Norton Internet Security 2010 for 6 months free

gamepro127: "Theses "results" prove NOTHING"

it shows the performance in that test....

"Look at ESET, 4% again! And ESET has a pretty well firewall,"

has it ?

it didn´t pass the test...

i have done some tests with Comodo´s LeakTest (CLT) on ESET´s firewall,
it had many leaks, it was so bad that i first could not believe what i saw, so i ran the test once again with the very same result.

a small extract from my post on windowsclub:
"i tried different firewall settings with ESET: auto, interactive, policy.
the best result was 4 leaks, with the other 2 settings it was 5 leaks.

i tested first with my "admin account", there were (as i expected) a few more leaks, then i tested with my normal "user account" (UAC at max.)

Well because of those firewall tests you guys are referring to, I use Norton AV 2010 and Comodo Firewall... No problems at all, Comodo does ask alot of questions though.... lol

The Cool Guy said:

Hey cheeriokilla, what backround picture are you using?

Crysis 2.

I'm a big big Crysis fan.

Here you go =):

Crynet | Systems

Zen00 said:

If my guess is right, it's from Crisis.

Yup.

I tried it on.. good but not fancy.. why do we need to see the processor details and all.. running norton 2010 is like piloting a plane with so many features.. An antivirus should be something that just sit there and do its job.. I just wonder and feel pity for all thsoe people installing that free version. what a pain it will be to remove that after...

ashvin said:

I tried it on.. good but not fancy.. why do we need to see the processor details and all.. running norton 2010 is like piloting a plane with so many features.. An antivirus should be something that just sit there and do its job.. I just wonder and feel pity for all thsoe people installing that free version. what a pain it will be to remove that after...

Not to worry. The uninstall is superb.
CCleaner found only 3 registry entries after uninstall, that were empty.

Try uninstalling Office and see what's still left in the registry.

The cockpit thing you mention, is a matter of taste.
Lots of geeks like those things.

And you don't have to click and see it.
When not invoked by the user, Norton 2010 does actually just sits there,
waiting for the moment you take a leak or go make some sandwiches,
in which case it starts doing it's job.
When you get back and move the mouse it stops immediately.

In all the months I've used it, it never intruded even once with stupid questions most AV's/FW's ask.
That is after you set it to silent of course, or maybe you missed that option?

I really don't see how anyone can objectively call Norton intrusive,
or make comments that say basically the same.
It's complete nonsense.

So far the only valid con I've seen is that Symantec takes too long to mark some malicious sites as bad.
The rest is mostly down talk from people who haven't even tried the 2010 version.
(Not implying you)

Greetings

cheeriokilla said:

gamepro127 said:

Crazy Buddhist said:

Were it free for life, I would burden no computer of mine with Norton, or any Symantec product (except their standalone infection removal tools :) ), just as I would not put a heavy load on the back of a small child.

Comodo firewall and Avast or Antivir plus any 2 of Malwarebytes/Spybot S&D/Adaware/SuperAntiSpywareDoctor gives better protection, lighter footprint - and is free.

Norton's firewall is full of holes.

Crazy B

Lighter footprint?
COMODO FIREWALL: 11MB
Avast: 60MB (Web shield enabled)
Antivir: 11MB
--------------
Norton internet security 2010: 3MB
Norton 360 V4: 5.5MB
Norton Antivirus: 3.1MB

You defintally dont know what "Lighter footprint" means

And Norton and COMODO both have great firewalls! Neither have any holes (All Firewalls have holes, but neither have lots)

Yup.

NIS is one of the lightest IS suites around.

EDIT: I mean, it's not ~3MB light, but according to recent tests, it's around ~12MB's most of the time.

EDIT 2: Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 is also pretty light on resources:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6517/kisy.jpg

I do know what lighter footprint means. I'm not talking disk space but processor cycles.

Kaspersky is certainly a much better product that Norton, I'd agree.

Crazy B

SquonkSC said:

Not to worry. The uninstall is superb.
CCleaner found only 3 registry entries after uninstall, that were empty.

Try uninstalling Office and see what's still left in the registry.

The cockpit thing you mention, is a matter of taste.
Lots of geeks like those things.

And you don't have to click and see it.
When not invoked by the user, Norton 2010 does actually just sits there,
waiting for the moment you take a leak or go make some sandwiches,
in which case it starts doing it's job.
When you get back and move the mouse it stops immediately.

In all the months I've used it, it never intruded even once with stupid questions most AV's/FW's ask.
That is after you set it to silent of course, or maybe you missed that option?

I really don't see how anyone can objectively call Norton intrusive,
or make comments that say basically the same.
It's complete nonsense.

So far the only valid con I've seen is that Symantec takes too long to mark some malicious sites as bad.
The rest is mostly down talk from people who haven't even tried the 2010 version.
(Not implying you)

Greetings

I was going to type something like this right before I read this post. Been anti-Norton for a longtime - I don't mean a couple years, I mean a couple decades. Got a 1-year free subscription to their 2010 suite at the New Efficiency thing, thought I'd at least try it. Have not used 2010 for months, but I must say that so far it has far surpassed my expectations. Trust me, it's not the same crap they've been putting out.