RSS| laptopy.net | Oct 7, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta |  5 out of 5 |
Budgie29 try to use then comment otherwise you are spamer. Version 2009 is revolution in Symantec products. Very fast, stable. |
| X309759438 | Aug 7, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Norton AntiVirus 2008 runs as light and scans as fast as NOD32 (I've been using NOD32 for the past 2 years). Norton 2008 ADVANCED+ 97,7% NOD32 ADVANCED+ 97,7% Norton AntiVirus 2009 runs even LIGHTER than NOD32 and if anyone here would have actually tried it, they would know. Anyone who rated this a 1 and called it "bloatware" never even tried Norton 2008/2009. |
| pjb | Sep 25, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Works really well, nice and fast. Nice and quick to install. A vast improvement from all previous versions. Nice new interface. You can hardly tell it's Symantec other than the label! |
| donahu1 | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 5 out of 5 |
What's with all the ney sayers? Just because it cost $20 to renew subscriptions, at least you know it works and you can trust the name Symantec. The 2006/2007 editions have never been better. You honestly think corporations trust AVG and other freebies over Symantec? Get real! When you want real safe protection? Go with the best. You get what you pay for, and when it comes to security it is worth the bucks.... |
| fyrewalll | Aug 8, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 5 out of 5 |
Norton AntiVirus is one of the best antivirus solutions on the market. It is updated constantly to keep you protected from the newest threats and uses less system resources than McAfee. Hey Nevers, NAV2003 will be out before January. Symantec generally released their new software in the fall but gives it the title of the following year. |
| madkiller | Aug 8, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 5 out of 5 |
opps i just rate it at 1 star :D was mistaking about the crappy kaspersky and norton norton = 10 star out of 5 kaspersky = -10 star out of 5 |
| hehe036 | Aug 19, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 5 out of 5 |
hehe |
| captainmarvel | Aug 8, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 5 out of 5 |
I had the first beta of 2003 installed until it expired a few days ago. The new beta wasn't ready so I uninstalled beta 1. Today I installed this new beta but it refuses to run, it tells me that my trial period has expired. Boy am I impressed with Norton/Symantec. So now I have Anti-Vir Personal Edition installed. It is FREE. I don't know how good it is but I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't tell me that my trial period has expired on the first day after I installed it like Norton did. |
| eL MaesTro | Jul 16, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.75) | 5 out of 5 |
keep it up! supa job |
| frankcat | Jul 17, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.75) | 5 out of 5 |
(2nd review)It's working great. No lag time in computer startup, e-mail send-receive, starting programs,etc... I've had no problems installing programs even when I forgot to shut NAV-04 off first. Scans my 60GB drive in no time. Much inproved; good product. |
| fatray | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 5 out of 5 |
Has anyone actually tested this software? It works great! No problems here. |
| jspratjr | Mar 23, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 5 out of 5 |
I'll give it a 5 to offset some of these morons who obviously haven't tried it (neither have I) but just want to slam Norton. Signed - another moron |
| ShahinD | Mar 24, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 5 out of 5 |
The best security software.Try it you'll like it. strong security, no system slow down, fully automated..... |
| outofspace | Mar 24, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 5 out of 5 |
2009 products are awesome! |
| Stephan123 | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
its working very good here.The virusupdates are good.I recommend this product everyone as the products finals |
| cooldude7273 | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
The scanning is much faster :) |
| terry12591 | Jun 30, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
This is the best virus program/removal ever! I wouldnt recommened anything else! This is the numba one s*** |
| rijp | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Why you people continue to be down on Norton, is beyond me. I remember, many years ago.. Central Point was the best. Period. Then, along came this shareware program, called McAfee. Fast Forward years later, McAfee gets sued by Symantec, for copyright infringement. That old saying... "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Cetral Point, and all its glory, was purchased by Symantec, and its been nothing but stellar ever since. I have been using Symantec/Norton (exclusively) for 12 years. I laugh at you people that think there is something better. If you have problems, perhaps its you, not Norton. Yes, its beta. No one is holding a gun to your head to use it. Beta, contrary to popular belief, is not to weed out bugs... its to introduce new features, get feedback on they work.. No program is ever perfect, but Norton, is the most stable, complete set of tools anywhere. If you don't agree, good! Quit using it. Keep your crappy second place tools. I will stick with a winner. |
| lushmonster | Jul 30, 2003 | Beta G | 5 out of 5 |
It's screwed.. when downloading files it keeps asking to scan safe files again, even when they r not fully downloaded.. i dont even wanna talk about asking about cd keys.. |
| annmariet30 | Jul 25, 2003 | Beta G | 5 out of 5 |
can't download from link. it says its no longer valid. but i like norton, most things work with norton |
| james600 | Aug 20, 2003 | Beta G | 5 out of 5 |
DON'T download and install the Beta G version UNLESS you can get (or already have) a valid activation key from Symantec. I downloaded this version and subsequently discovered that the NAV 2004 beta program has ended. Although the software worked just great on my machine, it kept prompting me for an activation code. Beta G will now stop working within just a few days unless a valid code is entered. |
| shimq1 | Jul 30, 2003 | Beta G | 5 out of 5 |
where's the serial number.....? |
| fyrewalll | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 5 out of 5 |
The 2008 line cut the resource use dramatically. This is one of the most efficient versions I've seen Symantec release in years. If you haven't tried it, stop knocking it. |
| jose10980 | Nov 30, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 5 out of 5 |
asa |
| itmanuk | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Ok, so I was NOT a fan of this AntiV Software, but this release is differant, firstly when you download and register for the Pub test key, you get 1 yrs free updates, impressed I am, and secounly it no longer hogs resources. It has a built in "ad-aware" type function routine in it and well,, for what it is, its neat. I will contiune from hereon to use it. Good product, fast and not a memory hogger |
| iwillnottell | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
You have to be kidding me. Norton never catchs any virus! |
| Likki | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Sign-up for product key http://www.symantec.com/public_beta/ |
| mufdvr3669 | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
i gave it a five, didn't try it, don't care too. just adjusting the score for peeps who didn't review and gave it a one anyway. peace |
| Scania_Omnicity | Jul 6, 2002 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Well looking through all the reviews on this fab bit of software..I have not had any problems at all which is strange because of all the problems that other reviewers have had......but i must say tho...the virus definitions update was very small comparing it with the 2002 instalation through live update...has anyone else found this!!!!!!!! |
| sirhardi | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
What i want to know now is Do the copmpanies submit their programs here or not, it is too oftyen that there are no change logs and what's new features listed. I was just over at neowin and they at least had a link to tyhe beta site. |
| arossetti | Jul 8, 2002 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
So far so good on both Win98SE and Win2K pro. Scan time appears about the same as NAV2002, hopefully Symantec will boost this a bit, that's been my only complaint with recent versions. Also, two new HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run entries were created: ccApp.exe and ccRegVfy.exe. Can't find any detail on them, but Auto Protect and e-mail scanning won't load without them. |
| controler | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Nortons Antivirus is the best !!! If there wer a better antivirus on the marlet today, Don't you think Symantec would purchase it? Everybody has their opinions. Some like Dr Web, NOD32, Ect. Personaly I like Norton and PC-Cillin |
| GoodThings2Life | Sep 18, 2004 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
Well now that the trolls have had their say on a product they are judging only by previous versions and not this current, reviewed version... I will voice a few thoughts on 2005. Norton has indeed tended to have a very bad/problematic Windows Installer process for their products-- especially in 2003-- but with 2005 I have not yet seen those issues crop up. Norton has also indeed tended to "bloat" their software in recent years. Their software has always required high amounts of memory. However, with 2005, the requirements really aren't much different from 2003/2004 edition, and a majority of computers today meet those requirements easily. If there is a problem, it is either because people are still using "ancient" computers or they cut corners when purchasing a new computer to save a few bucks at the expense of performance. All that said, Norton still has some of the best detection rates and just as important, cleaning rates, of any product on the market. LiveUpdates released anytime Category 3+ viruses are released, and manual updates available daily for the rest... you get the best of both worlds. 2005 really improves on that by enhancing their heuristics scanning techniques as I understand it. Now, if only other people would learn to review products objectively based on actual use instead of subjectively based on criticism of previous versions. |
| nickpowers101 | Sep 19, 2004 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
Works great. Other than the different colour of the interface, it seems to be exactly the same in functionality as the 2004 version. |
| Saad_alshawwa | Sep 18, 2004 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
Norton 2005 is fine , it does the job , there are some problems but not with Norton it self as it shares a huge amount of memory and slows the computer using the nav autoprotect. "u need a computer with REAL hardware so u can enjoy it , 256/512RAM and higher is cool with 1.7GHz CPU and higher is cool" but for ppl who doesnt have similar hardware there are alot of alternatives NOD32 2.x, F-PROT 3.15x , Kaspersky Personal 5.x , three of them are trused + needs less memory ,400MHZ CPU or higher works fine with no slack at all. choose the best for your computer and use it. "i use F-PROT as a primary and NOD32 as a Backup". |
| Blackhole8746 | Jul 5, 2005 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
Norton is simply the best with the most options, the most features and the best stability, I agree there are some installation/uninstallation problems but Norton is the best AntiVirus and Internet Security, not to mention firewall on the market! And whoever is complaining about slowing down PCs whoever is running an old PC with less than 256MB DDR RAM don't install it and it's your fault the system is slow not Norton's Norton is providing the maximum security, of course you'd have to sacrifice system performance! WHOEVER WANTS REAL SECUITY download Norton security programs expecially Noton AntiVirus, and comparing it with AVG, McAfee and Kasperky it's better than those mentionned by miles... |
| Conwor | Sep 25, 2004 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
This bad reviews makes me laugh. That all i have to say about it. That this is a great antivirus. Still the best. |
| lilmegz | Sep 18, 2004 | 2005 | 5 out of 5 |
Works fine on my PC, no system hang-ups or anything... HA HA! |
| Yodelking | Dec 7, 2001 | 8.0 | 5 out of 5 |
HydroPonic, it's because they only had 2001 V7.0 as TRY-IT download (Free trial). But they'we now updated it to 2002 V8.0. |
| rkwone | Dec 8, 2001 | 8.0 | 5 out of 5 |
Spent almost 2 hours downloading AV 8.0 and when complete was informed that 8.0 is not supportive of Win XP. Just bought a new Dell 4300 1.6GB with 512SDRAM and am not able to use the program. I have used Norton AV for years and am completely disappointed. |
| controler | Dec 8, 2001 | 8.0 | 5 out of 5 |
Norton AntiVirus 2002 XP Home/XP Pro/2000 Pro/NT WS/Me/98 Norton AntiVirus™ is the world's most trusted anti-virus solution. Now it repairs common virus infections automatically, without interrupting your work. It scans and cleans both incoming and outgoing email, and defends against script-based viruses such as "I Love You" even between virus definition updates. Protect your PC today with award-winning Norton AntiVirus! |
| RedBadger | Dec 7, 2001 | 8.0 | 5 out of 5 |
Norton 2002 is my favorite Antivirus program also. It appears to be very stable under WindowsXP, and the virus definition get auto updated often. Its saved me from several viruses. The only drawback it might have now is that they decided to raise the yearly fee to $10. |
| HydroPonic | Dec 7, 2001 | 8.0 | 5 out of 5 |
I dont get it, why is this listed here? I have had Norton Antivirus 2002 8.00.58 for quite some time now. It is even Retail Shrug |
| mytake4this | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 5 out of 5 |
Interesting how these reviews indicate that the system slowed down or failed while using Norton Anti-Virus. I have been using the version for ATT - version 10 for some time now without fail. And no slow down of the machine. I have a 5 year old machine, so it is not like it is the latest in computing power. I have upped the memory. If it indeed did slow down computers, how then would it be useful for say AT&T Yahoo!, which is trying to show how fast the Internet is with there DSL ? I think not. Once or twice a day the software is updated, and that takes CPU power -- big deal, all anti-virus apps. do that. We are talking less than a minute, and at the most a couple minutes. That said, I have used ComputerAssociates anti-virus and liked it. And I am sure those others mentioned here work just fine. I am thinking people have an old axe to grind about the old Norton Internet apps, which did cause havoc. Or perhaps I am just lucky. Of course the hundreds of thousands, or is that millions of other users of Norton must like it, or the company would have folded by now. |
| mflip | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 5 out of 5 |
This is the best antivirus software ever created. Compared to other software like Avast, Norton Antivirus 2008 has blazing fast virus scan speeds. Much faster than Norton Antivirus 2007. If you experience a significant slowdown with NAV 2008 then your computer does not have adequate hardware to run Windows XP or Vista (depending on the OS you use). NAV 2008 is also the most accurate virus scanner ever created. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. As for virus definition updates, daily updates are not needed on a regular basis. Weekly virus updates are sufficient most of the time. Nasty viruses that affect a significant amount of computers do not happen on a daily basis. @stellanwick, if you have a Windows XP or Vista computer that regularly uses the Page File a lot (meaning less that 512MB of RAM in the case of XP and less than 1GB with Vista) then yes, NAV will slow your system to a crawl. I've run NAV on a P3-700MHz system with 512MB of RAM and had absolutely no slowdown at all under Windows XP. |
| ShahinD | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 5 out of 5 |
The Best System Protection little (almost no) Performance Impact. Full protection,very fast scan.great look.almost 100% virus detection.full automate. Great |
| fyrewalll | Sep 1, 2003 | 2004 | 5 out of 5 |
Symantec just keeps making NAV better with each new version. The new version now protects against spyware and adware. If you are looking for an easy to use and updated AV that works very well, get a copy of NAV 2004. |
| ghammer | Sep 2, 2003 | 2004 | 5 out of 5 |
Geez! You'd think this was a MS app the way the zealots attack. I have tried the latest NOD. It causes sluggish responses when I open directories. It was a little slow on getting email as well. NAV OTOH is fine. Things open as quickly as I think they should. I have never been infected since starting with Symantec/Norton. For other A-V apps, they just don't do the complete job. Symantec and NOD are te only ones to consider. My preference is Symantec/Norton. |
| pvolk | Jan 30, 2004 | 2004 | 5 out of 5 |
My favorite antivirus of all time. Probably the best one on the market. Since the only comprable one is mcaffee which is probably the worst EVER! But that aside this program has good updates and symantec is really on top of their stuff. Good at stopping viruses in their tracks. Dont know if its worth the money to upgrade from 2003 but in general an excellent prog. |
| chimpypimpy | Sep 2, 2003 | 2004 | 5 out of 5 |
Since I have actually tried this product and have used NAV for the last three years I can tell you that it is one of the best antivirus programs around. Easy to use with extensive settings and frequent updates. It is a little sluggish, but nothing compared to KAV 4.5 or F-Secure. I've never had a virus (even scripted in a web page)get by NAV. And Symantec always provides stand-alone free virus fixes for people who don't have NAV. I personally use NOD32 because my old machine gets sluggish with most antivirus programs but NOD32 and F-Prot for Windows are excellent choices for older computers. McAfee is good but I'm waiting for version 8. Tried the demo and liked it. Only 5mb. |
| rseiler | Sep 2, 2003 | 2004 | 5 out of 5 |
Yellow, it's hardly just that mag, and they also included independent data, but like I suspected earlier would transpire in this thread, it's all apparently just a giant conspiracy. So be it. Rest well. |
| check13 | Sep 27, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Never had any problems with Norton whatsoever (any version). I've used Avast!, AVG, PC Cillin', and McAffee (at work), all good products, by the way. I've checked out reviews on antivirus softwares, and it seems to me that they all have pro's and con's, Norton being no exception. To me it does the job well. A little on the expensive side, but it does the job. |
| christlab | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Best software out there right now! If you really want protection then use this. I recomend not to start it when you load windows it will slow donw your pc a little but other then that. A+ Software |
| arossetti | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
And I'm sure everyone giving this version a negative score/comment has actually tried it. Isn't that what BetaNews is supposed to be about? Come on folks, dump the adgenda and either try it and rate it honestly, or ignore it. |
| PlayazCircle | Feb 4, 2009 | 2009 (16.2.0.7) | 5 out of 5 |
kholdstare i think you do need to try norton 09 it is light, its lighter than avira and detection is excellent. |
| ShahinD | Feb 4, 2009 | 2009 (16.2.0.7) | 5 out of 5 |
so funny, 56 MB download size make a software heavy for Systems!! :))))) Try first |
| nattswe | Dec 2, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 5 out of 5 |
i was a true norton bloteware hater before and im working as a computer support engineer. But something new is coming with norton 2009 Speed and stability and no more bloatware. Ill hope that the rest of the av companys is following nortons new trend. Its only taking about 5000kb of system memory. on a xp comp |
| McAleck | Dec 13, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 5 out of 5 |
if you can't configure a Norton product, you must be a real dummy |
| Pkshadow | Dec 2, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 5 out of 5 |
Small foot print, no longer takes large amounts of resources and is now much faster to complete a full system scan. It also scans the most used files/running files and does not need to scan them all the time; files include print spooler, ATI drivers, browser etc. This(Norton Insight)helps keep low system resource usage. It also has what is called Pulse Update keeping the program and your system protected with latest definitions/changes. It works better than previous versions have in years. |
| pjb | Dec 2, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 5 out of 5 |
Really good, light on system resources, and fast. Does a really great job. 2009 & this version are worth using. p.s They also do a gaming version of the AV - nice if you do gaming a lot and do not want to be disturbed. http://www.symantec.com/...ntivirus-gaming-edition |
| coch | Dec 1, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 5 out of 5 |
You're supposed to rate this product, not your impressions with past version (although I do agree with you on that point that Norton used to be bloat and slow as hell). This one, however, has vastly improved in terms of speed, footprint, and apparent speed while maintaining a very good detection rate so kudos to Norton on this one, I never thought they would totally change direction like this. I still prefer NOD32 though (especially the new v4 in beta) but I won't be systematically replacing Norton with NOD32 on all my friend's computers anymore, when I see Norton 2009 installed on one of my friends new PC I will let it live (and save myself some time altogether). |
| Zankur | Sep 18, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 5 out of 5 |
Excellent,very light on pc,have improved their mem usage. Norton has improved leaps and bounds with their detection rates. much better than those krapersky's bugfull versions which sport some 99.6% detections,but can't even update definetions properly. |
| fyrewalll | Jul 23, 2003 | Beta F (10.0.0.85) | 5 out of 5 |
NAV is a great program and this version (2004) offers protection against Spyware/Ad-ware and the like. I've tried several AV programs and this is one of the best out there. Symantec has definition updates at least once a week and this does a better job of detecting viruses than some products I've seen/used, especially McAfee. |
| roi_shlomi | Jul 12, 2001 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
It's good as 2001 version. The large setup file is due to the one file for all versions thing, and I hope that they will change it in the final release. The interface is more of "Sesame st." but still basicaly the same. And thanks god they got rid from the POProxy thing. now the whole thing takes much LESS memory !! |
| Sparki | Jul 12, 2001 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
havent tried it yet but kapersky cant be much kop if the webs***e dosent even work.... :( at least you can get on symantecs site.... |
| bderouen | Jul 14, 2001 | Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I've run Norton AV for about a year now, and think it's the best AV protection out there. People that say NAV is a drain on their system must have never ran McAfee. I ran McAfee for years not realizing what a load it put on my system. After switching to NAV, I was shocked. Thanks, symantec, for a great product. And this new version looks even better! |
| craigun | Sep 10, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 5 out of 5 |
To answer your question "some guy", no. The built in uninstaller removes all traces. Confirmed by using the Revo Unistaller tool. |
| reidyn | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 5 out of 5 |
I'm calling bulls*** on CyberDoc -- I don't believe he actually downloaded and installed it. It isn't the same"bloated" AV they have always shipped. The 2009 version was completely rewritten from scratch specifically to be very lightweight, fast, and nonintrusive, in response to the overwhelming user complaints that it had become a massive slow intrusive resource-hungry overbearing heap of crap. Kudos to Symantec for finally getting the message and responding. I bought the 2009 version and it was in fact an entirely new code base, as promised. Review honestly, and don't make assumptions about the current version based on experience with past versions. I had stopped using their product many years ago, but was persuaded by competent reviewers that Symantec had turned over a new leaf and responded to user uproar. |
| ShahinD | Sep 12, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 5 out of 5 |
osubuck don't be angry.one who posts negative comments about Norton, does not even know what is Norton. I'm using Norton Antivirus for 10 years and never have any virus infection.Norton antivirus detects and removes viruses and other threats perfectly, It's virus detection rate is very high and does not bother when finds any threat and remove it automaticly. Norton antivirus and internet security and 360 are so light. they do not slow down your system.they scan files so fast and too many features. please before starting to write comments, test the programs, if you just hear about programs do not write.It's better. |
| pjb | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 5 out of 5 |
Both the AV and IS versions work really well. For those who worry about what is left behind, their Removal Tool works really well. Admittedly it is a shame it leaves stuff behind using add/remove. http://fileforum.betanew...000XPVista/1169144666/1 |
| rwabel | Aug 10, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) |  4 out of 5 |
hell!! that's stupid. I've installed the external beta version some days ago and just today I get now the message: trialware is expired. |
| ricsal | Jul 10, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.75) | 4 out of 5 |
its working faster now... |
| bogey9000 | Mar 24, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 4 out of 5 |
Symantec has been putting out cr@p for years but I must say the 2009 products are awesome! Easy on resources, easy to manage, and quietly does it's job without nagging me. Good job! I just switched from NOD32 to Norton 2009. Give it a try, you'll be pleasantly surprised. |
| eL MaesTro | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
...You gotta agree that the it DOES slow down your system :/ .... |
| Llama_tamer | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
While not the best 'application' for running under the Windows OS it does exactly what it's supposed to do. It intercepts inbound programs that show virus like behaviour and stops suspicious programs whenever detected. A number of these freeware apps have no proactive methodologies built in and are thus battling the intruder once inside the door. If the program isn't looking for program behaviour then it is taking up litlle to no system resources. Symantec/Norton was one of the first to institute heuritics/bloodhound technologies that stop the intruder at the doorstep and thus require system resources to do their job. The price you pay for updates means you have a staff that is actively fielding calls and submission from the web whenever a customer feels they have a problem. Rarely (if ever) do you see a freeware virus scanner reported in the news as 'discovering' a new virus and supplying a fix. Symantec, McAffe and the rest of the subscription based companies are there to try and stop the spread immediately. If the freeware apps where ever to prove a superior product to the subscription based apps in the areas of inclusion, options and speed of definitions they would be charging you in a heartbeat for their services. Enough said. I've used NAV/SAV for nearly 7 years and would not trust my servers and PC's to anything else. (Mail servers are another story). Fact is: You wanna play you gotta pay. |
| klahjn | Jul 25, 2003 | Beta G | 4 out of 5 |
Not perfect, but getting close. All they need to add is a stripped down firewall utility so that you can have protection, but not have all the features of thier firewall utility. Gives users the ability to see what norton can offer in the way of better protection. Possibly include a trial version of Personal Firewall? Btw- Check out http://www.symantec.com/public_beta/ to actually get the information you need to install. |
| ekkodiel | Jul 26, 2003 | Beta G | 4 out of 5 |
Like annemariet has said, the beta of NAV 2004 has closed according to the Symantec site. So it will no longer be possible to download this beta release. I have NAV 2004F running on my PC and it works like a charm. The only (known) major bug is that it doesn't work with Windows Messenger 5 (yet ?) although scanning windows messenger is selected by default in the instant messenger options after installation. ICQ and ICQlite are not supported at all. |
| rseiler | Jul 26, 2003 | Beta G | 4 out of 5 |
Not supporting the newer messengers is not a bug, and certainly not major, it's just a feature that's lacking. There are definite reasons it wasn't done for this year's version, but there's always hope for next year. |
| Murtadh | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 4 out of 5 |
I don't know why a lot of people are Anti-Norton !! I know it a RAM killer but hay my PC has 3 GB of ram and I have Intel core 2 duo. Anyway even I believe in free apps, it's not right to call Norton a bad company. It's one of the best in the past and this days.... |
| Scorched Earth | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Updates definitions more often than free AV's, but heuristic scanning isn't as good as Avast's. Interface may be slow and bloated. Scans are slow, but reliable. Overall good if you have a decent computer. |
| Night Knight | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 4 out of 5 |
There might be lots of other AntiVirus Programs, And they might be better than Norton AntiVirus, But this program is GREAT for an avarage users, that want protection from viruses without lots of prefences and lots of complex options. Also a good thing is the amount of viruses it protects from. the only problem i have expirenced is that its a bit slow, and takes lots of memory. |
| Klober | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 4 out of 5 |
I agree with rseiler, some of you just don't seem to know what you're talking about. Norton Antivirus is still a great product. Of course it's going to take up more resources, it does a lot more now than it has in the past. As for problems installing NAV 2004, I have installed it on several (5+) machines and have encountered 0 problems. And I installed NAV 2005 Beta Build 64 on XP and had no problems either. It's possible the problem installing on XP SP2 RC2 is because it's also still BETA. Having 22+ years of PC experience should have taught you understanding of betas and the problems related to them. I will continue to stick with Norton, not only for NAV, but for the entire Systemworks suite. The only thing I will never use again is System Doctor, now that's a resource hog... |
| rseiler | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 4 out of 5 |
Brilliant. Five people giving their opinions when it doesn't seem they've actually used the program since the Civil War. |
| squirrel83 | Jul 27, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
I give them a 4, nothing really new, more anoying stuff but at the same time is it just me or does it seem to run faster? or respond faster? either or after 15 days im going back to AVG - |
| Neoprimal | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Norton is and has been one of the best for years. Tries to be 'easiest' to use, but it's not. While it's a very very good program, it's not for everyone's PC either. Still - the PC requirements for it are about right. It will easily drain a mid-level PC (as of 2005) and runs LOTS of services and interdependent files which can serve to be an issue if 1 or 2 go down - cuz they'll easily take the rest down as well(thus, no 5 for Norton). Nothin's worse than cleaning up a corrupted Norton program....it plants hardcore stuff in your system and services which is great for a perfectly running norton, because it's rock solid protection. Noone can argue how strong and accurate it is however....if you miss a so called infection, 99.9 percent of the time it's either not a REAL infection or you didn't update your definitions in time. I would recommend Norton, it's a good program....apart from using insane amounts of memory (through the use of so many processes and services) and it's complete interdependency on each and every one of those processes - i'd recommend it over anything else. For a less costly solution, Avast is VERY good also and is free for the home user (it's great for beginners as well) but Norton has you covered in every aspect either way. |
| Tablet | Jul 18, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.79) | 4 out of 5 |
I just downloaded the newest build 10.0.0.79 and I can't find any changes from the previous build. Still the same subtle interface and an attempt to include unpacker support. For those with 2003 version no need to upgrade unless you want to have protection from spyware and such, but this beta still doesn't detect any adware,perhaps no definitions yet. Otherwise still superb product with great in-the-wild detection rate!! |
| whitedeath | Jul 4, 2004 | 2005 Beta "b" | 4 out of 5 |
Never used any other AV before, so I don't know how Norton AntiVirus perform in comparison with competiting programs. However, I think there's cost to security. To me, Windows did slow down, though only noticeably on startup. Norton AV seems to have trouble with a particular adware. 2004 version detected it but could not remove it. 2005 beta detected it but didn't even attempt to remove it. My biggest complaint with this beta would be that I cannot use Norton Internet Security 2004 along with AV 2005 beta. The beta seems to expire 12 month after installation (like the retail 2004 version) though. Let's hope the beta is just as good as the 2004 retail version... |
| donahu1 | Sep 19, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 4 out of 5 |
What a nice safe way to surf the net. The new Norton Toolbar along with IE keeps you safe from phishing sites. Virus defs are almost everyday, not every week as previous commenter stated. I think this will be one of the hotest Symantec programs available ..... |
| ezh | Sep 18, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 4 out of 5 |
Zankur, now I know why are you blaming the fine Kaspersky. :) |
| TheTester | Jul 26, 2001 | Beta 2 | 4 out of 5 |
People who don't like Norton are stupid heads because McAfee is a piece of trash. I was running McAfee with the latest updates on Windows 98 SE for quite awhile before I decided to give Norton 2000 a go. Upon switching to Norton I discovered all sorts of viruses. Unless McAfee has made some great leaps and bounds since then the choice should be clear. If you prefer McAfee over Norton then throw your computer out the window because McAfee will let it go to ruins anyway. |
| xsnred | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 4 out of 5 |
Never used Norton but I presume it is very good. There are just too many other very good free anti virus software to use. To Craigun, Revo does not remove all traces, the only way is to go into the registry and do a search for any leftovers that may be hanging around. I use 3 diff registry cleaners and I still have to go in and manually clean out the junk. I give Norton a 4 because it is good but not free. |
| osubuck | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 4 out of 5 |
I'm really starting to get annoyed by the negative comments coming from users who haven't even tried it. News flash! Norton AntiVirus has been revamped and is completely different from versions 2008 and below, so please stop giving this the same rating because you tried it 5 years ago and it sucked. For one, check out www.av-comparatives.com and look at the detection rates... this shows that its definitely up to par with most if not all other AV's out there. Resource usage is low competitive to the lightest of AV's out there as well. |
| zealot21 | Jul 16, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta |  3 out of 5 |
I gave up on Norton after 2003 which was the last version before it got bloated. I tried out this beta version and was impressed by the small memory footprint compared to the last few versions. Note: It was the Antivirus version not Internet Security that I tried. Unfortunately it will not complete a virus scan on my system. Seems it should have had a bit more tweaking before going Public Beta. At least it's headed in the right direction. |
| davewf | Aug 17, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 3 out of 5 |
This trial ran well while it was installed. I liked the Messenger support. However, when my trial expired, other files and registry entries were made to the system. I tried in vain to reinstall NAV2002. It simply would not run after it was installed. It stayed on NOW CONFIGURING SYSTEM during the registration wizard. I gave up! Norton, if you relese a beta, please let the uninstaller remove ALL the software so testers can go back to what they had installed before! |
| borisf98 | Aug 17, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 3 out of 5 |
I tried to unistall Norton AntiVirus 2003 and reinstall Norton AntiVirus 2002 too. Problem is with Norton programming bug that do not remove proper uninstall registry entries. You have to look in Uninstall registry section for Symantec keys, not even for Norton keys. One of those Symantec keys is for Norton AntiVirus 2003 and you have to remove it. Again, do not search for Norton, search for Symantec. If you do not know how to use Registry Editor, please do not try. |
| ctsoh | Jul 17, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.75) | 3 out of 5 |
I use Win98SE on my main (yes it's old but it works) workstation and Office XP. I used Norton 2000 for the past 3 years and upgraded to this beta. Everytime I open Word, the screen starts flashing and I can't print to my laser printer. I then disable auto-protect and the problem goes away, and I am able to print. I deleted normal.dot and got word going again, but the problem returns every time I open a word document while norton auto-protect is enabled. It's not a virus or spyware, but the program itself. How do I get back to Norton to report this problem? |
| jon8rfc | Jul 22, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 3 out of 5 |
Could not install the software because it requires a serial number, which I do not have. Too bad. Everyone please disregard all complaint reviews prior to mine--if they actually installed and tried the software, they would have hit the bottleneck of not having a serial number to even install it! None of the reviewers that you see below me are credible. None. Their reviews are all illegitimate and SHOULD be removed. Please do not post a review of software you have not tried--especially if you don't sound like you know what you're talking about. "You're ruining the internet for everyone." |
| ghammer | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Not the best as it once was. Activation is broken on some machines, support is nonexistent, 'catch' rate on viruses is ok but not excellent. Catch rate on trojans is poor. Plus, in this day and age, why would "automatic retrieval of new anti-virus definitions from Symantec as often as once a week." be good? As often as once a week when viruses are found daily. Try Avast! if you want a free app, TrendMicro or Kaspersky if you will pay. |
| ABYSS_619 | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
good not great |
| kebabi | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
So what's the difference between 2004 and this 2005 beta? |
| apg88 | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Did you download 2005? or are you commenting from previous experience? I have Norton Internet Security 2003 and have had no problems at all. Norton is not a spyware removal program! It is an antivirus program. If you are commenting from the 2005 beta, then I respect your oppinion. Im rating it a 3 because I havent used it yet and I dont want to lower/rise its rating without actually using it. |
| {Ez0}The_Game | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Sigh....I totally agree. This is not a spyware removal program. It is an Anti-Virus program. One more thing...This is what is called a beta. It is called that because it has bugs. Thats what beta testers do. Find bugs and report them. This is not the final product and is put up here to test and make better. I wish people would get more educated about this stuff before opening their mouths. I have tested many different things, including previous Norton AV programs. Helping to make these products better is an awsome feeling! |
| utomo | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Symantec need to improve the virus database. many times it did not catch problems which is detected by spybot or ad aware. NAV must improve it, so we did not get that problems. Symantec also nneed to reduce the load, so it did not make computer slow too much when we have NAV running. if Symantec failed with this version, many people will go away from NAV, and find other solutions. |
| kronix2 | Jun 30, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Pros: does what it says it will do Cons: Slows your system down, 2005 version will be identical to the 2004 version with the exception of some new menus... |
| guti | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 3 out of 5 |
Used to be a good AV back in the DOS days. Nowadays, althought its detection ratio is good enought, it has a huge memory and CPU consumption. Better try NOD32. |
| vis666 | Jul 3, 2003 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
it requires an activation thru internet just like the xp-suites :( i restate my opinion from 3.5 to a 2.5 ... |
| iripa | Jul 3, 2003 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Can anyone install it and give in a **real** review? |
| Tomas | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
FAster than Light?? |
| ricsal | Jul 3, 2003 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Well this version puts my pc slow like hell when windows is loging on.... |
| Mikewl812 | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Norton is a great antivirus program for novices with memory to waste. It's simple, has a nice GUI, and it does it's job effectively...but I prefer a little-known antivirus program called Sophos Antivirus, it's based overseas and primarily focuses its marketing towards businesses running networks, but they do cater to individual users. This is THE BEST antivirus available but hasn't been given much attention in the States because of their narrowly-focused marketing efforts. Check out their site, read the objective reviews on their site, enjoy the low resources used, the nice GUI, and last but not least, enjoy the most thorough antivirus available. And no, I don't work for Sophos, I had been previously using Norton 2002 when Sophos was recommended to me by a network administrator friend. I tried it and will never go back. I believe in spreading the word about little-known products that should be getting the attention they deserve. In all fairness though, I will say that Norton Antivirus is a great program and probably would be my second choice, although there are a couple others that would contend for that place. |
| ditoa | Jul 6, 2002 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
firstly this ISNT a review, i have NOT downloaded this beta as i do not beta tester firewalls/antivirus software on my main system (security reasons). If anyone has any screenshots, new features, removed features and/or bug fix information please post the URL as i am very interested to see what has changed. Regards, Ditoa |
| sheedoshi | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Seems NT 4.0 support has been cut, : o( Have been using Norton Software since DOS 4.0, '92 or so, Has been the #1 Anti. Vir. software, but this version 35MB, over 55MB uncompressed, that's big, regardless how many OS-es it has support for, and it uses so much resources, it's rather dislikable now. o:( Double or nothing, he he. |
| kmleow | Sep 19, 2004 | 2005 | 3 out of 5 |
Slow and resource hogging. Why is betanews showing outdated screenshot? |
| queball | Sep 19, 2004 | 2005 | 3 out of 5 |
I find that when Norton 200x products work on a pc they do a decent job. When a virus or system configuration breaks them it is a real pain to get it working again. A new feature in the newest versions is the Spyware detection. At first I thought it was going to be great that a popular virus scanner like NAV would be scanning for spyware. When I saw how poorly it actually does at detecting spyware I was very dissapointed. It seems like it only detects old variants of spyware that are no longer commonly distributed and when it does detect something is is worse than useless at removing the problem. Take the current distribution of the CoolWebSearch adware. It is nearly impossible to remove, even Adaware and spybot is not currently able to remove the latest variants but at least adaware and spybot are detecting some of the components of this nasty software. This latest version of NAV is now running on the machine infected with this junk and it doesn't detect anything is wrong except for the search page being changed. It doesn't identify the name of the adware at all, it just gives some generic trojan activity warning with no help at all to the possible resolution of the problem. As a virus scanner it does ok. Works just like any other virus scanner on the planet. I am constantly surprised every year when there is another update and every year they fail to add the one feature that users would actually need. What is that feature? The ability to REMOVE a virus automatically. Sure they occasionally post a removal tool on their website for a popular bug but why hasn't any antivirus program come up with the ability to actually properly remove a virus yet? Why do they force the user to visit a website full of technical crap about how the virus does it's business when all anyone cares about is getting rid of the thing? |
| SnoF | Dec 7, 2001 | 8.0 | 3 out of 5 |
I still think resources are kinda high.. but it's -I guess- the best antivirus program around.. And I don't think fixit finds real virusses -multiple ones- when Norton doesn't.. maybe 1.. 2.. but no more.. NAV isn't that bad.. I'm still waiting for a little antivirus proggy that's very very low on resources and finds every single virus.. (maybe norton and mcaffee should work together?) |
| stellanwick | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 3 out of 5 |
Despite GDs comments, facts are facts. Any XP machine with less than 1GB of RAM, or Vista with less than 2GB of RAM, will perform unacceptably with any Norton home-based product, ESPECIALLY 360. We used to recommend Norton products all the time, now the only product we recommend are their corporate-level AV protection and Ghost. Not much has changed in this version either. After testing it with a baseline system (P3-900 with 512MB RAM) up to a modern one (Core 2 Duo Extreme with 8GB RAM running Vista Ultimate 64-bit), I can honestly say that it puts a moderate (modern system) to heavy (baseline) drag on system performance, mostly because it is scanning every single file accessed, including the paging file at times. The detection rate of the program is improved in this version thus far, but this only brings it up to the level NOD32 has been at since their last version. Norton is NOT the industry leader in virus detection. In all fairness, Norton and McAfee are also the biggest targets. I've seen more than one virus specifically targeting Norton and McAfee and disabling them before they even get a chance. Nobody, in good conscience, can say that Norton is the best product out there. |
| kmleow | Aug 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 3 out of 5 |
Slows down the PC a lot. What I would recommend you guys out there to do is to "exclude" certain directories from being scanned. For example your program files and your windows directory. This should help improve your PC's speed. I used to like Norton software a lot especially the used-to-be-powerful Speeddisk and SpeedStart. I recalled that SpeedStart can boost the programs launch speed by double if not more. Those were the days... Windows 95 era... Today no more. |
| raistphrk | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 3 out of 5 |
Please post actual reviews, rather than anecdotes of past experiences with older versions. The point of reviews is to tell the software developers and potential users whether THIS specific product version works. If you haven't downloaded and installed the product, do not post a review. The product installed on Windows XP Service Pack 2 and has been running reasonably stable. The memory footprint is bigger than some competing products, but not so much to create a major inconvenience. The UI is simple, which will be helpful to less experienced users. The inbound/outbound email scanner has also been effective in finding virus-infected emails, even before the emails were dumped into my junk folder by the email client. I give this release a 3 - the features are pretty good, but Symantec should optimize the product to reduce the memory usage prior to RTM. |
| jerr931 | Jul 21, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 3 out of 5 |
ok damm see alot of people on here asking where they get the serial number, the product key which you do need is emailed to you, thats why it asks for a valid email address..check ur mail..hope it helps...lol |
| Maxwolf | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
I do not like how this program over the years requires more and more system resources. There is no reason this program should grind a 1.2GHz machine with 512MB of RAM running WindowsXP SP2 down to the likes of a 266MHz in terms of responce time and general computer useage...god forbid you try to play a game with this beast running in the background. There are programs that cost hundreds of dollars less that do the same job and do it fast and with greater efficiency. I do not like to put my infected files off in some special directory...I want them destroyed! Norton SystemWorks (what this product is apart of) is nothing but an empty shell if you ask me. |
| Bloodwolf | Jul 26, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
i tried this out.. didnt like it at all.. i dont like all windows that popup, the look of it.. i think ill stick with avg as norton is always takign my memory always. |
| riceboy | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
I used to run NAV back in early days when it was'nt such a hog and since then its become such a hog...oink oink !!! |
| kholdstare | Jul 26, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
I'll give it a 4 seems like all the same stuff from all versions of this program. I have and still use norton and it does its job well but I do think it usere way too many resourses but really we are not running on 100Mhz computer these days so why worry about resourses the computers are fast enough to handle it now anyway. still hoping when I get the time to switch to AVG or NOD32 |
| PUC_Snakeman | Jul 26, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
Just wanted to say that you will need a key to install this External Text beta of NAV2006. To get the key, browse to http://www.symantec.com/public_beta/ and give them your email address. Regards, PUC_Snake (Now installing...) |
| wotan2525 | Jul 18, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.79) | 3 out of 5 |
I just downloaded this and it's asking me for an install key which I cannot find anywhere..... anyone else have this problem? thanks! |
| glassdesigns | Jul 2, 2004 | 2005 Beta "b" | 3 out of 5 |
good program but does slow your system. To riip, how do you know it is the best if you don't try any others? |
| Stephan123 | Jul 2, 2004 | 2005 Beta "b" | 3 out of 5 |
The uninstalling of Beta A is not good.I must restart three times before its good uninstalled.But it is now all good.the bug about Symantec ALE updates still here |
| terry12591 | Jul 2, 2004 | 2005 Beta "b" | 3 out of 5 |
norton is fantastic....but everyone goes for the betas and there worthless!! |
| nroediger | Jul 6, 2004 | 2005 Beta "b" | 3 out of 5 |
NAV used to be my favorite anti-virus program. But a lot of our customers have complained about system instability (including BSODs) and poor performance - especially on old PCs. I can't even install this beta version on my system. |
| ninjeratu | Dec 2, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 3 out of 5 |
Very good for the novice. Terrible for the more advanced user. User interface is shiny, but clunky and hopelessly messed up. Getting false positives (FPs) back from quarantine is almost impossible. They're removed without asking, no matter what setting you have for asking. Will remove registry settings without asking, which do happen with FPs. Much faster updates than 2008, with an added speed-o-meter for measure. Pretty small footprint, I suspect the horrible UI takes up more than 50% of the RAM and CPU usage of the product. Firewall is adequate for the normal home user, but don't expect too much from it. Changing rules or monitoring network activities is just .. not working as a firewall should. It's almost as if they're hiding as much as they can of the settings to annoy people or hide the fact that it's just an below average product behind shiny windows and animations. I don't like the firewall and it's just average protection if you test it. Good enough for basic use, though. Getting better, but they should've looked at their OEM product, Symantec AV, instead of adding eye candy to an already messed up product. Just because it looks "cool" with pointless CPU usage meter doesn't mean it's a great product people. It's still just average when it comes to protecting your stuff. The AV part is the product's strongest part. The AV is getting to the point where it can actually compete with top-notch products like Kaspersky, Avira, NOD32 when it comes to footprint and detection rate. Good job, Symantec! Took you 5 years, but still. As a complete product it gets 3/5 because it's not that good. |
| uberfly | Dec 2, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 3 out of 5 |
I tried this out a bit back based on positive reviews. As before, it's top-notch as far as detection, but the program is a complicated, overreaching mess to configure and deal with. |
| Ampbeta | Sep 19, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 3 out of 5 |
since symantec is know for bloatware im giving this a 3, but....i want to know if 07 will run on windows 2k pro because i have heard good things about this product for once, so if someone will help me itd be awesome |
| Arcane999 | Jul 30, 2001 | Beta 2 | 3 out of 5 |
With the latest updates, i found viruses on my system with Fix-it 3's antivirus that norton hadn't even picked up during numerous tests. The question is, how do we know whether some of these things are actually real viruses? One software with latest updates detects them, and another doesnt. Which do we believe? |
| wat0114 | Sep 14, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 3 out of 5 |
I'll try to be as unbiased as possible in this review. First, some noteworthy observations during the installation process on my XP Pro Virtualbox guest, using Malware Defender HIPS as the "eyes" to see what NAV is doing.: 1. the NAV10tben.exe process attempts Internet access even before the installer gets in to full swing. Why would it need to do this? Seems like spying to me. 2. the program installs no fewer than 18 registry keys in the autostarts locations alone. 3. 7 kernel drivers are installed. 3. Internet access attempts are constant with the ccsvchst process after installation is complete. I am constantly being badgered to create an account to activate the product . This is very annoying! 5. As I am typing ccvchst.exe is constantly reading files, duplicating handles of other processes, setting registry values, and accessing COM interfaces. 5. Only two running processes using little resources - so this is a nice change from years past. 6. Seems to be quite feature packed. 5. Looks to have a pleasing and intuitive interface. Overall, I give it three stars. |
| dougau | Jul 16, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta |  2 out of 5 |
In the days of DOS and Windows 95 Norton (Syamntec) use to make good products, now days all they churn out is bloated crapware. There are many good free alternative products available so don't waste your money. |
| munga42 | Jan 6, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 2 out of 5 |
well, it works. But ive had so much problems the score cannot be good |
| p51d007 | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 2 out of 5 |
Their consumers versions ARE virus'... Bloated and you ever try to remove them? We use the "professional" versions on the servers at work, and they are night and day different. Shame they can't do that to the consumer version |
| RussHart | Aug 8, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 2 out of 5 |
I downloaded it, but wasn't impressed. Infact, I haven't been impressed with the last version of Norton either. I was however relived at how good their Corporate version is. I have v7.5 at the moment, and it runs much nicer, taking up less resources and doesn't constantly bug me to update this and subscribe to that, it just sits happily in the background |
| Andy Dean | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 2 out of 5 |
I'm not even going to try this out. Used NAV up until 2004 and for me it had been downhill all the way bogging the PC down, a real resource hog. I've since moved over to nod32 and never regretted it. Yes it's not freeware but uses minimal resources and updates the defs up to 4 times a day. No mor Symantec for me. |
| wicketr | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 2 out of 5 |
Norton has become extreme bloatware. I used to like them until a couple years ago. Once installed you have about 6 different EXEs running concurrently using over 50MB. They need to go back to 1-3 EXEs and a memory footprint of about 15MB. Until then, why waste money EVERY year for a poor product when there are free options that are about as good. I give it a 2 because it does have good virus definitions. |
| jim_batt | Mar 23, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 2 out of 5 |
This WILL NOT run with ZoneAlarm installed. It took me all afternoon to recover my system! |
| RastaWorld | Mar 24, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 2 out of 5 |
Norton AntiVirus was once the ironclad dependable AV back in the late 90's and beginning 2k. Since then it has become bloat-ware which massively decreases system performance across the boards. When Peter Norton left, they went to trash, unlike McAfee which has always been trash. I would suggest looking and BETTER alternatives such as the Eset Security Suite at eset.com ... |
| uberfly | Mar 23, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 2 out of 5 |
I've tried it an it's an overly complex, poorly-thought out mess. The usual. |
| likwidv | Jun 30, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
norton is way over bloated. I used it exclusivly a few years ago when thier coding was cleaner, it conflicts with too much now. if you people want something that has a higher detection rate than norton, and slimmer, try kaspersky personal 5, I installed it after norton and found 4 things that never turned up before.. and its on demand scanner doesnt rape your system resources. |
| nemrtvy | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 2 out of 5 |
Used to be good software but now just bloated, slow piece of j*nk. Eset's NOD32 currently rules. |
| toasale | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 2 out of 5 |
Decent product for beginners, because they won't know any different. Advanced folks use Avira, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Nod32 and others in this tier. As huge as SYMC is and as many dev's as they have, why can't they produce a bloatless, small footprint piece of software? |
| robmanic44 | Jan 14, 2008 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 2 out of 5 |
Would never have this garbage on any of my systems. I know some companies that wouldn't use anything but Symantec, but I think NOD32 has shown itself to be superior. F-Secure is also excellent. |
| bobad | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 2 out of 5 |
Wouldn't even install properly. Bah! Ptooie! It's too bloated at 30 MB. I have used good AV programs that were 2, 3, 5 MB. Why a serial number for a beta? It doesn't make sense. |
| Klaude | Jul 6, 2002 | Beta | 2 out of 5 |
Instant Messenger support: I'm not impressed about it. We all use ICQ or mIRC in Europe. And rundll32 is running twice here when I press Ctrl + Alt + Delete. Is it because I'm using a Beta ? Definitevely... too much lines added in my startup menu. Check yourself. |
| ghammer | Sep 17, 2004 | 2005 | 2 out of 5 |
What used to be a good app is now just depending on its name to get people to use it. Support is not available unless you pay, then you will get script readers, not techs. And, in this age to see a antivirus app boast about not updating is surprising. From their own mouths. "It is extremely easy to keep updated, with automatic retrieval of new anti-virus definitions from Symantec as often as once a week." Once a week would kill you on today's internet. Give it a pass. |
| Magenta | Apr 22, 2005 | 2005 | 2 out of 5 |
Norton Antivirus 2005 can be easily described as a devision armoured tanks, combined with a fleet of battleships, 1000 men infantry and a dozen F16's circelling above your humble XP system with some beloved mp3 files: TOO MUCH for your computer...! It makes too strict rules for files traveling up and down, it takes too much speed from your computer. It even makes your system freeze MORE than before...! There are a lot more equally protective programs, which are much "lighter". |
| jsrcollins | Mar 4, 2002 | 8.0 | 2 out of 5 |
I have norton at work and think it's pretty good, but I can't get this beta to work. After installation, I can't complete the configuration: the 'Post Install Tasks' window has a script error which won't let me continue. Here's the info, if you're interested: Line: 360 Char: 4 Error: Unspecified error Code: 0 URL: res://C:\PROGRAM%20FILES\NORTON%20ANTIVIRUS\CFGWIZ.EXE/CfgWizRoadmap.htm |
| pctech5189 | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 2 out of 5 |
Norton does have very good detection and alright protection but if it finds somthin sometimes it dont fix it. norton is bloatware now unless they changed it in this 2008 version. Norton has been around prolly the longest. |
| kronix2 | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 2 out of 5 |
Why anybody would buy this software escapes me. Not only is it bloated, but it's slow and inept. There has not been a worthwhile change in this software since at least the 2001 version. |
| tbeckner | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 2 out of 5 |
I am a very long-term user of Norton Anti-Virus and last year I made the mistake of upgrading to the 2004 version. Everyone is right 2004 is a very bad product. Bloated and a performance hog. I previously downloaded the 2005 beta and it would not install on a fresh install of Windows XP with SP2 RC2. In my total IT experience of 31+ years and 22+ years of PC experience, my judgement tells me that Symantec has lost it's direction. I will most likely not upgrade again and will end up switching to another vendor. It's too bad, Symantec built good products in the past. |
| tedbieri | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 2 out of 5 |
I have been repairing and building computers and using norton since its beginings to Norton 2005 beta! And I stick to what I said! When Norton AV installs it works ok, when you get one bad install or a virus (HAHA)it is a nightmare! You can spend a day trying to install it because of the security and the all mighty Dollar they are trying to protect! They need to address the install problems before adding more garbage! I Aggree Kaspersky and Panda install and update quickly and easily and viruses don't kill them! |
| cpeter | Oct 1, 2003 | 2004 | 2 out of 5 |
Good but slows down web surfing. Try this site www.msnbc.com with Norton 2004 then turn off auto protect. Very slow to load web page with Norton 2004 on vers off. Hope Norton fixes this issue. |
| dougau | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
Wow! Seems like just yesterday NAV 2005 beta was posted here, got tired of shelling out the $$ for virus protection every year and went with Avast Home Ed. for free last year instead of upgrading from Nav 2004 to Nav 2005. Avast works every bit as good as Nav without gobbling as many resources or as much money. AVG Antivirus is a good choice also. |
| lilmegz | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
It wont let me use it on my computer... something about KERNEL32.DLL error msg :( **** this thing! |
| TotalKonfuzion | Jul 18, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.79) | 2 out of 5 |
Another sluggish and slow program from symantec..and if you ever uninstall it, windows just dies. Fantastic....why even use antivirus...just use common sense ;) |
| Qlib | Jul 23, 2003 | Beta F (10.0.0.85) | 2 out of 5 |
mmm more bloatware.. now with drm that uses extra much ram when running.. 47mb in total for all the processes it fires up.. thats just too damned much.. I used to like norton.. and I guess its protection is still topclass.. but theres no real way to get rid of all the BLOATWARE it also runs.. Norton Protected garbagebin has to be one of the MOST ANNOYING things I know.. often ive ended up with several gigs in the trash that i cant get rid of with OR without it enabled.. and its been causing probs like that for the last 2 years.. Good protection HORRIBLY DONE.. |
| some guy | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 2 out of 5 |
Nortons has fallen to far behind in the game and uses to many resources, Then you usually have to download a special tool just to get rid of it. Reminds me of Mcrappys AOL and real player , die already Avira the best for a windows based system don't want a virus use linux or a mac ..... |
| Budgie29 | Sep 12, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta |  1 out of 5 |
the only thing norton products are good for is that the Cd/dvd make very good drinks coasters ... need i say anymore |
| schmen | Jul 16, 2008 | 2009 (16.0.0.69) Beta | 1 out of 5 |
thousands(!) of registry entries, services, 100s of megabytes, crawls in every corner of windows, makes the whole system totally slow, after uninstall still a lot of leftovers, so my tip is to not touch this. there are a lot of more resource-friendly solutions. a horrible piece of resourcehog-crap of a software. just because you make a lot of marketing and have a lot of sales, it does NOT mean that people like this bloat! they just dont know better. if you make a "light version" under 10mb without many reg-entries and stealing cpu-time i should try it, till then i stay with nod32 (2.7!), the most systemfriendly and speediest av solution.. |
| GimieGimieGimie | Jan 6, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
It doesn't matter how many new 'improvements' and 'extras' they add to their products every year. Norton's software will always be pure crap as long as they continue to use masses of unnecessary CPU & ram resources while alternative software prove just as effective and in return you get a bug free faster system (generally at least TWICE as fast after the removal of Norton's if not MORE) with an uninstaller that actually works! Norton's software was excellent up until the turn of the millennium, Norton's Anti-Virus 1999 was the last 'more than decent' copy of Norton's AV ever made, from 2000 on-wards Symantec introduced a new 'fancier' yellow interface (the one you see before you today) and in return their software got bloated and thus not worth having. There's no point having an piece of software that is great at what it does but now does it a lot more slowly and slows down the whole PC'S performance to the point you think you need a newer PC it is THAT slow and that's exactly what Symantec's products have become. We need products that are fast, accurate, stable and good at it's job above all else and if you can add a nice looking interface for the customer to interact with without compromising the before mentioned needs, then do it but Symantec completely failed on this way back in 2000 and continue to do so to this very day. Just like a previous poster Lawrence said a good couple of posts below me, when ever i see Norton's on any PC i come across, i always make it a point to uninstall all the software (if possible that is, sometimes the damage caused by a Symantec products installation it cannot be undone and a fresh install of the O.S is required) and replace them with far better alternatives and 100% of the time, the PC is re-born in terms of stability and system performance, so much so, the PC users can't believe it's the same PC! (Did i mention that a lot of the time Symantec's software is the main reason why I've been called to look at a clients buggy machine in the first place!) My advice to anyone is to stay well clear of any software made by Symantec or any software with Norton's in it's name as they are no longer a company that can be relied on or even trusted. Once their products use to be mean something, but they got greedier as time went by and now certainly put money over their customers. Bottom line is, if Symantec go back to their old interfaces (they were plain and Grey, but hey they were as fast as you can get) or even better, they actually design a nice looking interface that doesn't compromise performance whilst still ironing out all the bugs (including installation/un-installation) like other products have successfully proven can be done, then we are back to a winning formula like the good old days but without it, forget it. |
| Andy Dean | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
I can't bring myself to try this out. I used Norton up until 2005 and every year it became more and more bloated making my system slower and slower. Since switching to nod32 I've learn't what a real AV should be like. No going back to Norton for me. |
| BadIronTree | Jan 6, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
omg i still remember the horror when i could not uninstall this ***** AV! people go for Kaspersky or nod 32 i bought kaspersky 2 years ago and never look back it found 300 virus in my pc that norton did not |
| landfish | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
DON'T............. JUST DON'T YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED @c4p0ne said it nicely |
| aashay | Jan 16, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
Statutory warning: Norton AntiVirus 2007 contains large quantities of bloat, crippleware, elephant fat, cow dung, vegetable oil & anasthesia (which works only on humans while installation & uninstallation) Use it solely if you like the above. Get smart, switch to NOD32 or Kaspersky. |
| doctorsmith | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
@donahu1, What's with all the ney sayers is nothing to do with paying $20 to renew subscriptions but more with experience of problems created by using and uninstalling Norton. As for corporations willingness to use Norton, if indeed they do, being used as a selling point I think you only have to look at the appalling security record of some of the major corporations to not take any notice of that. |
| Lawrence01 | Jan 5, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
I gave up on Norton and all their program in about 1997. Saying its software is bloatware is being too kind. I always make sure to remove their stuff on all the computers I work on and put in better substitutes that often times are free, such as Avast or AVG for antivirus, and making sure to buy good hardware firewalls. While I'm at it, McAfee is is about the same also. Just slightly less bloated. |
| DiamondT | Jan 6, 2007 | 2007 Beta (14.2.0.18) | 1 out of 5 |
Norton and Symantec should be sued in class action for this complete junk software. Bloatware, system hog, near impossible to get off. Causes constant problems. Keep you system updated, XP or Vista and you will be just fine. Might want Windows defender... Dittos..you have been warned. It will bring a brand new system come crashing to the ground... |
| nevers | Aug 8, 2002 | Beta Updated (9.0.0.55a) | 1 out of 5 |
It is unethical and just a plain marketing trick to call "2003" something you release in mid-2002. |
| ghammer | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
I can't imagine a more useless company or inept group of programmers. Visit any forum dealing with security and see the problems people have with all versions of Norton. Visit the fine Norton website and see just how many errors need an install and reinstall. That's is also known as "We have no idea why its broken but we hope this fixes it for awhile". Of course sometimes you need a special tool to uninstall their lousy apps. Bah! I'll be glad when they finally go bankrupt. |
| puremhz | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
To reiterate: I cannot possibly describe how much this product blows. I mean, there are SO many things to say that one could not even fathom how to begin such a thing. STAY away from this product at all costs. Symantec HAS LONG LOST ITS ONCE NOBLE TRUST and in the past 6 years has gone nowhere but downhill with their ENTIRE product line. Russian programmers are making CLOWNS out of their American counterparts nowadays and it hurts. It hurts deep down to see a company go this route. Crap programming. Were talking REAL CRAP here non-jokingly. This is some serious garbage which for the 5th year in a straight row, installs a myriad of bloated, memory-hogging, unstable, user-UNfriendly, services and memory resident trash that can sicken even the most powerful, memory-abundant machine upon installation. But the worst part of this whole drawn-out fiasco is by far that the god-damn product IS 100% SUB-PAR IN ITS DETECTION OF MALICIOUS SOFTWARE! Which of course, is the MAIN purpose for having this dumpster-waste of a software on your PC. AV-Engine == Zero hueristics, cannot unpack (still after 5 years) most simple executable packing mechanisms. Speed == DISMAL compared to KAV/NOD/MOST others. Memory Footprint == Our physical SUN weighs less. Stability == Easily terminated even with its "self-protection". Interface == Bloated and slow and gets uglier every year. I rate this an absolute minus-5 it if were possible. I could go on literally FOREVER theres so many other sh*tty things about this software but you all get my drift by now, and that is: Avoid Symantec crap like the plague. |
| c4p0ne | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
I cannot possibly describe how much this product blows. I mean, there are SO many things to say that one could not even fathom how to begin such a thing. STAY away from this product at all costs. Symantec HAS LONG LOST ITS ONCE NOBLE TRUST and in the past 6 years has gone nowhere but downhill with their ENTIRE product line. Russian programmers are making CLOWNS out of their American counterparts nowadays and it hurts. It hurts deep down to see a company go this route. Crap programming. Were talking REAL CRAP here non-jokingly. This is some serious garbage which for the 5th year in a straight row, installs a myriad of bloated, memory-hogging, unstable, user-UNfriendly, services and memory resident trash that can sicken even the most powerful, memory-abundant machine upon installation. But the worst part of this whole drawn-out fiasco is by far that the god-damn product IS 100% SUB-PAR IN ITS DETECTION OF MALICIOUS SOFTWARE! Which of course, is the MAIN purpose for having this dumpster-waste of a software on your PC. AV-Engine == Zero hueristics, cannot unpack (still after 5 years) most simple executable packing mechanisms. Speed == DISMAL compared to KAV/NOD/MOST others. Memory Footprint == Our physical SUN weighs less. Stability == Easily terminated even with its "self-protection". Interface == Bloated and slow and gets uglier every year. I rate this an absolute minus-5 it if were possible. I could go on literally FOREVER theres so many other sh*tty things about this software but you all get my drift by now, and that is: Avoid Symantec crap like the plague. |
| minklein | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
Bloatware piece of garbage. They still refuse to support XP64 in any of their stuff. Bug buck corporate versions maybe. They lost their edge many years ago. |
| smarterthanyou | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
The folks at Symantec are complete morons for introducing product activation in their antivirus product. I make major hardware changes in my computer several times a week. I don't have the time to be calling Symantec to reactivate NAV constantly. |
| roj | Jul 20, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
This performance and memory leeching mess is very invasive and will slow your box considerably more than other freeware alternatives. For that pleasure, it provides no greater protection. Use avast! 4 Home Edition instead which takes up much less memory and still provides comprehensive protection. If you feel compelled to pay for a product, NOD32 is a far better architected product. ONE star for yet another iteration of typical Symantec garbage. |
| Budgie29 | Jul 22, 2006 | 2007 Beta (14.0.0.1) | 1 out of 5 |
since I have been a computer mechanic guess what Norton or mcrappie sofware causes 99.9% of all windowws problems that is clains to fix and I'll give any body £ who has been running the above now install and dos a virus scan with AVG,KAV,panda spybot,adare ..oo and dont forget to uninstall each one before installing the next now if you can prove that their are no viruses or spyare on your computer i''bet the adverage is 150-1500 viruses and 100-2000 spyware +nother types of nasties on your computer |
| Sven123456789 | Mar 23, 2009 | 2009 (16.5.0.134) | 1 out of 5 |
Worse product and cust. support. Stay away from this garbage |
| Dirk van Hoofen | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Whats new here ?? - From NAV 2000 to today I found not elementary news at this software. Make the only money with it ?? - It is only the year nr. waths new. |
| Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
uninstalled all symantec programs and restarted and cant install norton 2005 on here and this beta really sucks if u cant even install it. | |
| Gryzor | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Just awful. I've been seeing systems being bogged down to a standstill from this app throughout its history... I've never managed to work with it! |
| hehon | Jun 29, 2004 | 2005 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Norton AntiVirus isn't a practical product. Just the fact that Symantec wants you to pay for a subscription every year and upgrade to a newer version, shows they really don't care at all about their customers. I also wouldn't consider it even in the top 5 in detection of viruses, worms, and trojans. |
| sjc001 | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
The best product they ever made was Norton Removal... |
| maria_madonna | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
although popular, is the worst antivirus if you are stupid buy it |
| Sven123456789 | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
One of the best? According to who.. Its the worse. Trust me on this, i've had a few. And god forbid you try and get some sort of cust. service from these guys. It won't happen. Stay away from anything from Norton. Its not worth it. If your pc came with a free Norton software. Than let its free trial run out than get something else. |
| 6speed | Aug 30, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
very poor |
| treworld | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
Ewwwwwwwwwww.... WTF is this??? Anything from Symantec (especially Norton products) corrupts your system. Do not download! |
| Point Zero | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
Common people ! Symantec gives you hundreds of megabytes of pure system protection ! |
| harrywg | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
This is a review of this site. A review of a product ought to reflect the current version. The reviews as posted and I assume are the rating, date back to 2001. Why not review what's current, and stop grinding old axes? |
| McAleck | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
plus the f*ckers bought out sygate and dicontinued their excellent firewall! Sr*w Symantec!!! |
| clifton | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
Agreed. All Symantec software is a Virus, as far as I'm concerned. |
| Latz ! | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
Ha, that's what I love about this site sometimes. The great humor they have here. One of the best antivirus programs, that's hilarious. :D |
| Budgie29 | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
the best the best use for this software is to use the cd as a drinks coaster as others have said either use KAV or KIS or even AVG |
| siryak | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
This is a horrible anti-virus. There are plenty of better alternatives out there. Free ones: Antivir, Avast, AVG Kaspersky and Nod32 are the best, but they are not free. If you are going to pay money for one though, then by one of those. |
| bolmedias | Aug 29, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
@Murtadh, we don't all have 3GB of RAM. If you consider using Norton, don't. It will slow down your system and take ages to clear. |
| armpit | Aug 28, 2007 | 2008 (15.0.0.58) | 1 out of 5 |
Really bad product. |
| BootBlock | Jul 2, 2003 | Beta | 1 out of 5 |
You've GOT to be kidding! 2004? Yeah right, I *bet* there's a difference with the previous version(s). Hmm. A lot of software installers don't just give "Make sure Norton AV isn't running" because they're bored, you know. I used to use Norton AV all the time, but it's possibly the most bloated and troublesome anti-virus program out there. |
| shafii | Jul 7, 2002 | Beta | 1 out of 5 |
The best thing that this program has, is its name. Over the years I have tried to avoid using Norton's, because of the immense drain on ones resources. I always challenge my friends that have used Norton's, that if they use Quickheal, DR Web 4.28a or v-Buster the original (probably the best program in the world ) that these programs will be at least 20 to 30 % Quicker with the fastest being Quickheal which I always use and these programs will also detect at least 2 or 3 viruses minimum which Norton has missed. I also challenge all the readers of this page to try my challenge and judge for yourself that Norton's is just a waste of time I mean the anti virus program not their utilities program which I have to admit is on of the most reliable in the world. |
| fourte3n | Sep 17, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
Bloatware... steer clear! for the last three years nothing has changed but small tweaks. |
| annmariet30 | Sep 17, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
you're right about norton...2003 was better. used the systemworks on my computer and it screwed up the whole hard drive. i eventually had to reformat the whole hard drive twice!!(one on anti-virus & and one on the systemworks)... so i trashed the norton. i mean that thing embedds it self in your win registry, and when you try to uninstall it after it mess up your computer. it refuses to uninstall. couldn't install another antivirus program in!!..no thanks to norton!! |
| httpd.confused | Sep 19, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
Still the AOL of anti-virus products. |
| idealworld | Sep 23, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
Takes ages to install, and Email Proxy error keeps coming up. Very slow with screens hanging on Win2kPro, and takes too long to uninstall. Not recommended. |
| Zankur | Sep 18, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
Plz anyone who's lookin for an anti-virus without a fuss,plz look for 1.Mcafee(2005 edition has been launched) 2.AVG Anti-virus Free7.0.2Beta Plz! save urself from this crap!God Bless! |
| cfryfamily | Sep 23, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
slows do the pc to much. and Email Proxy error keeps coming up and screens hanging on Win2kPro Not recommended |
| Orlando | Sep 17, 2004 | 2005 | 1 out of 5 |
What used to be a great product is now almost completely unusable. Norton 2004 and now Norton 2005 slow down my computer to an absolute crawl (and my friends and families computer also that have tried Norton 2004 and 2005). It's sad because I used to buy it all the time for myself and family members but starting with Norton 2004 I will never buy it or use it again even if were free because it's such a system resource hog. By the way, my computer system is an... Amd 3200+, 1 GB of RAM and 160 GB hard disk drive (7200rpm, 8mb cache)...A state of the art computer that Norton 2004 and 2005 slows down right to a crawl 100% of the time. I don't even have to be running a Norton Antivirus Scan and my computer is still incredibly slow because of Norton. If I uninstall Norton, then my computer speeds right back up to normal. As I said, I'll never buy Norton Antivirus again...to bad. |
| aeroe | Dec 19, 2001 | 8.0 | 1 out of 5 |
NAV is another slow bloated mess like Panda and now AVX with v6.0+. What happened to fast, stable, compatibile av software that didn't consume all of your ram and leave any footprint? I would give it a "2," since it does mostly work on detection. But since some guy from Symantech copied the company hype to cheat the ratings I brought it to a "1." |
| -Lord- | Mar 24, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
I have to completely disagree with ShahinD's review below. In the past, Norton's used to be the flavor of choice for good antivirus protection for the small office / home office (SoHo) environment, but now I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. As a former beta tester for Symantec, I have to say that this is the worst I've seen. Totally bloated, incredibly large and unacceptable memory footprint, and not the best detection rate for av/malware. If you're going to buy for the SoHo environment, get Nod32. Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is excellent up to version 10.1 for XP, 10.2 for Vista. After that, the new Symantec System Protection needs some work before it's a safe and acceptable replacement. Nod32 has an extremely small install, memory footprint, and malware detection is top notch. Sligh learning curve to use it, but it can't be beat. Avoid this or you will be sorry. |
| sorlag | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
bad as all norton products... |
| oldcodger | Mar 22, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
It is beyond me how this company gets away with selling this sub standard product. It lets spyware and virii through regularly. To call it anti virus should be against the trade description act. In the U.K. PC World are now advertising that they sell this program in its shops. Perhaps they are hoping that their customers buy it then have to bring their PCs in to them for repairs ??????? |
| jimpilot | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Got charged for renewal of software by these folks on credit card I used a year ago to purchase for a friend. My e-mails to them went unanswered. I had to dispute charge with credit card company. I bet I end up fighting this again next year. My fault I know for not carefully reading the agreement that said I was signing up forever. My advice: If you must use their limiting products be very carefull what you sign up for. |
| mikeyx11 | Mar 22, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Go away already. Use AVG Free! |
| danho001 | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Software deserves a zero. It slows down your computer by 57% in independent tests. Absolute crapware! For some reason, corporate edition doesn't slow down your computer as much. Go figure??? |
| po4ko | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Just who in their right mind, would use Norton software, and especially on Windows 2008 Server, if what the title says is right - "Norton AntiVirus for Windows 2008". |
| frodo888 | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
This software is absolutely crap. The prototype of bloatware. Makes your OS slow like hell and produces many obscure errors after every OS update/patch. Blue screen danger! |
| cerveza | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Norton has been bloat ware for many years now. We have been telling them for years we want Antivirus that does its job and doesn't bog down our machines. I guess their marketing depts know better whats best for us. Everything Symantec gets their hands on turns into junk. I remember the days when Ghost fit on a floppy, then Symantec got a hold of it and turned it into bloat. Symantec are you listening??????? I give my money to other products because you have failed to show me fast running products that do their job and take up limited resources. Sure your making money off the newbies buying systems from BestBuy, but the rest of us know better! AVG will continue to get my cash each year for our site license. Great product, fast detection and removal, NOT a system hog. |
| k12-IT | Mar 23, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
This is the worst program in the world for home use. It loads way too many processes, slows any system down to a crawl and does not play nice wit a lot of other programs. One in particular are any Webroot products, which actually make your system unusable. As an IT administrator I tell any client that has it installed to remove it and use something else like AVG. Add an antispyware program and you are all set and you can do it all for free for good products. |
| reynaldok | Mar 22, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
with automatic retrieval of new anti-virus definitions from Symantec as often as once a week. (once a week???) my Eset does it daily and sometimes if a real nasty virus pops up then 2 times a day... Back in the day (2000/2001) Norton was pretty decent, since then they've just become bloated, obsolete software. If you need an anti virus see Eset, AVG, anything but Norton... |
| armpit | Mar 21, 2008 | 2008 (15.5.0.23) | 1 out of 5 |
Because 14 previous versions were not bad enough, now we get number 15! |
| some guy | Jul 6, 2009 | 2010 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
will I have to down load a special removal tool to remove it lol |
| Dapple | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
60 meg for a virus scanner yes please, I figure I need something to slow down my pc so I can play dos games , this should bloat it just right :P |
| yohimbe9 | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
I just don't get the extreme differences between the corporate editions and the consumer ones. All of our machines shipped with NAV consumer on them so we used that for a couple of years but recently switch to the corporate edition and have noticed significant improvement and no more crashing or hanging. Plus, the most recent upgrade brought us spyware protection while reducing the actual fingerprint. |
| Dreimanis | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
last good version 2000/01 . latest versions are bloated resource hogs |
| WhiteSound | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
Maybe They need to get Peter Norton to Program this? |
| QBgreen | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
The alternatives that perform leagues better than this bloated sack of digital dyspepsia are too numerous to mention. Yet, numerous corporations and individual consumers will jump all over it. Does Symantec/Norton deserve this loyalty? I say no. |
| sleepr0 | Jul 14, 2004 | 2005 Beta Build 71 | 1 out of 5 |
Let's hope that this version can actually be installed. The likelihood of the 2004 version installing was not that good. If you can't install it, you can't patch it! |
| tvaccari | Sep 1, 2003 | 2004 | 1 out of 5 |
System slows to a crawl plus activation! Not very good software. |
| cyberguy | Sep 1, 2003 | 2004 | 1 out of 5 |
This software may be good, but by adding product activation, Symantec has lost me as a customer until it can prove to me why this is necessary. |
| jcgamer60 | Sep 1, 2003 | 2004 | 1 out of 5 |
SLows down your comp big time. |
| betabetabeta | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
I use the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition. Hard to believe Norton AntiVirus & Symantec Antivirus CE are made by te same company. I feel Norton AntiVirus though does the work as good as the Corporate version; is only eye-candy for the "non-technical" user. BTW people (who have given rating: 5), you dont need bright coloured (some might call it gaudy) interfaces to drive away viruses; you need a robust engine comsuming very little memory and catching the virus quickly. (If you get a chance see how fast the Corporate Edition's Realtime protection works) |
| [deXter] | Jul 26, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
I wish I could rate this even lower, unfortunately its not possible. The least we all can do is to give it a consistent rating of 1 to get its overall rating down... I think NAV is ranked 8th or even lower in the World AntiVirus rankings. But you dont need no site to confirm that NAV is crap. Install it and see for yourself. - No significant improvements since the past 3 years - Extremy bulky and gaudy user interface - Uber Slow (in scanning, opening, configuration etc) - CPU eater - Memory hog - Not very efficient in cleaning - Very low virus signature database - Tedious installation procedure (Activation etc) - Definately not worth the price Now Symantec AntiVirus on the other hand is one helluva product, and like many people say, its suprising that SAV and NAV are made by the one and same company. If you ARE a Symantec/Norton fan, then do give SAV a try. Its one of the most lowest resource using A/V ever. What more, you dont even need to load the VPtray.exe while startup, to save a few extra MBs and CPU cycles.. |
| mhguy15 | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Norton is a pathetic resource hog. I don't like haveing 7 tasks running in the background that I can't shutdown. |
| JBrown123 | Jan 1, 2006 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Just recently in the press, a tester of Antivirus products showed that Norton Antivirus has a security exploit with a buffer overflow (http://www.techweb.com/w...MOFYQSNDBGCKHSCJUMEKJVN). Can you truly trust a company that has problems with their product? Can you trust a company that has less than half the virus defintions than other antivirus vendors? Do you trust an AV vendor that only release live updates of their virus definitions once a week and only on serious threatening viruses unlike other AV vendors that release definitions nearly every six hours? Is that the reason why most hackers target Symantec products, just like they target Microsoft products? Can you truly feel safe when you go online? These are the facts that you need to know about before you invest almost $100 - $200 on software that can make your computer a target for spyware, hackers and viruses. Besides, I don't like a company that only thinks of acquiring other companies instead of helping people devastated by disaster. Symantec did not disclose any information about donating for relief efforts and only posted a link to the American Red Cross site. |
| ArabianNight | Jul 26, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
I hate this bloated crap. It just uses up all ur memory. LOL the picture says 2003 version. |
| bholden9 | Jun 17, 2006 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
norton 2004 edition - i can't wait to get rid of it. it frequently bypasses my pop-up blocker and jams my computer w a pop-up adv for updating my virus protection. the only way i can rid of the pop-up is by restarting my computer. very annoying. anyone else have this problem? bholden9 |
| forgie | Jul 25, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
resource hog. it's time symantec figure out that people don't want/need fluff in their antivirus, they just want it to work and work well. like others have said, go the freeware route. |
| robmanic44 | Jul 27, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Save yourself a lot of time, trouble, and money; get F-Prot. This is the definition of bloatware. |
| anna21 | Jan 15, 2006 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
???HOW??? can people still thrust a Vendor like Symantec if the PC security is at stake? i have used norton for about 7 years, and every year it became more corrupted and bloated. |
| integrii | Aug 12, 2005 | 2006 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
norton is crap. i remove it from customer's computers daily. never use this software, it is unpredictable and can cause you to have to reinstall windows constantly. also, almost all viruses use an exploit to get around it as it is the most commonly used in the consumer base. bloated, leaky, and non-functional. |
| golbex | Jul 18, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.79) | 1 out of 5 |
Nope. Have tried this beta and didn't like it. IMO, 2003 is better. The activation sucks and I had a few installation/uninstall related problems. There isn't much incentive to upgrade if you already have '03 either. Oh well... I would give this 2 stars, but thanks to the activation crap, it gets a 1 from me. |
| Jul 22, 2003 | Beta (10.0.0.79) | 1 out of 5 |
i gave it a five, didn't try it, don't care too. just adjusting the score for peeps who didn't review and gave it a one anyway. peace INVERSE FOR ME !!! |
|
| dreadlox | Feb 5, 2009 | 2009 (16.2.0.7) | 1 out of 5 |
It's light you say?? Then howcome it's a >56 Mb download? I really think it's all you Norton fanboys that should try somethig else :) |
| kholdstare | Feb 4, 2009 | 2009 (16.2.0.7) | 1 out of 5 |
sign why won't Norton just give it up. for all Norton users out there i want you to try removing Norton from your pc temporarily and you will find your PC will run 50% faster than before. |
| netean | Dec 1, 2008 | 2009 (16.1.0.33) | 1 out of 5 |
I've been burned way way too many times with Norton to even consider trying this. No matter how good it *may* be. Norton has, for years been synonymous with slow, bloat, ad-ware-verging-on-malware-installed-on-my-new-pc, trash. Norton was just terrible, so terrible that I will never ever install or run their products again. |
| mengo | Sep 19, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 1 out of 5 |
"with automatic retrieval of new anti-virus definitions from Symantec as often as once a week" HAHAHA wow thats really really often, others update their definitions at least once a day, maybe more besides that, Norton keeps having security issues, sploits in the wild and i would say, its more insecure to have this installed than not. why are people even using this so called security software?? also its bloated, heavy and eats up any ressource you might have left |
| PC Rat | Sep 19, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 1 out of 5 |
... "I used to be a huge Norton AV fanboy - but no more. Bloated, error prone, drain on system resources" ... Same here. Used Norton AV for years. But noticed that the PC Rat liked each succeeding new version ~less~ ! When NAV's anti-viral effectiveness began to get questionable, switched to the free AVG and have never looked back. ... The Computer Rodent ... |
| Aegis69 | Sep 18, 2006 | 2007 Final (14.0.0.89) | 1 out of 5 |
This program is the very essence of bloatware. Started out great about 8 years ago, kept getting worse and worse until it is now almost as awful/intrusive/disruptive as Roxio Easy Media Creator. Why is it that ALL corporately owned programs that try to do 50 things and make them all 'easy' are THE best examples of bad software? This is as good as giving 75% of your CPU to Norton too, because thats how much of your resources it will use/waste for nothing. |
| djsokol | Jul 12, 2001 | Beta | 1 out of 5 |
BOO!!! Won't install in win2k advanced server. |
| democlees | Oct 5, 2001 | Beta 2 | 1 out of 5 |
I'm not hangin around tryin to down this. Sort out your downloads norton>ME windows 56k |
| jbejm | Aug 12, 2001 | Beta 2 | 1 out of 5 |
Cant Even Finish Instalation. The Instalation stack on NORTON ANTIVIRUS INFORMATION WIZARD. Keep Pressing Next but nothing happens. Unistalled it and installed it back but same problem. So Can't Give a Rating on this one. |
| madmike | Sep 12, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 1 out of 5 |
like a diseased animal it needs putting down. Awful |
| emanresU deriseD | Sep 10, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 1 out of 5 |
The built-in uninstaller removes all traces? Uh, no. Total Uninstall (which has never lied) tells me the "uninstaller" leaves behind a ton of garbage. |
| CyberDoc999 | Sep 11, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 1 out of 5 |
Since they have never had a fast and light malware scanner this should be easy for them...... oh no ... guess again... It is the same bloated AV they have always shipped.... nothing new here.... Norton slowed my test computer down to a crawl..... and it is a 3 ghz dual core with 2 gigs ram This made my computer run very very slow! (anyone who likes this works for Norton) |
| garsh dangit | Sep 12, 2009 | 2010 17.0.0.136 | 1 out of 5 |
Norton Antivirus has always been an excellent product at preventing and removing viruses. If an AV product doesn't use as much resources as Norton, then it's not doing its job and will have very, very low virus detection and removal rates. Unfortunately, now it has product activation similar to that found in Windows. I frequently like to try alternative operating systems on my computer and much of the time this involves reinstalling Windows since I don't like VM's. It's bad enough that I have to call Microsoft all the time to reactivate Windows. I don't need the hassle of calling anyone else just to use the software I paid for. |
