 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Norton 2008 Review Alright, I bought Norton 2008. Now, I'm going to remind you that this review is from a person who absolutely hated anything Norton so this isn't biased.
Computer Specs
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile 1.6 GHz
RAM: 2 GB DDR2
Now onto the review...
Speed of Computer after installing
In the past, Norton products slowed most computers down to a crawl. This original issue was the reason why I left any and all Norton products, but with 2008 that doesn't seem to be an issue anymore.
Granted, this computer I have it installed on has a dual-core processor and 2 GB of RAM so really, I can't say if this is helping the situation any, but I'm sure it does help. I have to try installing it on a computer that only has one processor.
Processor usage does sit a bit high, like around 34% usage but it doesn't at all effect the speed of the computer. In fact, I half expected the compute to be slower but that definitely isn't the case.
RAM Usage
I have two GB of RAM on this thing and as I'm writing this I'm using about 1 GB of it. Granted, FireFox is using close to 100 MBs of RAM so that could be one of the issues. I'll try seeing memory usage when FireFox isn't open.
Detection
Haven't tried this so I can't make a review about this just yet. I guess I have to visit some crack sites. 
Most likely I'll post some more review data once I take a peek into the underlining memory usage of the computer using something like Process Explorer or Process Monitor.
Overall, it is shaping up to be a lot better than in the past. Norton has definitely improved a lot since the days the major bloat. They've definitely done a lot to make this thing a lot less bulky.
--
Tom |
|
 JTM1051Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-08
Moorpark, CA
kudos:1 | FYI: In PCMag's Security Suite Smackdown 2008 NIS 2008 won the Editor's Choice.
|
|
 CudniLa Merma - VigiladoPremium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13 | reply to trparky
Can it be, return of Norton? Stay tuned
Cudni |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to trparky
I LOVE IT!
I HATE IT!
I LOVE IT!
I HATE IT!
I LOVE IT!
I HATE IT!
There, that should eliminate the need for most people to post in this thread.  |
|
BPpark
join:2002-03-02
Silver Spring, MD | reply to trparky
I'm using Norton 2006 on a 1G RAM machine running WinXP and my subscription is about to expire. I'm thinking of looking for a replacement because the program is a nuisance, like an an intrusive nanny. I was going to ask around this forum for recommendations on a better product, but your review sparked my interest. In what ways, specifically, is the program improved? |
|
 PetePumaHow many lumps do you wantPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-13
Arlington, VA | You would barely recognize the '08 (and '07, to a lesser extent) vs. the '06 versions. A lot of things have been streamlined (footprint, startup time) and the detection engine has improved pretty significantly as well. The firewall is also a lot less intrusive and less "chatty". |
|
 OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | reply to trparky
I hate Norton products as well  |
|
 planet
join:2001-11-05
Oz
kudos:1 | trparky,
Will 2008 update def files from a limited account or do you need to update from an admin as in past versions? |
|
OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
1 edit | You need to uninstall it Norton sucks big time and looks like Norton 2008 reviews very good: »www.download.com/Norton-AntiViru···885.html |
|
trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1 | reply to planet
I'm running it on Vista with UAC still enabled and it doesn't ask me for a UAC prompt so I'm guessing that they did something with how the program updates.
--
Tom |
|
4 edits | Norton Internet security 2008, runs better than kaspersky "KIS"... No bloat. Well see... 
Sames specs as first poster, on a laptop.
Will install the program on single processor today,amd 2100 running xp, 1 gig ram. Norton security 2008 does run faster.dont know pros and cons.
whatever.. |
|
| KIS doesn't bloat your pc. I've been using it for years and personally would be hard pressed to rate Norton over KIS. Symantec may have improved Norton(and it needed it big-time) but I doubt if it's in the same class as KIS or F-Secure!! |
|
| reply to trparky
Does the new Norton still include CCAPP.EXE which, on my XP PC more often than not refused to shut down when I was trying to reboot leaving me the only option of turning off at the button and restarting that way. |
|
PetePumaHow many lumps do you wantPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-13
Arlington, VA | Yes, but as with all things it's not the same. I haven't noticed any CCAPP issues on shutdown (and did see them in the past with older versions). |
|
| reply to trparky
So it would seem that NAV 2008 is a worthwhile upgrade from NAV 2006 then? (I have the 2006 Systemworks Premier Suite and 2006 Norton firewall and its renewal upgrade time again soon and I need to start making decisions)
NefCanuck |
|
TeMerc
join:2004-01-22
Phoenix, AZ | reply to trparky
I've just installed this earlier in the day. Install was smooth and easy. Not long enough for any sort of real eval about system performance, but on the other hand, having run Norton products for several years, I never had problems.
Previously only had 256RAM, now running 1.25, so I doubt I'll have any probs.
I'll keep people apprised on system performance differences.
Won't be able to supply any sort of other eval, like security, as I don't ever get anything beyond an occasional tracking cookie. |
|
OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | reply to trparky
Norton detection rate sucks big time. |
|
2 edits | reply to Doubledee32
said by Doubledee32:KIS doesn't bloat your pc. I've been using it for years and personally would be hard pressed to rate Norton over KIS. Symantec may have improved Norton(and it needed it big-time) but I doubt if it's in the same class as KIS or F-Secure!! Almost the same here except I use just plain Kaspersky AV and Kaspersky Anti Hacker. Hate bundled suite packages. Never run AV in real time anyway either. There is NO WAY IN THE WORLD I would or could rate Norton over Kaspersky. Kaspersky has ALWAYS had one of the highest detection rates where as Norton is generally at the bottom.
Shouldn't have been to hard for Norton to improve it's product when it's been at the bottom of the barrel for so long.
Another thing about Norton. Try uninstalling it now and see what kind of garbage is left behind and if your computer still even works afterwards! I'd rather install AOHELL on somebodies computer than anything of Nortons!! |
|
 amysheehanPremium,VIP,MVM
join:1999-12-21
Huntington Beach, CA
kudos:9
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to Oleg
Symantec results 8/07 |
said by Oleg:Norton detection rate sucks big time. I have to disagree:
From the August 2007 AV Comparitives On-demand tests results.
Source: »www.av-comparatives.org/
TOP 3:
G Data AVK 99.31% 12/12 polymorphic Advanced+
Norton 98.80% 12/12 Advanced+
KAV 98.46% 12/12 Advanced+
-amy-
--
DSLR Phishtracker |
|
mvduPremium
join:2003-07-28
Collegeville, PA
kudos:1 | reply to trparky
But there are other measures besides AV Comparatives. I see no evidence that Norton improved their response time for new threats. |
|
