Norton 2009 products now work with windows 7!

M

Im also running ess and Mse both are running scans right now. Eset is running abt 50Meg and mse 44. cpu around 50 % and running time for a 40 gig partition is about 3o minutes. this is on a 4-5 year old dell inspiron. I really wanted Norton to work out, again but it didnt.

Ken

gamepro127 said:

For the guy who said NOD32 was trash because it used 99% of CPU during a scan....
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/774/esetnot.png
My CPU is AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor @ 2.0ghz
ESET NOD32 was running on two (2) cores.
Now, how did you get your results? IDK!

Click to expand...

I was that guy although I didn't say it was trash.

If you take the little effort to go a few posts back, you can see how I tested it with screenshots and all.

If that post isn't clear enough I'm sorry.

Greetz

squonksc said:

I was that guy although I didn't say it was trash.

If you take the little effort to go a few posts back, you can see how I tested it with screenshots and all.

If that post isn't clear enough I'm sorry.

Greetz

Click to expand...

you did say in another thread that NOD32 was "horrible". Your test results are totally isolated. NOD32 has always proven to me, and many others, to use the least amount of resourses of any AV program. I have been using it for over 7 years and am constantly testing new products to see if I should switch. NOD32 runs better on every level then any other product I've tested.

tw33k said:

you did say in another thread that NOD32 was "horrible". Your test results are totally isolated. NOD32 has always proven to me, and many others, to use the least amount of resourses of any AV program. I have been using it for over 7 years and am constantly testing new products to see if I should switch. NOD32 runs better on every level then any other product I've tested.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did say horrible, not trash.
The comment was in context of my experience with it on my laptop, not in general.
If people are allowed to say Norton sucks, even though they didn't use it for years, at least I can say NOD is horrible while I am in the process of testing it on my laptop, aren't I?

Yes, it was an isolated result, and therefore you don't see me drawing any conclusions for anybody else.
People with slower hardware could draw their own conclusions, or better yet do their own test.
After your recommendation, and since I hadn't used it for a couple of years, I gave NOD a fair shot, and the only conclusion I drew was that it doesn't work well on that particular machine.

I don't see the Norton haters giving Norton a fair shot except for Ken.
The majority of negative posts against Norton were from people who ditched it years ago and never actually tried the 2009 or 2010 versions.

I wonder how many rant posts/threads there would be if Norton took five and a half hours to finish a scan and rendered their pc useless for that period of time.

Norton does let me continue to work on that machine while doing a full scan, and it finished the scan in 1hr, 34 minutes.
It found the 5 threats plus a bunch of low risk tracecookies that NOD overlooked.

When I have the time I will post the screenies and write the story.

Greetz

tw33k said:

I have been using it for over 7 years and am constantly testing new products to see if I should switch. NOD32 runs better on every level then any other product I've tested.

Click to expand...

Join Dinesh and I in trying Vipre. I think it outperforms Nod32.

TheIgster said:

Join Dinesh and I in trying Vipre. I think it outperforms Nod32.

Click to expand...

I m very impressed with vipre. it has detected things which nod32, mse and norton missed.

TheIgster said:

Join Dinesh and I in trying Vipre. I think it outperforms Nod32.

Click to expand...

interesting. I will be trying it out then

edit: Thought I might throw this up and when I load Vipre I'll do a comparison

tw33k said:

interesting. I will be trying it out then

edit: Thought I might throw this up and when I load Vipre I'll do a comparison

Click to expand...

Huh, on mine is uses a LOT less CPU while scanning.
I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor @ 2.0ghz

gamepro127 said:

Huh, on mine is uses a LOT less CPU while scanning.
I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor @ 2.0ghz

Click to expand...

yeah that's the highest it got during the scan on my dual core 1.67 but it wizzed thru the scan. It got to that point in the screen shot, which is almost half-way, in under 10 mins

tw33k said:

yeah that's the highest it got during the scan on my dual core 1.67 but it wizzed thru the scan. It got to that point in the screen shot, which is almost half-way, in under 10 mins

Click to expand...

Yea it takes about 40 minutes to scan 218GB of Data for me

gamepro127 said:

Yea it takes about 40 minutes to scan 218GB of Data for me

Click to expand...

yeah, it's definately quick and light. I'm gonna try Vipre out just because I've heard good things about it but it'll have to be something special to replace NOD32

Tews said:

I wouldnt let any of their bloatware near my computer .. and neither would Peter Norton!

:mad2:

Click to expand...

I Second that motion..... Stupid Bloatware!! I try to play a 3D game, it lags, so I do the obvious thing and check Task Manager to see how much CPU and RAM the game is using, and what do I find? Norton hogging 100% CPU and 4GB of RAM. Uninstalled it that second, and installed Avast! Home Edition and I'm thinking about buying the Professional Edition!

ZeshanA said:

Tews said:

I wouldnt let any of their bloatware near my computer .. and neither would Peter Norton!

:mad2:

Click to expand...

I Second that motion..... Stupid Bloatware!! I try to play a 3D game, it lags, so I do the obvious thing and check Task Manager to see how much CPU and RAM the game is using, and what do I find? Norton hogging 100% CPU and 4GB of RAM. Uninstalled it that second, and installed Avast! Home Edition and I'm thinking about buying the Professional Edition!

Click to expand...

Maybe you should try version 2009 OR 2010 which dident slow my games down at all..I still had 50-60 fps in COD4 medium-high settings.