This is what slows systems down

  MichelleC 14:56 28 Sep 06
Locked

This is quite interesting click here

  Diemmess 15:48 28 Sep 06

Also the offshoot link on how effective anti-virus score.

Some scholar could do a PhD on comparisons of different software on a standard piece of hardware and so on.
By the time the thesis was published it would be so huge no one would read it anyway.

Your link seems to confirm the impression that some best known products bog things down very badly.

  Jimmy14 15:54 28 Sep 06

what a load of rubbish frankly. It's funny how PC Advisors in depth security software test about 2/3 months ago showed that Norton wasn't the biggest system hog and infact one of the lowest.

  gudgulf 17:07 28 Sep 06

I think you will find the PCA test looked at cpu usage during scanning....not system boot time.

Are you suggesting that the results in the link were simply made up to annoy Norton fans?

  Cymro. 18:22 28 Sep 06

If the link has not offended Norton fans it has certainly offended Jimmy14

  Jimmy14 19:34 28 Sep 06

If I remember correctly it correctly it wasn't the cpu usage during just scanning it was also just the program running in the background. What I don't understand is how Norton was one of the lowest to be crowned a "system hog" and now I'm seeing it takes longer to boot up and all that malarky. My laptop takes a minute to load up xp at the most equipped with NIS 2006 and my cpu usage whilst on xp if just letting it run in the background is below 10% Norton is a great program and people sitting judging it or making comments, especially urging people who want advice to use a free one don't know everything about it unless they actually use it and have proof regarding the tests from the link in this thread.

Cymro.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it offended but it annoys me when this topic arises all the time and I'm sitting here using Norton without a glitch or problem.

No matter what people say, the testers at PC Advisor share the same view that Norton Internet Security is number one and passed the specified tests with flying colours in the previous magazine from which I quote.

  Mr Mistoffelees 19:58 28 Sep 06

Norton Internet Security, 2005 in my case, only adds around 15 seconds to the boot-up time on my PC, a small price to pay to have such effective security running (check the reviews in PC Advisor and Personal Computer World). If such a short delay really is a problem for you, then you have a serious problem with impatience. As for Norton being a system hog, it is not, simple as that. Just run a full system scan manually when the PC is otherwise going to be idle, with real-time protection enabled you don't need to do it often or have it regularly scheduled..

  rdave13 20:02 28 Sep 06

I certainly agree with you that Norton is getting better. I managed to uninstall it from my sister's pc without a hitch...;)

  Jimmy14 20:13 28 Sep 06

what you said is completely true. Good coment and Rdave13 thanks for the support. Getting better is what's happening.

  mammak 20:31 28 Sep 06

Very interesting thread and an excellent topic
keep up the good work.

  gudgulf 20:54 28 Sep 06

I used Norton Internet security for three full years and through 4 different versions........I stopped using it following a number of serious issues with the 2005 version.

I don't have any issues with its performance as my pc has always been well above the performance level where issues arise.Nor it's scanning efficiency.

However.......I have seen it reduce slower,older pcs to a crawl and have first hand experience of the difficulty in fully removing it from other peoles pcs when it has gone wrong.

What I will admit to you is that I recently retried it (NIS 2005) on a fresh install of XP pro SP2/minimal programs and my AOL broadband.Mainly as a result of your enthusism for the product I might add!

It added 11 running processes and used in total just under 150MB of memory on initial boot rising to almost 300MB (that's for all Norton processes) after a couple of days running.

That's rather high compared to a set up using NOD32/Comodo Firewall which uses no more than 70MB and only 3 running processes.And that includes running a scan..which takes around 14% cpu usage.Background on access scanning of opening files and running programs is practically nil.

If NIS uses around 10% under those circumstances it might explain why I got slowdowns in some games.That seems high to me.....are you SURE it wasn't referring to actual scanning...which does run as a background process?

Technically with 2GB of RAM on board and a fast cpu that's irrelevant to me....but many of Nortons quirks soon made me remember why I took it off in the first place.

It's why it only lasted a week on my system this time.

That's my experience......NOT just opinion.

And I am not one to advise people to remove Norton if they are happy with it.And many are!

Just bear in mind that most anti Norton opinion expressed on these Forums and on many many websites worldwide are not all sour grapes...most are based on the personal experiences of experienced pc users.

Based on the link provided by MichelleC Norton are aware of the critisism and have responded by releasing a much improved product.......I guess that means that they take such tests seriously.

That can only be good for users of Norton.

For the rest of us there are alternatives that provide at least as good a product with overall less system overheads.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

20 groundbreaking 3D animation techniques

How to mine Bitcoin on Mac