Read more.Quote:
New reputation-based technology in Symantec?s latest security software targets the malware ?long tail?.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New reputation-based technology in Symantec?s latest security software targets the malware ?long tail?.
through years of experience I can honestly say that no product from symantec has actually worked. I'm also inclined to believe that most of their "security" team spend their time writing viruses AND I was shocked to find that there are a lot more problems than I had (basically had to reinstall windows) in a large network environment. It's all over the internet in the forums....here's my favourite one:
Install S.A. realise it's crap...when trying to uninstall it asks you for a password which actually doesn't exist because it was never entered and symantec were clueless...so it becomes impossible to uninstall.... anyway it's all in the past now...:)
I meant worked for me at least :)
King_Of_Bloat_Ware !!!! Warning: Stay away from this product
Why do they need to create a special netbook edition? Couldn't Symantec just make the standard version use less resources?
So using 5 - 8 mb is bloated is it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jace007
Only jumps to 18mb when scanning.
Hardly 'bloatware'
I think your still living in 2005
Where do you get these memory use figures from - as they seem very, very low for a system that is supposed to have firewall, AVAS, and mail/IM intercept? Heck, I've seen *nix AV's that are larger than that! (and yes, I know that *nix systems don't actually need AV themselves - but they do if they're fileservers for Windows clients)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lateknight
I've got no axe to grind with Symantec, and used to use Norton AV until the version-on-version slowdown and increased footprint became too much to bear. That, plus dumb way that they resell it in this country - where it's cheaper to buy a new copy than pay the renewal price (and I got a two different ones depending on whether it was the cost sent to me or looked up on their website).
Interesting discussion because the AVAS/firewall on my main Windows box is due to expire and I don't think I'm going to renew with Zonealarm - McAfee's price offer looks too good to ignore (<£5 per seat).
Quorum stuff looks interesting but - as the article says - every AV vendor is desparately trying to get away from the "me too" factor.
Bob.
Symantec Endpoint Security (New name for the Symantec Antivirus) sits at around 5MB memory useage for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Apparently Symantec have been addressing the issues with the memory useage so it's much better now than they used to be.
Is this really true and that Symantec have addressed the bloating issue. I used to like the feel and power of the norton software but like many others got fed up with it choaking my system. I may give a trial version of this a go if all true.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark19632
Norton AV2009 and later are nothing like NAV2002 through 2008 when it comes to resource usage. Even the Internet Security suite performs well in these versions.
5MB ! :O_o1: That's very impressive, now if they've managed to slash the cpu requirement by a similar amount (I'm still struggling along with an old single-core Athlon 64) then that's a definite possibility. Maybe time to see if PC World's got any special offers going. :telephone:Quote:
Originally Posted by mark19632
Thanks for the info. :D
The latest NAV verions have indeed turned a corner. In terms of cpu usage, and memory hogging it's now comparable to the likes of Nod32 and kaspersky. Go Norton I guess lol.