firewalls like Outpost and KAH?

Back on topic, though, I'm not saying NAV is a bad AV - it's good, in fact - but I believe KAV keeps me safest from every possible malware.
*


doubt it, im sure theyve evolved into sterdy products, keep in mind this was back when zone alarm was freeware at version 1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chuck_IV
post 2.12.2005 18:29
Post #19


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 30.07.2005




QUOTE(bigc73542 @ Dec 2 2005, 12:33 AM)
Don't get me wrong I am running Kav5  but if you think  norton is a bloated no good program I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about or you are working for a competitor. Norton Internet security 2005 runs lighter on all three of my computers than Kav does. All of these so called experts that are always posting that norton is just a bloated hog have never used it or they would know better. I have used norton for years and it is getting better every version. And yes it comes preinstalled a lot and gets advertised a lot also. But they do make a very good product regardless of what all of the little kiddies and unknowledgable people believe or would like to believe and it does have a very good detection and cleaning rate also.

bigc
*


Sorry Bigc but I know EXACTLY what I am talking about because I've ran Norton NIS before(2004 and 2005). Like many uninformed users, I switched from McAffee to NIS 2004 because I had serious issues with McAffee and Norton is what I saw on store shelves. I ran 2004 for an entire year and tolerated the occassional crash and slowness it brought simply because I thought they were all like that. I then upgraded to 2005 and it was even worse. Slow startup, slow response, CCAPP crashes, bleh. I then switched to ZoneAlarm Security Suite(5.5 at the time, as 6 is starting to become bloatware too) and couldn't believe the difference in my system performance. It was much better. I eventually started using KAV along with ZA Pro(instead of the suite) because of an issue with ZA's AV not picking up a virus that KAV did. Anyway, neither KAV, ZA(5.5 and 6, but 6 is gaining on Norton as bloatware) and now KIS2006 run anywhere NEAR as slow and bloated as NIS 2004,2005(can't speak for 2006) did on my system.

So please, just because YOU don't have an issue, don't come here and tell people who do have an issue, they don't know what they are talking about.

Anyway this is not the place for this type of argument. We can do that at Wilders laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ivorr
post 2.12.2005 19:18
Post #20


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 5.07.2005
From: João Pessoa, BRAZIL




QUOTE(bigc73542 @ Dec 2 2005, 04:33 AM)
Don't get me wrong I am running Kav5  but if you think  norton is a bloated no good program I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about or you are working for a competitor. Norton Internet security 2005 runs lighter on all three of my computers than Kav does. All of these so called experts that are always posting that norton is just a bloated hog have never used it or they would know better. I have used norton for years and it is getting better every version. And yes it comes preinstalled a lot and gets advertised a lot also. But they do make a very good product regardless of what all of the little kiddies and unknowledgable people believe or would like to believe and it does have a very good detection and cleaning rate also.

bigc
*


No, I don't think Norton is that bad. I said that compared to Kaspersky, as a "whole", the Russian team is, for sure, my favorite ANTI-VIRUS program developer company. Judging from my experience with Norton and Kaspersky, I easily stay with the second. Just that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26.10.2014 08:22