Hello everybody and thank you for looking at my thread. My needs are simple. I am looking for a good quality anti virus with a built in firewall. I currently use Norton internet security but this seems very heavy on system resources. My pc is P4/3.2/1 gig ram. Can anyone offer a good alternative to Norton or do you think i should stay with them???? My system is connected to the net 24/7 so security is very important. Thanks again.....
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Norton heavy on system resources??? 1
- Thread starter ckes101
- Start date
What's wrong with XP's firewall?
AVG is a very good, free for personal use anti-virus (uses about a third of the resources of Norton, and doesn't keep interfering with other things running).
You should also have realtime anti-spyware - eg, Microsoft's Windows Defender (previously MS Antispyware) is now in beta2, also free - and will remain free for windows users when finally released (the betas have been very stable). I'd back this up with occasional spybot and adaware scans.
Personally I'd never have Norton (or McAfee) internet security/anti-virus on my machine.
AVG is a very good, free for personal use anti-virus (uses about a third of the resources of Norton, and doesn't keep interfering with other things running).
You should also have realtime anti-spyware - eg, Microsoft's Windows Defender (previously MS Antispyware) is now in beta2, also free - and will remain free for windows users when finally released (the betas have been very stable). I'd back this up with occasional spybot and adaware scans.
Personally I'd never have Norton (or McAfee) internet security/anti-virus on my machine.
AVG is very good and is free but, in my opinion, NOD32 is better. It too uses far fewer system resources than Norton and its detection rate is probably the best in the field.
For a firewall, I prefer Sygate Personal Firewall v5.6. It uses few system resources and is free. It's been taken over by Symantec but is still available from sites like Simtel ( and Tucows (
Hope this helps...
For a firewall, I prefer Sygate Personal Firewall v5.6. It uses few system resources and is free. It's been taken over by Symantec but is still available from sites like Simtel ( and Tucows (
Hope this helps...
I must say that I'm really satisfied with Avast Antivirus:
I also have the Windows Defender as wolluf recomends, and I use the windows xp sp2 firewall.
Never had any problems.
Also, you should download SymNRT.exe from symantec.com which completely removes everything connected to norton... even after you have uninstalled.
I also have the Windows Defender as wolluf recomends, and I use the windows xp sp2 firewall.
Never had any problems.
Also, you should download SymNRT.exe from symantec.com which completely removes everything connected to norton... even after you have uninstalled.
If properly configured and using a recent version (2005 or later), Norton's utilities and antivirus work fine.
However, Norton's firewall is another beast. I've used it in the past with mixed results. Personally for a software firewall, I prefer Zonealarm Pro or BlackIce. XP's firewall does a decent job of blocking incoming threats, especially when used in conjunction with a router using NAT. However, a 3rd-party software firewall adds the needed security for trojans, worms, and spyware that aren't caught right away from triggering or opening up ports. XP's firewall doesn't monitor outbound which is the way a lot of infections work.
As for resource-hogging, I haven't noticed it in any PC built in the last couple years. Once CPU speeds crossed 2GHz, that has been a thing of the past. On one of my current systems, I have Norton Antivirus, ZA Pro, Norton Ghost, and some motherboard monitoring utilities all running in the background at startup. My CPU usage stays below 2% most of the time.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
However, Norton's firewall is another beast. I've used it in the past with mixed results. Personally for a software firewall, I prefer Zonealarm Pro or BlackIce. XP's firewall does a decent job of blocking incoming threats, especially when used in conjunction with a router using NAT. However, a 3rd-party software firewall adds the needed security for trojans, worms, and spyware that aren't caught right away from triggering or opening up ports. XP's firewall doesn't monitor outbound which is the way a lot of infections work.
As for resource-hogging, I haven't noticed it in any PC built in the last couple years. Once CPU speeds crossed 2GHz, that has been a thing of the past. On one of my current systems, I have Norton Antivirus, ZA Pro, Norton Ghost, and some motherboard monitoring utilities all running in the background at startup. My CPU usage stays below 2% most of the time.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
-
1
- #6
Why don't you spend some time at This will give you an idea of what is available out there.
pessimisteternal
Technical User
clamwin is also pretty good for home use - it's free and has an extremely small footprint.
_________________________________________________________________
decimal dust: an inconsequential numerical amount, which still has consequences...
_________________________________________________________________
decimal dust: an inconsequential numerical amount, which still has consequences...
Ive always had good luck using just the Symantec antivirus and the XP firewall.
Free Computer Help and Tips:
Free Computer Help and Tips:
cdogg
sorry - but experience with my customers just doesn't support this. It is a resource hog - and many machines do not have lots of RAM (eg, 256MB is very common, especially in laptops). It also (in common with McAfee) blocks stuff the customer doesn't want blocked (and doesn't offer easy access to configure it otherwise). Most of my customers who have Norton had it when they bought the machine - with no advice as to alternatives (why is my machine running so slow - because its a laptop with 256MB RAM, 64 shared for graphics, and its got Norton on it). Would anyone pay for Norton if they were aware of AVG (or Avast etc) in the first place?
But worst of all - Norton and McAfee have been 'AV product leaders' for many years now - and they've always been resource hogs, and they've never done anything about it and they're endorsed by many reputable companies (so punters think they're a good idea). Conspiracy theory?
sorry - but experience with my customers just doesn't support this. It is a resource hog - and many machines do not have lots of RAM (eg, 256MB is very common, especially in laptops). It also (in common with McAfee) blocks stuff the customer doesn't want blocked (and doesn't offer easy access to configure it otherwise). Most of my customers who have Norton had it when they bought the machine - with no advice as to alternatives (why is my machine running so slow - because its a laptop with 256MB RAM, 64 shared for graphics, and its got Norton on it). Would anyone pay for Norton if they were aware of AVG (or Avast etc) in the first place?
But worst of all - Norton and McAfee have been 'AV product leaders' for many years now - and they've always been resource hogs, and they've never done anything about it and they're endorsed by many reputable companies (so punters think they're a good idea). Conspiracy theory?
cupid11213
ISP
- Nov 4, 2005
- 255
- 0
- 0
I also believe Norton Internet security and Norton Antivirus Is a resource hog, McAfee does hog but not as much and works very well. Although you do need to configure it to best suit your needs.
I have seen many good examples of good antiviruses in here and also think that AVG is a very good one. Spysweeper from We root is one of the best antispyware programs available on the market and i would recommend taking a look at it and giving it a shot.
But i always recommend customers to stay clear of Norton utilities.
I installed it on my new computer with 512 of ram just to try out the new 2006 and it was hogging my resources really bad. So I switched to McAfee and have been working fine with it after i configured it.
With the previous post i believe you will find very good options.
Good Luck With Whatever You Choose.
Some people make things happen, some people watch things happen, while others wonder what happened.
I have seen many good examples of good antiviruses in here and also think that AVG is a very good one. Spysweeper from We root is one of the best antispyware programs available on the market and i would recommend taking a look at it and giving it a shot.
But i always recommend customers to stay clear of Norton utilities.
I installed it on my new computer with 512 of ram just to try out the new 2006 and it was hogging my resources really bad. So I switched to McAfee and have been working fine with it after i configured it.
With the previous post i believe you will find very good options.
Good Luck With Whatever You Choose.
Some people make things happen, some people watch things happen, while others wonder what happened.
- Thread starter
- #11
Ok. Thank you for all your help guys. Despite what quite a few people are saying about Norton i find that it is without a shadow of a doubt a system hogger, well at least for me anyways. I have plenty of information to mull over now so thanks all once again.
Chris
Chris
wWolluf and others,
I respect your opinion about Norton. There's no doubt in my mind that it requires more resources than AVG or Avast. I also agree that it can bring a poorly equipped system to its knees.
Most poorly equipped PC's are ones that have low RAM, slow CPU's, or already running slower than usual due to spyware/adware infections. Here's a perfect example. One of my customers described a problem just like some of the ones explained here. They had recently bought Symantec's Systemworks, claiming that now the PC just crawls. After further investigation, there was either a serious trojan or spyware infection that PestPatrol, Spybot, and Ad-aware wasn't picking up. The PC was a little slow before installing Norton, but it was almost dead afterwards.
Now here's the deal. It was a 2.2 GHz Celeron with only 256MB of RAM (a standard Dell built about 2.5 years ago). it had a lot of crap installed still from when they received it from Dell. Instead of playing spyware cop, I just backed up the drive, formatted it, and reinstalled Windows clean. Immediately installed Symantec Systemworks as one of the first apps after Microsoft Office. The sytem ran fine.
Notice, I didn't add any RAM, upgrade the CPU, or do anything magical. I have a lot of other similar stories I can tell you, but everyone has a right to their own opinion. If you've never had success with Symantec, then I can understand the frustration. Unfornately, I have yet to encounter a situation with Norton I couldn't work out, as long as the system had a 2GHz or faster CPU and at least 256MB of RAM.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I respect your opinion about Norton. There's no doubt in my mind that it requires more resources than AVG or Avast. I also agree that it can bring a poorly equipped system to its knees.
Most poorly equipped PC's are ones that have low RAM, slow CPU's, or already running slower than usual due to spyware/adware infections. Here's a perfect example. One of my customers described a problem just like some of the ones explained here. They had recently bought Symantec's Systemworks, claiming that now the PC just crawls. After further investigation, there was either a serious trojan or spyware infection that PestPatrol, Spybot, and Ad-aware wasn't picking up. The PC was a little slow before installing Norton, but it was almost dead afterwards.
Now here's the deal. It was a 2.2 GHz Celeron with only 256MB of RAM (a standard Dell built about 2.5 years ago). it had a lot of crap installed still from when they received it from Dell. Instead of playing spyware cop, I just backed up the drive, formatted it, and reinstalled Windows clean. Immediately installed Symantec Systemworks as one of the first apps after Microsoft Office. The sytem ran fine.
Notice, I didn't add any RAM, upgrade the CPU, or do anything magical. I have a lot of other similar stories I can tell you, but everyone has a right to their own opinion. If you've never had success with Symantec, then I can understand the frustration. Unfornately, I have yet to encounter a situation with Norton I couldn't work out, as long as the system had a 2GHz or faster CPU and at least 256MB of RAM.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
- Thread starter
- #13
My two cents is that I was a long time user of Norton until I began having problems on many machines. The last time, I had two Win 2k machines that I installed NAV 2006 on and they would not run. Their tech support is pathetic. I spent two days on the phone with Symantec's level 0 support and was last told that I should call Microsoft. After a little browsing on the internet, I found that many others with Win 2k were having the same issues. I uninstalled Norton and downloaded NOD32 which installed, ran, updated and scanned without a hitch.
Uninstalling Norton products can also prove to be a hair ripping experience. They have tools buried on their website to accomplish just that, however, they do not remove all traces of their product in my experience. There are still traces left in the registry as well as in Program Files\Common Files.
I was a big fan of Norton's but now I would not install their products on any PC. I am no expert by any means but I have spent many hours of my employer's time on the phone with Norton's unhelpful tech support and I am a paralegal, not an IT (well, their IT by default).
On the PC's I take care of on our small network, I have had so many problems that I am installing NOD32 as each Norton product expires as well as on my home computer and my wife's computer. So far, not a single problem.
By the way, thanks to linney for the link to wildersecurity.com. Great site and great help from linney as always.
Uninstalling Norton products can also prove to be a hair ripping experience. They have tools buried on their website to accomplish just that, however, they do not remove all traces of their product in my experience. There are still traces left in the registry as well as in Program Files\Common Files.
I was a big fan of Norton's but now I would not install their products on any PC. I am no expert by any means but I have spent many hours of my employer's time on the phone with Norton's unhelpful tech support and I am a paralegal, not an IT (well, their IT by default).
On the PC's I take care of on our small network, I have had so many problems that I am installing NOD32 as each Norton product expires as well as on my home computer and my wife's computer. So far, not a single problem.
By the way, thanks to linney for the link to wildersecurity.com. Great site and great help from linney as always.
MasterRacker
New member
If you run any Norton products, you're lucky if your PC has any resources at all. If Norton is in a good mood and feeling generous it might give some of it's resources to your PC once in a while. The way Norton works it that there are no resources left for a virus to run in. ;-)
I use AVG and Windows AS at home and run behind a NAT router.
_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]
I use AVG and Windows AS at home and run behind a NAT router.
_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]
Wow, given the consensus here, I feel like I'm actually defending Norton!
![[bigcheeks]](/data/assets/smilies/bigcheeks.gif "[bigcheeks] [bigcheeks]")
Actually the criticism so far is pretty typical for Norton products given recent history. The 2003 version of Norton utilities was the first year they introduced the CCAPP process, which crippled many systems slower than 1GHz and others running Win98/ME (which was still quite a few workstations in 2002). CCAPP was released way before it should have been. Unfortunately for Symantec, they lost a lot of loyal customers as a result.
The good news is that a lot of these bugs have been finally hammered out. I'm using a system right now with Norton Antivirus and Ghost 2005. Both are running at startup. I've been staring at the process tab in Task Manager for the past few minutes. The CPU usage rarely jumps above 1%, and most of the time when it does, it's not CCAPP.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of you here haven't used the 2005 version yet (and I can't blame you). Since most of my customers do prefer Norton, I get to see each year's release. 2005 is finally a step back in the right direction.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Actually the criticism so far is pretty typical for Norton products given recent history. The 2003 version of Norton utilities was the first year they introduced the CCAPP process, which crippled many systems slower than 1GHz and others running Win98/ME (which was still quite a few workstations in 2002). CCAPP was released way before it should have been. Unfortunately for Symantec, they lost a lot of loyal customers as a result.
The good news is that a lot of these bugs have been finally hammered out. I'm using a system right now with Norton Antivirus and Ghost 2005. Both are running at startup. I've been staring at the process tab in Task Manager for the past few minutes. The CPU usage rarely jumps above 1%, and most of the time when it does, it's not CCAPP.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of you here haven't used the 2005 version yet (and I can't blame you). Since most of my customers do prefer Norton, I get to see each year's release. 2005 is finally a step back in the right direction.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
We see a lot of systems that are infected, and have Norton or McAfee. My boss has been calling them the worst out there.
I prefer Avast, myself, and have been using it since July, when my Norton 2005 protected machine had to be reformatted, resulting in a minor loss of things that I thought had been saved.
Panda is a good offensive system, and finds things that Avast didn't, but it may be that the user ignored the siren, or clicked the wrong button. Avast is a defensive system, and has gone off a half dozen times here, each time blocking the things that I didn't like the looks of. It integrates well with Office 2K3.
Avast also scans either when the screen-saver is on (which I don't use) or during idle processing time. I manually click Scan Now when I set the machine down.
You'd be surprised how many AV programs fire an event when another AV program starts scanning. Especially when it comes to the temp folder of web pages, or cookies.
-David
2006 Microsoft Valueable Professional (MVP)
2006 Dell Certified System Professional (CSP)
I prefer Avast, myself, and have been using it since July, when my Norton 2005 protected machine had to be reformatted, resulting in a minor loss of things that I thought had been saved.
Panda is a good offensive system, and finds things that Avast didn't, but it may be that the user ignored the siren, or clicked the wrong button. Avast is a defensive system, and has gone off a half dozen times here, each time blocking the things that I didn't like the looks of. It integrates well with Office 2K3.
Avast also scans either when the screen-saver is on (which I don't use) or during idle processing time. I manually click Scan Now when I set the machine down.
You'd be surprised how many AV programs fire an event when another AV program starts scanning. Especially when it comes to the temp folder of web pages, or cookies.
-David
2006 Microsoft Valueable Professional (MVP)
2006 Dell Certified System Professional (CSP)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question