View Full Version : Norton AV Gaming Edition
http://www.symantec.com/norton/norton-antivirus-gaming-edition
has anyone got/tried this? any good? opinions?
six_storm
02-09-09, 09:21 PM
Why would anyone purchase AV software for personal use anymore? If you want AV protection that's lightweight and won't get in the way, get Avira Free Edition. But hey, if you wanna waste $30, go ahead and purchase it. ;)
crainger
02-09-09, 10:37 PM
I trialled it. Was quite impressed. Avira Free is great, but what do you do when you want to scan email or scan just on file? Hmm?!
Norton sukz donkey ballz period, AVG free is where it's at.
crainger
02-10-09, 05:35 AM
AVG is more bloated now than the new Nortons AV.
AVG is more bloated now than the new Nortons AV.
Your opinion of course but i've used AVG on the last 30 + rigs built & never had a problem, now Norton well thats another story, 90% of the rigs i repair have issues with Norton hogging system resources, missing viruses & trojans etc & generally being a pain in da ass.
Zone Alarm, McAfee, you name em, all perform less well than AVG, but hey what do i know?
six_storm
02-10-09, 06:36 AM
I trialled it. Was quite impressed. Avira Free is great, but what do you do when you want to scan email or scan just on file? Hmm?!
I don't use a mail client, I leave all of that online and Gmail does a really good job of filtering out spam and bad crap. As for files, I right-click on the file and do "Scan File". ;)
AVG 8.0 and above is nothing but bloatware to me now. Makes everything slower.
XDanger
02-10-09, 12:32 PM
Zone Alarm, McAfee, you name em, all perform less well than AVG, but hey what do i know?
Dont take it personally but AVG isnt what it used to be. The full version caught 96% of 2008's virus' in tests vs Aviras 99%
Doing the same thing 30 times means you havent learnt from the mistake ;)
McAfee !? pff
AVG is more bloated now than the new Nortons AV.
i agree. for a long time i was using avg but ever since 8 came out. i think avg is now doing the sucking of the donkey ballz
I trialled it. Was quite impressed. Avira Free is great, but what do you do when you want to scan email or scan just on file? Hmm?!
For email scanning, get the paid version. I mean, if you're going to pay for AV, might as well get the best :) I'd even take it over Kapersky due to the better suite, familiar interface, and gaming mode.
As for scanning one file, you right-click the file, and select "scan selected files with Avira." I am still running the free version, and it does this for me.
Norton sukz donkey ballz period, AVG free is where it's at.
AVG Free is great, if you don't mind a bloated AV that catches just over half of known viruses.
Zone Alarm, McAfee, you name em, all perform less well than AVG, ?
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
AV Product - % of Windows Viruses - free AV highlighed in bold
Kapersky - 92%
Avira - 91%
McAfee - 90%
MS OneCare - 84%
F-Secure - 68%
AVK - 61%
BitDefender/Sophos - 60% (exact tie)
TrustPort - 58%
Norton - 57%
NOD32 - 57% (3 fewer detection than Norton)
AVG - 56%
Avast - 55%
eScan - 51%
VBA32 - 36%
Norman ASA - 9% (yes, nine percent)
but hey what do i know?
Apparently, not much...
bacon12
02-10-09, 04:39 PM
The new Norton software is very nice, and lightweight. If I were buying one I would consider it.
nekrosoft13
02-10-09, 05:06 PM
The new Norton software is very nice, and lightweight. If I were buying one I would consider it.
well said
The new Norton software is very nice, and lightweight. If I were buying one I would consider it.
It definitely got my attention. However, if I were paying for an AV suite, it would either be Kaspersky (best virus detection rate), or Avira (best overall detection rate, includes a gamer mode as well). Not sure how well Avira's gamer mode compares to Norton's, but the free version of Avira is lightweight to begin with.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
AV Product - % of Windows Viruses - free AV highlighed in bold
Kapersky - 92%
Avira - 91%
McAfee - 90%
MS OneCare - 84%
F-Secure - 68%
AVK - 61%
BitDefender/Sophos - 60% (exact tie)
TrustPort - 58%
Norton - 57%
NOD32 - 57% (3 fewer detection than Norton)
AVG - 56%
Avast - 55%
eScan - 51%
VBA32 - 36%
Norman ASA - 9% (yes, nine percent)
Apparently, not much...
First of all, you should mention that you took the numbers from the pro-active test. Which means that they install the programs but use old definition files.
Important in this test is not only high warn rate, but also low number of false positives which you did not show. Avira and Kapersky which you show as highest rated, had many false positives, meaning that they warn you things are viruses when they are not (i.e. guessing a lot).
The only program that got "Advanced+" rating was in fact Nod32 (Eset), which has few false positives and above average detection rate.
Regarding Performance
Below is a screen from AV-Comparatives performance test summary. Remember that it is done october 2008. For more info just go to their site and check the tests out.
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09073/avcomp_perfsumm_oct08942.png
Even though this is not the new "Gaming Edition, you can see that Symantec's Norton Antivirus is rated as very fast (just below Eset Nod32), while having Advanced+ in on-demand test (updated definitions) and also Advanced in pro-active test (few false positives, while below average detection).
This means that it is a very good Antivirus application.
mailman2
02-10-09, 11:12 PM
First of all, you should mention that you took the numbers from the pro-active test. Which means that they install the programs but use old definition files.
Important in this test is not only high warn rate, but also low number of false positives which you did not show. Avira and Kapersky which you show as highest rated, had many false positives, meaning that they warn you things are viruses when they are not (i.e. guessing a lot).
The only program that got "Advanced+" rating was in fact Nod32 (Eset), which has few false positives and above average detection rate.
Regarding Performance
Below is a screen from AV-Comparatives performance test summary. Remember that it is done october 2008. For more info just go to their site and check the tests out.
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09073/avcomp_perfsumm_oct08942.png
I had been using AVG till 8 came out, now it sucks.
NOD32 was a favorite until recently the false positives are getting crazy with NOD32.
crainger
02-10-09, 11:14 PM
As for scanning one file, you right-click the file, and select "scan selected files with Avira." I am still running the free version, and it does this for me.
::o:
I lost that option somehow. I assumed it wasn't in the free version. A reinstall did the trick. Happy now. ::):
I had been using AVG till 8 came out, now it sucks.
NOD32 was a favorite until recently the false positives are getting crazy with NOD32.
Nod32 is rated with one of the lowest false positives so it doesn't match. With any other you would normally have gotten more false positives.
First of all, you should mention that you took the numbers from the pro-active test. Which means that they install the programs but use old definition files.
Important in this test is not only high warn rate, but also low number of false positives which you did not show. Avira and Kapersky which you show as highest rated, had many false positives, meaning that they warn you things are viruses when they are not (i.e. guessing a lot).
The only program that got "Advanced+" rating was in fact Nod32 (Eset), which has few false positives and above average detection rate.
Regarding Performance
Below is a screen from AV-Comparatives performance test summary. Remember that it is done october 2008. For more info just go to their site and check the tests out.
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09073/avcomp_perfsumm_oct08942.png
Even though this is not the new "Gaming Edition, you can see that Symantec's Norton Antivirus is rated as very fast (just below Eset Nod32), while having Advanced+ in on-demand test (updated definitions) and also Advanced in pro-active test (few false positives, while below average detection).
This means that it is a very good Antivirus application.
Excellent post, and further proves my original point, which was that AVG is not better than every AV out there. My response was to show how bad AVG is by today's standards, and your post only further confirmed that.
And btw, while NOD32 does have fewer false positives, Avira and Kapersky still catch significantly more real viruses. I've also never had a false positive with Avira, as they're a rare thing on any AV. I have had a few for AVG though, back when it thought World of Warcraft's patcher was a virus. Bottom line is, you can make a case for multiple products as the best AV (Norton for gaming speed, Kapersky for virus detections, Avira for overall detections, and NOD32 is a balanced program). However, AVG is utter crap by today's standards, even for a free product, and that is proven again and again by both your post and mine.
avg free + avira free
...for me.
LordJuanlo
02-11-09, 12:01 PM
I'm using BitDefender 2009, just upgraded from 2008 when my license expired. I can use it in 3 different computers and it has an automatic gaming mode too. Price is $24.95 per year, it's a good deal imo
Badboy_12345
02-11-09, 12:02 PM
Have run nod32 for 3 years now and will run it for many more years.
Best AV there is.
Installing norton software is asking for trouble. Not even if people say that they have fixed their crap, I will never install a norton software, EVER!
The evil it did to peoples computers back then is worse than a virus would ever do.
Norton has giving me more headache than any other software that I have ever come in contact with. Whenever some user had norton installed the only fool-proof way to fix the computer was to format c: then reinstall windows and everything.
evil I say
norton = EVIL!
zoomy942
02-11-09, 12:16 PM
nod32 beta 4 ftw. hands down.
mailman2
02-11-09, 02:19 PM
NOD32 started tagging all kinds of things as viruses last night moving them to quarantine. I uninstalled and reinstalled NOD32, rescanned and it's fine now. Something happened to NOD32 but it's fixed now.
And btw, while NOD32 does have fewer false positives, Avira and Kapersky still catch significantly more real viruses.
Yes true, they both are really good AV applications. Very high detection rate.
Yes true, they both are really good AV applications. Very high detection rate.
I think it comes with the territory. The more viruses that it is capable of finding, the more false positives are likely to crop up. If you chart those results, it's almost a linear gain. Despite the lower detection rate, I don't recommend people "not" use NOD32, I just tend to recommend Avira for the aforementioned reasons.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.