Symantec says you should pay for your security! and I say....

[Guest]

[Melih]

Symantec says you should pay for your security! and I say....

let me know what you think pls..
thanks
Melih

[OmeletGuy]

Symantec the system hogger you are.

They just say that because of Microsofts Security Essentals came out and its free like CIS.

“free antivirus software isn’t able to keep up with full-price suites like those offered by Symantec.”

LOL what a joke,

CIS is very well keeping up, so is avast, avira and so on, there all beating Norton and there all free!!!!. Also now a days it tend to be the other way around, just look at Norton, McAfee and a cuple more, You have to pay and they do worse in tests then avast, Avira, CIS, and other free products.

[Dch48]

I am a Symantec fan and always have been. I used their products for 10 years and never had a single problem. To me, the "system hogging" is a myth because I never experienced it. Symantec is an extremely good product but, I agree with you Melih that CIS is just as good (better in some respects) and getting even better and proves that you do not have to pay any more for top notch protection.

[languy99]

I personally think that every security company that makes users pay for AV is crapping their pants since MSE came out, if MS keeps it free they will suffer badly. In my testing it has amazed me in detection rates and how fast MS is at addressing new malware. Yes it still has some things that need fixing (removal engine takes forever) but hell, it is only a beta and it's wailing on everyone. I also like how MS keeps on contact with you about malware submissions. First you get an e-mail stating they received it, next you get one showing you that it's malware and will be added to the signatures and lastly you get an e-mail stating that it was added and even what it's called. Personally that is top notch in my book.

[Dch48]

MSE sounds very good and I agree that it is the reason for paid solutions being concerned. When it becomes a final release I may suggest to my ladyfriend that she replace Norton with it to save money. I personally will stick with CIS but she would have problems with D+ and would not like it. MSE plus the windows firewall would probably be good for her.

[languy99]

funny thing is, I think MSE uses family signatures with some normal signatures and gen signatures sprinkled about. The signature DB for the latest update for MSE 1.61.979.0 (7/4/2009 1:45am) is only 32Mb yet detection is unbelievable. That is where comodo has to go in my opinion for the av to be considered top notch.

[Graham1]

Paid or free, it doesn't matter. It depends on the programmer(s)/developer(s) working on the product and their vision. Personally, I prefer free software (who doesn't) but mainly in a Linux environment. Within Windows, you either pay for more features, free are usually limited in some way but Comodo offers the best of both worlds (full features AND free), a winning combination.

Symantec, McAfee and Kaspersky should be worried about CIS. The advantages of these are that they are on the shelves of stores or preloaded on new computers. CIS wins the price war but (I feel) needs to compete (advertise) more.

[Kyle]

Free or paid, Doesn't matter. "It is what it is" 

[Dch48]

It matters to the extent that Symantec is saying that all free versions are inherently inferior to paid ones, which clearly is not the case any more.

[LeoniAquila]

The only thing that matters is how much programming efforts and financial support a vendor puts in an AV. It doesn't matter whether the financial support comes from users directly (as in paid AV) or from users indirectly (as in CIS users doing online business with companies buying certificates from Comodo).

Such claims from Symantec is, in my opinion, nothing but a sad joke. They clearly don't understand that there are other possible business models, or - maybe more likely - they are desperate to fight competitors like Comodo, who takes market shares from Symantec.

Melih, gradually and eventually (although you have already come far) you will prove Symantec to be wrong.

[#535]

“That’s why free antivirus is not enough: you need in-depth layered technologies, which only come from the more mature paid suites.”

I think they mean free _standalone_ AV. And the main goal of that words is to ensure users to use protection suites instead of standalone AV's. Well, of course they offer their own _paid_ solution, that is natural.

[mjlk]

When necessary Microsoft can provide a new security update for Windows Vista ,XP ...
They can also update Microsoft Security Essentials if they want.

If they update Windows Vista or XP when they should update Microsoft Security Essentials ,
then they will make life easy for themselves but difficult for Comodo , Symantec ...

Will it be fair play 
 

[Tarantela]

Symantec is just a sweeper and Comodo is a guardian and a keeper.

[Melih]

Symantec is just a sweeper and Comodo is a guardian and a keeper.

Very nicely put...thank you!

Melih

[Dch48]

That's actually not true. The Symantec firewall is very good and works much more seamlessly without any input from the user.

[Tags:]