That's partially true. The new versions of nortan it quicker than the past versions. as for "maximal detection" I have to disagree with this...
Hey, I'm only going by my FAVORITE (impartial) AV review site's test results. A guy's gotta trust someone, and for years I've found only that one that fits my criteria. Well, two: there's AV-Comparatives for AV and Matousec for firewalls.
NAV's been in the toilet for years and I'd noticed the bloat from day 1. I learned first-hand it was a product to avoid and I did for years, it's reviews sucked. I chose NOD32 for it's reasonable (often exceptional) results and it's low overhead & speed. Bloat was mentioned more than a few times. Over time I realized that when coupled with the right firewall and system monitor, it wasn't necessary to trust an AV to do all malware defending and I'm still not prepared to do so. The main thing today is finding an AV with
minimal false positives, good speed (I hate dragging systems - oh, we all do!) and
reasonable to excellent detection rate (it's gotta have an "Advanced+" rating on AV-Comparatives). SPEED is the big one. And as Jose has pointed out, you don't need the best when you're running CF with CD+ in tandem with your AV (only the military use more abbreviations).
I posted this a while back. "If you do this a couple of times through out the day, and you will see only a few companys that detect new malware
At that site, you'll begin to see a pattern...
look at
1)avira
Many false-positives + fast speed = "Advanced" only.
2)Ikraus <--they also work with a-squared and use 2 anti-virus engines, they are very good IMO
I don't know this one and it's not reviewed on AV-Comparatives (I feel like an advertiser for the site
)
3)F-Prod
Same issue as Ikraus above.
4)Bitdefender <----they also work with another software companys engines like GDATA again there using 2 different anti-virus engines
Used this one for a few years till it's ratings dropped. It's "Advanced+" now, tempting but for it's "average" speed. Also, I'm not sure about it's integrated firewall (if it still has one - it was simple and not particularly effective tested against GRC's "ShieldsUp!").
This (VirSCAN.org) is virus, trojans, rootkits, and such in Real-time (like as of right now), NOT a couple months old viruses floating around...
Seems irrelevant when using Comodo's goods.
Most problems, people have with viruses are new 0-day threats...
That's an inherent weakness in AVs, hence Comodo's goods.
Nortan does a good job in repairing the damage, but it's already AFTER THE FACT. The better solution is to "prevent it" in the first place and that is something nortan is NOT good at.
No AVs are. In fact AV-Comparatives (here we go again) "Malware Removal Test - September 2009" found "eScan, Symantec and Microsoft (MSE) were the only products to be good in removal of malware AND removal of leftovers."
Detection + Removal - few are "good" much less excellent at it. Great detection usually meant many false positives, though this appears to have changed as of AV-C's August 2009 Comparative. Products are improving.
Norton does a good job in advertising... They are good slick salesman.
Advertising AV software's never been effective with me.
Thanks for the feedback jay. And you too Jose! I'm giving Jose's example a go - MSE + Comodo. Time will tell, and tell probably right around here.
Author