Difference between Symantec Anti Virus & Norton Anti Virus?

[richklein]

Hi all,

I was hoping that someone could tell me the difference between Symantec Anti Virus & Norton Anti Virus. They seem to be made by the same company but seem to be two different applications. Is one better than the other? Is one of them easier on the system than another? Symantec anti virus looks to have less of a "footprint" on the system.

Is this the case?

Thanks,
Rich

[Ebola]

norton is the home user product, symantec is the business level product. I would guess norton is easier for home users to use and is sometimes bunded with norton internet security. on the other hand symantec can be remotely controled from a server.

[jiggamanjb]

symantec all the way for me. you don't even know it's there. Norton on the other hand, i can't stand. it just seems to be always in your way.

[richklein]

Symantec seems to have a much smaller footprint than Norton. Is the protection level the same between the two of them? If so, why would Norton make their program so much more resource intensive?

[jiggamanjb]

i believe that Symantec's protection is better. I think the reason they make Norton such a hog is so that users that have no idea what they are doing have Norton's popups and little wizards to help them. If you have a general concept of what you are doing on a computer though, I'd say Symantec is the way to go.

[richklein]

Any truth to that NAV catches more viruses than SAV? Someone on another forum said that SAV relies on the server to catch some viruses. Any truth to that?

[JigPu]

If SAV is forced to rely on a server to scan for some viruses, why would NAV bother scanning for them at all? Or put otherwise, why would SAV use a server to scan for some viruses if NAV can scan them all? :)

Besides, SAV seems to have a pretty awesome track record (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100_award/archives/products.xml?symantec.xml) in detecting virues...
JigPu

[phrkshw]

Scrap em all and go get yourself some PANDA !!!!!! These guys roxor my boxors . Their average response time on virus removal is 2.3 hrs . thats pretty nifty if i do say so myself .

[nahmus]

In terms of symantec and relying on the server for virus detection maybe they got a little confused. You can install corporate to either work in Managed or Unmanaged mode. In managed mode the clients rely on a Central server for definition updates. It saves external bandwith. only one machine connectes to the internet and then at a specified time pushes it to the internal PC's.

In unmanaged mode each PC connects to the internet directly for the definitions. Maybe thats what they were refering too?

I prefer the corporate version as its just antivirus. I don't need another firewall :D

[dguy6789]

norton is the best ive ever used, sure it takes up more ram then some others, but it has far better protection then the likes of panda or mcaffe. Symantec probably is a stripped down version of norton.

[richklein]

I guess what I would like to use is the symantec anti virus as it is very 'light weight'. Since SAV has a live update automatic feature, why would they make Norton Anti Virus (NAV) so 'bloated' feeling? I get so many email viruses that get stopped by my current NAV solution, I admit I am a little scared about ditching NAV for SAV if SAV doesnt offer the same level of protection.

[nahmus]

One of the current things that I see with the corporate (symantec) vs the home version (Nortons) is that as of version 8 (symantec/corporate) which i'm using now there is no spam control, spyware or download trojan detection. In a corporate environment these are usually handled by another server somewhere else.
The Nortons version has all of this bundled together for the home user. Makes it easy for a user.
I use adaware/spybotS&D for spyware, The cleaner for trojans and Symantec for antivirus. The combo seems to work well.

Both Symantec and Nortons use the same detection engine (more or less) and definitions. they both work great for me

[zachj]

They might search for the same virii, but they do not use the same definitions. There are two separate downloads for NAV and SAV. I much prefer SAV, as I find it a LOT easier to use than NAV. And I've yet to figure out how to use McAfee and would unplug my computer from the internet before being made to use it. That garbage that Dell installs on all of its home PCs is just terrible.

As far as Panda, I dislike them because their virus "descriptions" include simply a generic description of a trojan, not what each specific one does. Telling me that something might take screen shots or steal information is great, but I'd like to know if that specific virus does it, because a lot of "trojans" aren't . . . They're stupid.

I hate A/V software altogether, and I didn't even use it before I started working at ResNet, and then I got scared. On a college network, it's important. At home, if you have a firewall and your family members are retarded, I think it's much less important, but for those that actually care . . .

Z

[jiggamanjb]

I hate A/V software altogether, and I didn't even use it before I started working at ResNet, and then I got scared. On a college network, it's important. At home, if you have a firewall and your family members are retarded, I think it's much less important, but for those that actually care . . .

Z

My thoughts exactly. If you don't open emails from XXXpornXXX or run .exe files from emails, you won't need it 99% of the time. That's why I prefer SAV, because it's there for the 1% of the time I need it, and out of the way the other 99%.