Windows 7: Norton Internet Security 2011

Full Review

I've been running NIS since the 2001 version and I've never had any problems.

These latest ones since 2009 have been extremely light on resources and the Norton Community forum is proving a big success in giving user feedback to the people who matter.

Unfortunately there are still people posting on the net that it is a resource hog even though they haven't used it for years.

NIS is now continually coming at or towards the top of reviews.

Yeah, earlier versions left a bad taste in some people's mouths (I being one of them). And because of this, even though it ranks fairly high on most independent testing, I would not use or recommend it.

I agree Symantec has made huge improvements in the way NIS uses resources, and so that is probably not a valid reason to avoid it any longer. That said, in my opinion, ALL suites hog resources, typically because they contain features most users just don't need, or want.

I have two reasons I'm not crazy about NIS in particular - well, four really, but I'll get back to them later.

1. I don't like how it comes bundled on new systems and then marketed in such a way that users, now used to the UI, are intimidated to remove it or try something else when the trial period expires, for fear something will break and the badguys will take over.

2. It rarely uninstalls cleanly, often leaving not only orphaned files and folders, but (and this is what irritates me) services and applets that continue to load during start up. It is typically necessary to use special removal tools to rid the drive, and Registry of all traces.

Now back to the other 2 reasons - which are not exclusive to just NIS, but to most suites from the big players.

3. They costs money - not only to buy initially, but there are recurring costs too. When there are many, fully capable, less intrusive "free" alternatives out there, I just don't see why home (non-commercial) users should have to pay.

4. Way back many years ago when Microsoft really was trying to rule the world, MS tried to put, among other things, an anti-virus applet into Windows because they foresaw virus activity was increasing and more and more badguys were discovering how profitable, and easy to exploit, this new thing called the World Wide Web was. But Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA, and a few other early AV makers cried and whined to Congress and the EU that Microsoft was trying to monopolize the world and push them out of business. They testified it was their job to rid the world of viruses, worms, etc. And Congress and the EU, already hounding MS for their strong-armed marketing techniques, agreed with the AV community.

We see how well that worked out! They failed miserably! Malware has mushroom insidiously, not only in quantity, but in maliciousness and in methods of delivery. And in the meantime, the biased IT media and Microsoft/Bill Gates bashers have relentlessly blamed Microsoft, and not the badguys, or the politicians who failed to fund law enforcement of even the existing rules against malware and software piracy (a major source of malware).

I ask, "what incentive does Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA, Trend Micro, etc. have to rid the world of malware?" They don't have any! If they stopped malware at the source, that will put them out of business and they don't want that.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has huge incentives to rid the world of malware because they keep getting blamed for the security situation we are in today - even though it is the badguys (to include corrupt ISPs and 3rd world government leaders) who put us here.

So now, there are several excellent anti-malware products, to include Microsoft Security Essentials (which I use on all my systems) that are totally free, not huge resource hogs, and do not contain all sorts of unnecessary features. Most importantly, these programs are just as capable of protecting us from the badguys. They cost nothing initially, there are no recurring renewal fees, and there is plenty of free technical support available. For those reasons, I cannot justify paying for, or recommending a product that offers no real advantage over something we can get for free.

Same here. Norton Internet Security 2009 allowed Malware into my computer and kept it a secret until another security program alerted me to the infection and it was removed. Just a note according to Sysinternals Process Explorer NIS 2009 used over 300 MB of RAM while it was on my computer since then I have installed much more sophisticated and comprehensive free computer security protection that Windows Task Manager reports as using just 5.2 MB of RAM. I'll let the reader decide whether NIS is bloated or not.

~Maxx~
.

It's 2010 and the 2011 version of Norton is released...

Uses about 10MB on my machine. Doesn't seem bloated to me.

It is not possible to rid the world of malware. Malware cannot be stopped "at the source" any more than any other kind of criminal behavior. It is a problem inherent in human nature and neither governments nor private companies will ever eliminate it completely. There's plenty of incentive for anti-malware companies to try as hard as they can to minimize malware though, and that's to make money.

Malware could be stopped at the source.. if domains that serve it were forced to shut down until they can prove they're no longer serving it. But the point of NIS and any other internet security suite is to stop infections before they get into your computer.. and NIS just doesn't do a very good job at that. I have seen the proof of it numerous times in infected HDDs that I've cleaned for my friends. NIS doesn't warn you about infections it detects but can't stop. And nothing can warn you about infections it can't detect.

Features like anti-phishing, anti- ...everything seem to be aimed at the first time web user. If you have ANY sort of experience you will know what a phishing website or email is. And when not to give your information out. I see no need to install hundreds of MB's for what is easily solved by common sense. For example, Keep your system up to date with the latest patches, don't visit or give information to dodgy websites or emails etc etc.

This computer of mine came with Norton 2010 suite installed by default. I immediately removed it and installed MSE.

Your statement roughly translates as "if the world were a better place there wouldn't be malware". I agree, but it isn't yet. Malware could be significantly minimized if governments would create and support international law with regard to cyber-crime, but that level of cooperation does not exist yet in the international community.

Regarding NIS let's agree to talk about only the 2010/2011 products which have much more sophisticated technology. There's no point in referring to the problems and limitations of older versions, all of which have been addressed in 2010/2011. I've personally not experienced NIS detecting an infection and then not producing a warning if it can't remove it. I would be interested in seeing examples of this. More generally I don't believe that any security suite is perfect. Regardless of which product is used I recommend Prevx for a real-time second opinion. Prevx can be used for free for improved detection.

Do you believe there are other suites that do a better job than NIS? I've had experience with the latest versions of McAfee, Trend Micro and Panda. They were much heavier on resources which made them unacceptable for older computers.