Any user running their system with Norton 2009 products. Please state your experience and feedback here.

i've 2009 version.will installed till my 2008 xpired.i feel that 2009 low memory consumption, scan improved

after i install norton internet security 2009 on my win xp sp2, its autoprotect wont run at all.

Indeed Norton 2009 is very low in memory consumption and very light in CPU usgae. That is their main feature.



Sad to hear that. NIS 2009 seems to be OK with my Vista Ultimate X64.

Norton.. Fail..

lol but my house got NIS 04....

most funniest part is that the symantec technician support remote my pc and just install nis2008 over nis2009 on my pc when i asking for their support.

Which version of Norton are you on?



NIS 2004 and 2009 are completely different engine.

I think free antivirus like AVG, AVAST and Avira beats Norton by
Why pay for Norton Antivirus which has decades of complaint over the Internet? -.-

i heard norton internet security 2009 has improved on their scanning speed, definition lists n is lightweight.. dunno bout that
i used to use norton antivirus, it gets me mad when out of 10 virus detected only 1-2 can be deleted as the other are in memory used..
then i switched to kaspersky and solved all my problems
was very long ago tho

you may wanna give it another shot. norton improves tremendously since N360.

what norton product u using? antivirus? price?

I used to despise of Norton, but with many reviews being positive, I may try testing it after my exams.

For others, if you don't bother to read reviews or write them, stop writing things like AVG is better or Norton 2009 is lousy. Test before you say!

~Cheers!

I have been using Norton products since late 90s and was on N360 prior to the NIS 2009 which a bunch of us received during the recent Norton user meet up at "The Apartments" KLCC recently. The SRP for NIS is RM169 if I am not mistaken.



WOW, that's a constructive response. It is true that Norton 2009 products are light and easy to use. For those who have test drive the 09 products will somehow minimize the negative perceptions against Symantec or Norton. Give it a try... and it cost you nothing to try..

Just imagine that NIS 2009 can be installed and run from your system in less than a minute.

Sometimes I don't understand why people are so hard-up on Kaspersky. Maybe Kaspersky 7 was OK cos I tried it then too. But this year's Kaspersky sucks. Even failed latest VB100 test (and has failed a few times in last 1 year or so) and if you look at latest AV-Comparatives test, also didn't do well - some call them king of false positives ie. cathc good software and define them as bad.

I guess there are some people here who just like to echo what others say to them without testing for themselves the latest versions.

So why don't you test Norton before making a judgment? I am using NIS 08 right now and plan to trial 2009 soon once it expires before I renew, together with a few other brands. That I think is being fair.

Good to hear from another Norton user. I am satisfy with the 09 version as it is no longer memory hungry and utilize much lesser resources compares to the earlier version. Not much security issue for me as my net explorations are pretty clean as for now.

Great to hear that Norton has improved itself. through some readings, it was said that Norton is doing some form of whitelisting. Unsure if this is the same as Kaspersky iSwift technology. This would help it improve scan rate but i dunno if this will help on security side of things.
Take a read on this blog done by the ESET team on specific test of the 09 product. http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=153. The conclusion was that Norton is really fast on installation but there are some downside that experienced users may note.

Yeah, I've read the Eset blog entry ... and I'm not surprised Eset says that cos it came from the Eset folks right? So I would encourage users to refer to 3rd party data like AV-Test in Germany, Av-Comparatives, VB100, Passmark, etc.

Technically, I think Eset's argument is inaccurate because Eset is still relying on the Microsoft installer (MSI) and therefore can afford to use System Restore via Windows. As far as I understand, Norton 2009 has used its own installer which bypasses MSI so of course, you expect them to perform similarly on any configuration of MSI because it doesn't use them.

From a security standpoint, bypassing MSI is also better since many threats today attack MSI itself.

And as far as I know, Norton's 2009 has a technology called Norton Insight which is more than whitelisting. Can try googling this?

For a new guys here, daddyof4, you sure have quite some insight in this new program.

Norton Insight is similar to iSwift of Kaspersky, only thing is, it has a few more features than the usual iSwift. That is, of course mentioned by the community blog of Symantec.

Kaspersky used to be the sing-song of everyone because of people like me. We promote products that work during that time. Kaspersky had the least FPs (Other than ESET NOD32), and most extensive virus signature database. BitDefender was filled with FPs actually, or it would have been on par with Kaspersky.

Norton then had a not too bad database, but the notorious slow downs made it quite a put off. McAfee and TrendMicro is totally out of the picture.

I used to use AVIRA AntiVir as a substitute for Kaspersky as the installation is not as invasive as Kaspersky. Kaspersky 5.xx which used ADS for tagging (similar to the current iSwift and Norton Insight) BSOD my system after uninstallaion, which is a common problem then.

I have much to say, but i hope this concise history would be adequate for some questions.

~Cheers!

hi,
yes I understand your point but the comparison was pretty exterior and we are not debating on the performance and the effectiveness of the AV so the test is pretty free from controversy, IMHO but of course one should not look at this and assume Norton is less effective or quick.