Norton Internet Security vs. ESET Smart Security

[DKT27]

If you want protection, go for Norton. If you want speed, stay with ESET.

May I suggest you to try BitDefender or Kaspersky if you want to try something new? :) Both have topped AV-Comparatives charts.

Not true!

Norton on my x64 Windows 7 use only 6mb RAM memory but ESET use about 100mb in RAM.

This 2 internet security suits are fast and light on pc but i prefer Norton.

Norton has to many false positive warnings about keygens, patchs, cracks etc...

I didn't say Norton is slow. I'm saying ESET is lighter. RAM doesn't matter. Norton takes memory from kernel, not directly via memory, hence such low memory in task manager.

If you want protection, go for Norton. If you want speed, stay with ESET.

May I suggest you to try BitDefender or Kaspersky if you want to try something new? :) Both have topped AV-Comparatives charts.

DKT27 , are you still using Bitdefender or you switched to some other AV ? :)

Yes. Planning to try new ESET 6 as soon as my 30 days trial of BD is over. :)

[ande]

I think this guy has solved the low detection rate issue:

https://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Low-detection-rate-in-tests/td-p/540832

He says that the "Smart Definitions" caused Norton to have these god-awful detection rates. If say someone disables "Smart Definitions" they may get a better and hotter detection rate than usual.

For those who don't know:

Smart Definitions is Symantec's way of saving users Bandwidth by giving the users virus definitions that are deemed "Important".

I recommend you keeping 'Smart Definitions' checked. Smart Definitions exclude part of malware database that is very old.

What you get is that, maybe, Norton won't be able to instantly detect that old malware (without specific signature), but once they are extracted in memory, based on their behavior, Norton will detect and prevent it - method known as heuristics. But that happens rarely because we are dealing with malware samples from like 2k5 which are all easy to decrypt, and based on how good Norton analyze 'junk code' it will or detect it or let it run.

If for any reason engine lets it execute it will most probably be detected by heuristics, because it's behavior is already know.

What you 'get' with unchecking 'Smart Definitions' is only 5h longer scanning time.

If you want protection, go for Norton. If you want speed, stay with ESET.

May I suggest you to try BitDefender or Kaspersky if you want to try something new? :) Both have topped AV-Comparatives charts.

Not true!

Norton on my x64 Windows 7 use only 6mb RAM memory but ESET use about 100mb in RAM.

This 2 internet security suits are fast and light on pc but i prefer Norton.

Norton has to many false positive warnings about keygens, patchs, cracks etc...

You have RAM so programs can use it, what's the point in having 4GB or 8GB of RAM and not using it.

Many apps have so called 'max limit' of memory they use once they detect RAM is 'free'.

After another app make RAM request they reduce that amount by 50% - 90%.

Just to mention there are apps that hide their memory presence, which in the end can cause more bad than good.

Only thing that matters, to me, is how responsive your machine is once you installed certain software.

I hope you know you can add folders to exclusion list, even whole Local Disk, if you have cracked program just add Program Files \ Program to exclusion,

and the funny thing is Norton allows you even to run infected files from excluded folders - although it's double edge sword.

[0veR]

and the funny thing is Norton allows you even to run infected files from excluded folders - although it's double edge sword.

Every antivirus will let you run programs when you add them to execute list ;)

[insanedown58]

DKT27, do you think 1.46 GB will pull off BitDefender Internet Security 2013? (Its for my sister's laptop we have ALMOST the same specs)

[dcs18]

and the funny thing is Norton allows you even to run infected files from excluded folders - although it's double edge sword.

Every antivirus will let you run programs when you add them to execute list ;)

It's excluded - not secluded!!! :lol:

DKT27, do you think 1.46 GB will pull off BitDefender Internet Security 2013? (Its for my sister's laptop we have ALMOST the same specs)

Yes, with a little bit of prayer.

Can somebody please move this thread to the 'Jokes & Funny Stuff forum.' :sneaky:

[DKT27]

DKT27, do you think 1.46 GB will pull off BitDefender Internet Security 2013? (Its for my sister's laptop we have ALMOST the same specs)

It's not about RAM. It's about total computer power. I won't recommend in on a old or slow computer. Yes, BD is not that bad, it's lite in lot of things, but I'll only recommend on faster computer.

[davhag]

PC Tools IS is good enough. Use with standalone Malware Bytes and Emsisoft emergency kit. It will keep you clean or get you clean.

[ffi]

If you're a n00b choose from either of these suites.

If you're an Advanced User drop the idea of suites and start choosing from standalones.

I think even advanced users are better off installing suites, firewalls and antivirusses are both very complex programs using many very low level drivers and these can interfere with each other with unpredictable results, this won't happen if you use a suite because these components are tailored for each other.