Symantec Antivirus Corporate vs. Norton Anti-Virus

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Johnny Canuck, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.

    I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows XP)
    at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.

    Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one is
    better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the system
    safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).

    Thanks

    JC
     
    Johnny Canuck, Oct 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Johnny Canuck

    donnie Guest

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:16:40 GMT, "Johnny Canuck"
    <> wrote:

    >This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.
    >
    >I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows XP)
    >at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.
    >
    >Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one is
    >better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the system
    >safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).
    >
    >Thanks
    >
    >JC
    >

    #######################
    Norton is made by Symantec, so I don't know how much of a difference
    there is.
     
    donnie, Oct 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. McAfee's corp. AV products are better than their retail products.

    NAV may be retail and SAV may be corp. so their might be a difference.
    I wouldn't know because I won't touch their AV products if you paid me to.

    Dave




    "donnie" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    | On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:16:40 GMT, "Johnny Canuck"
    | <> wrote:
    |
    | >This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.
    | >
    | >I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows XP)
    | >at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.
    | >
    | >Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one is
    | >better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the system
    | >safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).
    | >
    | >Thanks
    | >
    | >JC
    | >
    | #######################
    | Norton is made by Symantec, so I don't know how much of a difference
    | there is.
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Johnny Canuck

    Leythos Guest

    In article <sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12>,
    says...
    > This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.
    >
    > I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows XP)
    > at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.
    >
    > Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one is
    > better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the system
    > safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).


    I run Symantec Corp Edition products on all of our Home and Business
    systems, and all of our clients run Symantec AV products. While using
    Symantec products we've not experienced any compromises by viruses, not
    had any installation or performance problems, and feel reasonably virus
    secure.

    I have also used Norton 2000~2004 products on other systems, and we
    avoid the Suites (NIS, NPF, etc..), we only use Norton Anti-Virus. It's
    been the same, reliable, easy, secure, not one system compromised.

    We just did a cleaning of a Sorority at a local university, 40 machines,
    from all different places, mostly Windows XP, about 6 Windows 98, 1 Win
    ME, and 1 MAC. The systems were running mostly McAfee (about 25 of
    them), about 10 were running Norton 2002 & 2004, and several were
    running CA AV software.

    There were three machines that were clean - they had Norton AV 2004 on
    them, were updated, and had XP SP1 and auto-update turned on. The MAC
    was clean, but it had not been patched for the latest OS/X flaws.

    The machines with McAfee products were the most infected - anywhere from
    100 to more than 400 viruses found (we removed McAfee and used Free AVG
    on those machines). Several were so bad that we wiped them. In almost
    every case the McAfee product was installed by the computer vendor (Dell
    being the most common) and not setup to pull updates - not one person
    knew that they had to register to get updates, and it's not clear that
    they were unprotected).

    We cleaned the systems, installed free AVG Personal or, if a valid
    subscription was present, we updated and re-ran the scans (double
    checking with AVG also). We installed XP-SP2, disabled File/Printer
    sharing and all seems to be running well.

    If they could have afforded it I would have install Symantec Corporate
    Small Business Edition 8.1 on every one of them and set the server to
    control updates and functions.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Oct 4, 2004
    #4
  5. > #######################
    > Norton is made by Symantec, so I don't know how much of a difference
    > there is.


    That is kinda the reason why I made this thread because I figured as much as
    well...
     
    Johnny Canuck, Oct 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Helpful info with some nice statistics for the MacAfee vs. Norton stuff
    thanks.

    Any idea on what is different between symantec anti virus and norton
    anti-virus though?

    Thanks

    JC

    "Leythos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12>,
    > says...
    >> This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.
    >>
    >> I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows
    >> XP)
    >> at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one
    >> is
    >> better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the
    >> system
    >> safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).

    >
    > I run Symantec Corp Edition products on all of our Home and Business
    > systems, and all of our clients run Symantec AV products. While using
    > Symantec products we've not experienced any compromises by viruses, not
    > had any installation or performance problems, and feel reasonably virus
    > secure.
    >
    > I have also used Norton 2000~2004 products on other systems, and we
    > avoid the Suites (NIS, NPF, etc..), we only use Norton Anti-Virus. It's
    > been the same, reliable, easy, secure, not one system compromised.
    >
    > We just did a cleaning of a Sorority at a local university, 40 machines,
    > from all different places, mostly Windows XP, about 6 Windows 98, 1 Win
    > ME, and 1 MAC. The systems were running mostly McAfee (about 25 of
    > them), about 10 were running Norton 2002 & 2004, and several were
    > running CA AV software.
    >
    > There were three machines that were clean - they had Norton AV 2004 on
    > them, were updated, and had XP SP1 and auto-update turned on. The MAC
    > was clean, but it had not been patched for the latest OS/X flaws.
    >
    > The machines with McAfee products were the most infected - anywhere from
    > 100 to more than 400 viruses found (we removed McAfee and used Free AVG
    > on those machines). Several were so bad that we wiped them. In almost
    > every case the McAfee product was installed by the computer vendor (Dell
    > being the most common) and not setup to pull updates - not one person
    > knew that they had to register to get updates, and it's not clear that
    > they were unprotected).
    >
    > We cleaned the systems, installed free AVG Personal or, if a valid
    > subscription was present, we updated and re-ran the scans (double
    > checking with AVG also). We installed XP-SP2, disabled File/Printer
    > sharing and all seems to be running well.
    >
    > If they could have afforded it I would have install Symantec Corporate
    > Small Business Edition 8.1 on every one of them and set the server to
    > control updates and functions.
    >
    > --
    > --
    >
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Johnny Canuck, Oct 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Johnny Canuck

    Quaoar Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12>,
    > says...
    >> This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky
    >> anti-virus.
    >>
    >> I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in
    >> Windows XP) at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a
    >> superior product.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which
    >> one is better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and
    >> keeping the system safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).

    >
    > I run Symantec Corp Edition products on all of our Home and Business
    > systems, and all of our clients run Symantec AV products. While using
    > Symantec products we've not experienced any compromises by viruses,
    > not had any installation or performance problems, and feel reasonably
    > virus secure.
    >
    > I have also used Norton 2000~2004 products on other systems, and we
    > avoid the Suites (NIS, NPF, etc..), we only use Norton Anti-Virus.
    > It's been the same, reliable, easy, secure, not one system
    > compromised.
    >
    > We just did a cleaning of a Sorority at a local university, 40
    > machines, from all different places, mostly Windows XP, about 6
    > Windows 98, 1 Win ME, and 1 MAC. The systems were running mostly
    > McAfee (about 25 of them), about 10 were running Norton 2002 & 2004,
    > and several were running CA AV software.
    >
    > There were three machines that were clean - they had Norton AV 2004 on
    > them, were updated, and had XP SP1 and auto-update turned on. The MAC
    > was clean, but it had not been patched for the latest OS/X flaws.
    >
    > The machines with McAfee products were the most infected - anywhere
    > from 100 to more than 400 viruses found (we removed McAfee and used
    > Free AVG on those machines). Several were so bad that we wiped them.
    > In almost every case the McAfee product was installed by the computer
    > vendor (Dell being the most common) and not setup to pull updates -
    > not one person knew that they had to register to get updates, and
    > it's not clear that they were unprotected).
    >
    > We cleaned the systems, installed free AVG Personal or, if a valid
    > subscription was present, we updated and re-ran the scans (double
    > checking with AVG also). We installed XP-SP2, disabled File/Printer
    > sharing and all seems to be running well.
    >
    > If they could have afforded it I would have install Symantec Corporate
    > Small Business Edition 8.1 on every one of them and set the server to
    > control updates and functions.
    >
    > --


    I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
    problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
    cannot be readily removed. Consequently these products rank right up
    there with AOL as dangerous for the home user. If Symantec could or
    would take the time to clean out their astounding number of registry
    entries they might regain my trust and the trust of others. As it
    stands now, any vendor that cannot clean up after themselves is every
    bit as undesireable for the home user as the average virus infection.
    It's should be a simple issue which raises the question of why Symantec
    is unwilling.

    Q
     
    Quaoar, Oct 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Johnny Canuck

    Clive Guest

    "Johnny Canuck" <> wrote in message
    news:sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12...
    > This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky anti-virus.
    >
    > I have a friend who is running Symantec AntiVirus Corporate (in Windows
    > XP) at work and he was told that Norton Anti-Virus was a superior product.
    >
    > Any thoughts on what are the differences between the two, and which one is
    > better? (i.e. as in more effective at finding viruses and keeping the
    > system safe, less CPU overhead, etc.).
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > JC

    I got hold of a copy (5 licence) of SAV Corp edition. Firstly it isn't
    bloatware - ok it's not the 'slimest' of AV products, but no were near as
    bloated as their retail products - my system hardly slows down at all (2ghz
    P4).

    The detection rate seems to be good (SAV has picked up stuff that AVG Pro 7
    or Avast didn't find).

    IMHO Norton/Symantec has always had a pretty good detection rate. I think a
    lot of people are put off because their retail products are such resource
    hogs and put lot's of files all over a system.

    Clive
     
    Clive, Oct 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Johnny Canuck

    Leythos Guest

    In article <hy58d.8745$MV5.5193@clgrps13>,
    says...
    > Helpful info with some nice statistics for the MacAfee vs. Norton stuff
    > thanks.
    >
    > Any idea on what is different between symantec anti virus and norton
    > anti-virus though?


    The Symantec product "Small Business Edition 8.1" seems to have a
    smaller foot-print, runs faster, but does not have all the nice pretty
    things that make home users feel warm and fuzzy. For instance, when
    scanning outbound and inbound email with 2004 you see the icon working,
    with SBE 8.1 I never see it scanning the email, at least I don't see it
    doing it on the desktop.

    I like SBE because it appears to be less overhead. I have no idea if
    they use the same engine.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Oct 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Johnny Canuck

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
    > problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
    > cannot be readily removed.


    I remove it from several machines that were of different types, and we
    removed the Norton product from hundreds of systems to replace it with
    Symantec SBE Corporate Edition. Not a single removal problem on any of
    the machines.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Oct 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Johnny Canuck

    Quaoar Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
    >> problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
    >> cannot be readily removed.

    >
    > I remove it from several machines that were of different types, and we
    > removed the Norton product from hundreds of systems to replace it with
    > Symantec SBE Corporate Edition. Not a single removal problem on any of
    > the machines.
    >
    > --


    Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
    doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
    hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
    applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
    installing another vendor's application.

    Q
     
    Quaoar, Oct 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Johnny Canuck

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
    > >> problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
    > >> cannot be readily removed.

    > >
    > > I remove it from several machines that were of different types, and we
    > > removed the Norton product from hundreds of systems to replace it with
    > > Symantec SBE Corporate Edition. Not a single removal problem on any of
    > > the machines.
    > >
    > > --

    >
    > Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
    > doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
    > hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
    > applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
    > installing another vendor's application.


    When we did the machines at the Sorority and some other non-profit
    types, we removed expired NAV 2000, 2001, 2002 products to install AVG
    Free version without any problem.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Oct 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Johnny Canuck

    Anonymous Guest

    >Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
    >doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
    >hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
    >applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
    >installing another vendor's application.


    Well said, I couldn't agree more with you, and I can verify this from many
    computer repairs where the owners have unsuccesfully tried to unistall a
    Nortons product, then proceeded to dig deeper & deeper holes fot themselves
    as they attempt to remove it manually.
    The last machine I looked at had the Latest Corporate edition, with the
    latest definitions, which did uninstall, and we installed Avast. After a
    full scan Avast found 9 viruses that Nortons had let slip through.


    Fred
     
    Anonymous, Oct 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Johnny Canuck

    Wimbo Guest

    Quaoar wrote:
    > Leythos wrote:
    >
    >>In article <sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12>,
    >>says...
    >>
    >>>This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky
    >>>anti-virus.


    [SNIP]

    >>--

    >
    >
    > I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
    > problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
    > cannot be readily removed. Consequently these products rank right up
    > there with AOL as dangerous for the home user. If Symantec could or
    > would take the time to clean out their astounding number of registry
    > entries they might regain my trust and the trust of others. As it
    > stands now, any vendor that cannot clean up after themselves is every
    > bit as undesireable for the home user as the average virus infection.
    > It's should be a simple issue which raises the question of why Symantec
    > is unwilling.
    >
    > Q
    >
    >


    I know that the Symantec AV products 'forget' to remove the Outlook hooks
    upon de-install. After de-install, Outlook starts will errors that a
    certain add-in can't be found.......

    This behaviour was seen in the v7, 8 and 9 of Symantec AV corp. The problem
    is easily resolved, but that's not the point, I think.

    Currently I'm using McAfee Corp., and I'm very pleased with it.

    Wimbo
     
    Wimbo, Oct 6, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sens Fan Happy In Ohio

    Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Ed. 8

    Sens Fan Happy In Ohio, Oct 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    588
    samuel
    Oct 23, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    870
    optikl
    Jul 26, 2005
  3. alexander rickert

    symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate

    alexander rickert, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,256
    James Baber
    Nov 3, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    615
    Leythos
    Jan 24, 2007
  5. Corky
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    305
    Matt B
    Aug 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page