Is it really worth a subscription?

Topic

New Reply

I’m coming up to subscription time on Norton Antivirus 2002 and I’m not sure whether it’s worth
a) paying for another year’s subscription?
paying for a more recent version of Norton AV
c) paying for another AV package
d) use a freeware AV program (probably AVG as it seems to be “good enough”)

Any thoughts?

Reply | Quote

Replies

I am using AVG (used Norton until a recent new computer). I’ve never had a virus.

Reply | Quote

Almost certainly there are significant differences between 2005 and 2002 versions that make it worth switching rather than buying another year of updates. What to switch to is a matter of opinion, and you already have a few of them. If you’re interested in PC-cillin Internet Security, there usually is a $25 “competitive upgrade” offer available (either on Trend Micro’s web site or in the box).

Reply | Quote

And I just now checked this link (Special Offer for Microsoft Customers) at Microsoft which you recommended awhile back and it seems to be still valid @ $25 bucks.

Reply | Quote

I have gone to F-Prot $29.00 USD and can be used on 5 home run computers.
http://www.f-prot.com/%5B/url%5D

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

Good for you, Dave! I’ve used F-Prot for years and really like their updater and their notifications. They even notify you when you try to update the signature files and there is a new program file available. Rock solid program that sometimes updates several times a day when a new nasty is found.

Reply | Quote

“try to update the signature files and there is a new program file available”

Like today, there is a new version that needed to be installed.

I am even pushing my clients to it as their other programs expire.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

On your last point, it’s worth noting that the free AV programs use the same virus definition files as their commercial counterparts. In other words, you get the same level of protection (at least detection-wise) but less features at the interface. I’ve been happy with AVG free for a long time; in fact I prefer it to NAV because it grabs less of my (precious Win98) resources.

Alan

Reply | Quote

I used to have Norton on all my systems for years, but as each subscription expires, I move to AVG free, so far with no ill-affects. I agree with Alan that there was a noticeable (maybe just my imagination but I don’t think so) performance BOOST uninstalling NAV (no minor feat, mind you!).

I think Norton (Symantec), along with McAfee, AOL and MS, think their excrement don’t stink – all 4 have been known to change “standards” and expect everyone to follow suit. And once installed, they so ingrain themselves into your system, they are harder to remove than many a virus!

Of course, companies are able to get away with that when their products, in general, excel at what they do – and certainly all 4 companies’ products do that. Having NAV installed WILL give you outstanding AV protection – if kept updated and you are what I call, Security Aware. The big guys have the deep pockets to fund and staff their labs with top people.

My last system to have Norton is this one. I was actually happy and surprised when my Norton SystemWorks 2002 allowed me to upgrade “only” the NAV2002 to NAV2005 – seamlessly integrating NAV2005 into NSW2002 and the 2002 “One-Button” control panel!

I do not mind paying for the program, but feel I am being ripped off to have to buy new signature subscriptions every year. This last one expires this October and I will go to AVG then – maybe give them some support and put Pro on one machine anyway.

I think the NAV2005 upgrade cost is about $5 more than another year’s subscription, and includes a year’s worth of updates. If you really like Norton and feel safe with it, and are hesitant to try something else, I recommend you upgrade to 2005 and have the peace of mind knowing you have excellent virus protection.

But I am certain you would also feel comfortable with the others mentioned here – as long as you keep each product upgraded, and remain “Security Aware” – that is, XP is on SP2 and all critical updates and patches are installed, your AV is running and current, you scan frequently with “several” updated anti-spyware applications, you are behind at least a good software based firewall, preferably behind a NAT router too, you take necessary precautions concerning attachments, downloads, and spam, and you stay away from bad places (porn, P2P, gambling, etc.).

-bill

Bill (AFE7Ret)
Freedom isn't free!

Reply | Quote

> the free AV programs use the same virus definition files as their commercial counterparts

Even though the vendors share some information and all try to recognize the same malware, this statement is not completely correct. AV vendors’ signature/pattern files are not simply fingerprints of malware executables that any program can access. These program/data files have to be written to work with the other program components in a manner that minimizes the size of the regularly updated file, as well as protecting the vendors’ IP. Accordingly, there is no way to compare what is inside these files other than to test them with their associated components to see whether they work.

Reply | Quote

Oops – Bill should be Alan. Sorry!

I think that Bill meant – he will correct me if I’m wrong – that Grisoft, for example, uses the same definition files for the free version of AVG as for the paid version, not that Grisoft uses the same definition files as any other AV software manufacturer.

Reply | Quote

The only correction is that it’s what Alan meant, not Bill. I think this is true for F-Prot free & commercial products as well. I was certainly not trying to do an “across the board” comparison. I’ve had situations where one AV product detected a virus that another didn’t… and on at least one occasion a free one has beaten a commercial one to it!

Alan

Reply | Quote

The F-Prot engine has been used in a number of antivirus apps over the years. I didn’t know they still had a free version. Last I saw, it was a free trial only.

Reply | Quote

F-PROT for DOS is still and I keep it updated on my own box. I also use Art Kopp’s F-Prot for DOS free download and update utility, F-pup and it’s emergency boot disk set. I’ve used the latter on remote computers that are a total mess and won’t even boot to Windows. Limitation is that F-PROT for DOS is not recommended for NTFS.

Alan

Reply | Quote

Sorry I misread you… I wasn’t aware that any particular vendor offered both free and paid versions of their product, so I read “counterparts” rather more broadly.

Reply | Quote

Sorry about the confusion, Alan.

Reply | Quote

You don’t say what version of Windows you are on. The Norton website says that anti-virus 2005 works with everything from Windows 98 onwards. It doesn’t say so on the website, but I think that means Windows 98 Second Edition onwards, if my previous experince with recent Norton products is right. If you have Windows 98 original or Windows 95 it won’t work for you, but AVG works just fine with both.

Ian

Reply | Quote

Many Thanks , to everyone who responded. I’ve decided to go with the version of AVG as it seems to perform at least as well as others on a simple home machine setup.

Reply | Quote

I’m using AVG free now also. For years, I didn’t have an AV app on my computer but never got a virus because I don’t open email attachments. And I don’t go to warez sites or download pirate software. The only viruses I’ve ever encountered were both from work computers about 8-10 years ago.

As to Symantec, they suck big time. Their support is awful, they litter your registry with 500-1000 new registry keys, it’s nearly impossible to find and remove these keys, even if you uninstall the software, and they litter your hard drive with their own folders and files scattered all over the place. Like most large corporations, they exist only to make more money. You use Symantec, McAfee and other such companies software at your own risk.

Reply | Quote