Symantec Offering Free Norton Security for Android

[Guest]

free for $33 annualy. This is nothing but a "Lite" version with little to offer.

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]chick0n[/nom]then maybe you should stop buying the cheapest garbage laptop/desktop that you can find.Cuz last laptop I got, hmm, a decent spec one, has no bloatware that everybody talked about. on the other hand, my gf got the cheapest crap from Dell that cost for 399, guess what, it's loaded with garbage. I guess it's too hard for morons to understand this line : you get what you paid for.[/citation]
I have literally seen that any preinstalled Windows computer purchased from a company comes with some form of bloatware installed on it. So if you think Alienware is garbage then tell us what high-end non-garbage computer isn't. What falls under "cheapest garbage"? Is spending $1,700 on a laptop "garbage"? How about $3,300 that I spent on my Alienware that still came more bloated than a female with PMS...so I'm curious hotshot. You just trolling today kid?

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]guanyu210379[/nom]Norton antivirus will make your system will be too busy even to run a virus program...that is the basic logic of Norton antivirus...keeping the system busy so that it can not anything else!Now, you want us to have it on our phone? Are you sure that you spare enough room for the phone even to do phone calls?[/citation]

When did you last use Norton? A few years ago, you were right. Today, Norton shows the lowest memory and CPU usage out of all major security suites and also offers the highest detection rates.

Norton is pricey, too pricey to make it truly superior to free AV's even, but you can't blame it for being bloated anymore.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]chick0n[/nom]then maybe you should stop buying the cheapest garbage laptop/desktop that you can find.Cuz last laptop I got, hmm, a decent spec one, has no bloatware that everybody talked about. on the other hand, my gf got the cheapest crap from Dell that cost for 399, guess what, it's loaded with garbage. I guess it's too hard for morons to understand this line : you get what you paid for.[/citation]
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]When did you last use Norton? A few years ago, you were right. Today, Norton shows the lowest memory and CPU usage out of all major security suites and also offers the highest detection rates.Norton is pricey, too pricey to make it truly superior to free AV's even, but you can't blame it for being bloated anymore.[/citation]
Agree. I'm guessing the first posters either haven't used a Norton Internet Security product since 2008, or are repeating what they've heard from dated second hand accounts (which wouldn't surprise me at all).

From 2009, Norton completely reworked their internet security software from the ground up, 09 and up are unrelated to previous versions. Since then I've switched back to Norton, and I can honestly say it's the best Internet Security software I've ever used. The installation size is small and install time is quick (under a minute).

But the best part is the performance, it's light on system resources, and it works completely in the background, you're never bothered with regular or trivial tasks. No scheduled full system scans like every other anti virus I've used, no prompts to install updates, no restarts. Everything is done when your system is idle, and when you come back it pauses whatever scan or update it might be performing and simply continues the next time it's idle (again without any popup windows or prompts). It's a really great, seamless experience, and you never notice it.

 

[gogogadgetliver]

[citation][nom]KeyOne[/nom]Have any of you people used a RECENT version (last 3-4 years) of Norton Antivirus or Norton Internet Security? I couldn't agree more that they USED to be terrible resource hogs in earlier incarnations. But the current versions are actually pretty streamlined, slick, and non-intrusive.[/citation]

Norton, no recent experience.

Symantec has done much to lighten the usermode bloat but their kernel mode bloat is still really bad. They are still stack hogs for one. They've also branched into network hooks with symantec endpoint protection. I've seen a bajillion problems cause by endpoint protection. Symantec has been quick to fix them but it's just inexcusable how bad it is.

All that said... Yes. There has been in improvement particularly in their consumer products.

To late though: The wise consumer is now using Microsoft Security Essentials (Basically Forefront Enterprise for free)

 

[gogogadgetliver]

[citation][nom]chick0n[/nom]Those who said "Norton is a memory hog" or similar stuff means they haven't use anything recent from Symantec. it use so much less memory and cpu cycles now and it's one of the lowest footprint anti-virus/security software out there.if you don't know shit, that's perfectly ok, just keep ur mouth shut, that's all. don't try to act like a know-it-all.[/citation]

Pot, Kettle.

Symantecs stack usage is still absurd. You'll find out when debugging a failure, but not by looking at the working set up in user heap.

Symantec has improved a great deal. Not enough though.

 

[chick0n]

[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]Norton, no recent experience.Symantec has done much to lighten the usermode bloat but their kernel mode bloat is still really bad. They are still stack hogs for one. They've also branched into network hooks with symantec endpoint protection. I've seen a bajillion problems cause by endpoint protection. Symantec has been quick to fix them but it's just inexcusable how bad it is.All that said... Yes. There has been in improvement particularly in their consumer products.To late though: The wise consumer is now using Microsoft Security Essentials (Basically Forefront Enterprise for free)[/citation]

MSE is an OK Anti-Virus to use for starters, at least it's completely free. but it lacks some of the feature found in any other Anti-Virus(Security) software.

I never looked at their Kernel side. maybe you're right, but honestly most End-users not going to care nor will they noticed any of those stuff.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]..and what laptop did you buy? what a numbnuts... Companies put software on their systems to keep the prices down genius. I feel sorry for your GF that she's dating someone that's dumb as dirt.[/citation]

so you got some garbage low end laptop and you bitxh about having bloatware ? Even when you do a clean install, that garbage low end crap is still going to be garbage low end crap, which fits people like you.

if you can't afford a "decent" laptop that's worth more than your welfare checks, I understand where the jealousy came from, that's ok.

[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]Pot, Kettle.Symantecs stack usage is still absurd. You'll find out when debugging a failure, but not by looking at the working set up in user heap.Symantec has improved a great deal. Not enough though.[/citation]

never look into that(stack)

my company's network comps never had any problems with Symentec. they feel "safer" with it. I am not paying, so I don't really give a crap

I got 6 comps at home and none of them have Anti-Virus/Security software cuz I know how to lock it all down. They can surf site loaded with trojan and none of them works on my comps. You just gotta know what you are doing.

 

[spectrewind]

Great.... So, where is the ANDROID VERSION of SymNRT?

 

[MasterMace]

Norton is ranked the 2nd to worst antivirus, right ahead of McCrappee.

McCrappee can detect the viruses, but can't stop it. Norton can stop more than it, but detect less.

 

[K-zon]

Free is free to say, some compaines find find interests better then none, cause of it at least there is some more then none, but of it though is the "prices" paid for uses of things free of course.

Even then to say that a company would offer something free makes wonder of anything different of say other for a cost.

But as long as you have the means of use with or without then your good either way.