Vista v.s. Norton

When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
Norton which I now use on XP?
Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?

Your help will be much appreciated

John King

John King wrote:
> When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
> security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
> Norton which I now use on XP?


Well, a great many people would argue that you should dispense with
"Norton" on WinXP, as well. Any number of other anti-virus applications
would have a much lower impact upon your system's performance. I once
used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton Internet
Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP. However,
when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton Internet Security
2002 came up for renewal (at a cost substantially higher than the
preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less expensive
solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of GriSoft's AVG
(http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php ) and the free version of
AVAST (http://www.avast.com/). Additionally, I was pleasantly surprised
to see a very noticeable improvement in my PC's performance, once I'd
replaced the Symantec product.


> Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?
>

No, Vista has no built-in anti-virus capability; you'll still need to
install a 3rd party application for this purpose. Vista does include a
firewall that's adequate when properly configured, and Windows Defender,
an anti-spyware/adware tool.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Vista as an operating system offers highten security with UAC ( for
prevention ) and among other things, but its not an antivirus by itself or
which has a mechanism to( filter and identify ) viruses and ( delete )such
if ever you or anyone accumulated it. Yet it has with it a built in Windows
Defender for spyware and malware you would encounter on the market today.

"John King" <jgnik@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23d6dwXjwHHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
> security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
> Norton which I now use on XP?
> Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?
>
> Your help will be much appreciated
>
> John King
>
>

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:32:25 +0100, "John King" <jgnik@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
> security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
> Norton which I now use on XP?
> Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?


There are two different issues implied by your question:

1. Do you still need an antivirus program with Vista?

2. Should you use Norton Anti-Virus as your antivirus program.

The answer to question 1 is yes. Although there are many security
improvements in Vista, it does *not* contain an antivirus program and
you still need one.

The answer to question 2 is no. As far as I'm concerned, whether on
Vista or XP, Norton Antivirus is the single *worst* product on the
market. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't allow *anything* Norton on any
of my computers.

I recommend the freeware Avast! instead.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:32:25 +0100, "John King" <jgnik@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
>> security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
>> Norton which I now use on XP?
>> Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?
>>
>
>
> There are two different issues implied by your question:
>
> 1. Do you still need an antivirus program with Vista?
>
> 2. Should you use Norton Anti-Virus as your antivirus program.
>
> The answer to question 1 is yes. Although there are many security
> improvements in Vista, it does *not* contain an antivirus program and
> you still need one.
>
> The answer to question 2 is no. As far as I'm concerned, whether on
> Vista or XP, Norton Antivirus is the single *worst* product on the
> market. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't allow *anything* Norton on any
> of my computers.
>
> I recommend the freeware Avast! instead.
>
>
Wow, its hard to take anyone seriously when they make blanket statements
such as you have. You bias is unwarranted and you basically just come
off looking foolish when you say no one should use NAV. The only "pain"
I've had in loaded NIS is the lengthy installation time. For function
and "impact", it's running as nicely as reviews and my expectations
presumed it would. Could you please move your box down a block or
two? Your ranting about Norton is wearing thin.

Dave

"David" <david@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:qNednSk5V_t5ag_bnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com...
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:32:25 +0100, "John King" <jgnik@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When Vista first came on the market the publicity made a lot of it's
>>> security features. Does this mean that I can dispense with (for example)
>>> Norton which I now use on XP?
>>> Does Vista have regular updates of protection against new viruses e.t.c?
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are two different issues implied by your question:
>>
>> 1. Do you still need an antivirus program with Vista?
>>
>> 2. Should you use Norton Anti-Virus as your antivirus program.
>>
>> The answer to question 1 is yes. Although there are many security
>> improvements in Vista, it does *not* contain an antivirus program and
>> you still need one.
>>
>> The answer to question 2 is no. As far as I'm concerned, whether on
>> Vista or XP, Norton Antivirus is the single *worst* product on the
>> market. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't allow *anything* Norton on any
>> of my computers.
>>
>> I recommend the freeware Avast! instead.
>>
>>
> Wow, its hard to take anyone seriously when they make blanket statements
> such as you have. You bias is unwarranted and you basically just come off
> looking foolish when you say no one should use NAV. The only "pain" I've
> had in loaded NIS is the lengthy installation time. For function and
> "impact", it's running as nicely as reviews and my expectations presumed
> it would. Could you please move your box down a block or two? Your
> ranting about Norton is wearing thin.
>

Norton will never ever be installed on another machine I use. That thing
became Live Update toast and toasted itself on a routine basis, and I had to
reinstall the thing numerous times back in year 2001.

The machine with Vista pre installed came with Norton and the first thing I
did was uninstall the whole Norton nightmare suite.

I went to my solid as a rock NOD32.

I don't know about "need to" in regard to Norton but I have Norton 360 on two computers (one running Vista) and I love it...

I'll second that! I'm currently running Norton 360 on my 32-bit notebook and
I plan to also install in on my 64-bit desktop. Both running Vista Ultimate.
--------------
Bugs are Sons of Glitches!



"The Sand" <The.Sand.2thk43@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:The.Sand.2thk43@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> I don't know about "need to" in regard to Norton but I have Norton 360
> on two computers (one running Vista) and I love it...
>
>
> --
> The Sand

I also agree.
I suspect most Norton bashers are basing their opinion on (much) older
versions of the software.
Maybe not unreasonably so either in all fairness, as in the past Norton was
a hog and could slow many a system to crawl from time to time.
But.... things have moved on.
Norton 360 is not an upgrade but a new program written with Vista in mind.
Vista itself handles "background" tasks much more intelligently with regard
to performance.
I have 360 on Vista Ultimate x64, MS updates on auto, and Media Centre
updates its TV guide as well.
Together they all work very nicely and I have to admit I hardly know they
are there.

Phypps



"David A. Spicer" <vista_ultimate_fan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5FCB3AA7-1032-4F60-B27D-8DB8374DE981@microsoft.com...
> I'll second that! I'm currently running Norton 360 on my 32-bit notebook
> and I plan to also install in on my 64-bit desktop. Both running Vista
> Ultimate.
> --------------
> Bugs are Sons of Glitches!
>
>
>
> "The Sand" <The.Sand.2thk43@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
> news:The.Sand.2thk43@no-mx.forums.net...
>>
>> I don't know about "need to" in regard to Norton but I have Norton 360
>> on two computers (one running Vista) and I love it...
>>
>>
>> --
>> The Sand
>

>I also agree.
> I suspect most Norton bashers are basing their opinion on (much) older
> versions of the software.
> Maybe not unreasonably so either in all fairness, as in the past Norton
> was a hog and could slow many a system to crawl from time to time.
> But.... things have moved on.
> Norton 360 is not an upgrade but a new program written with Vista in mind.
> Vista itself handles "background" tasks much more intelligently with
> regard to performance.
> I have 360 on Vista Ultimate x64, MS updates on auto, and Media Centre
> updates its TV guide as well.
> Together they all work very nicely and I have to admit I hardly know they
> are there.
>
> Phypps

Regarding Norton Internet Security (NIS), I've supported computers with NIS
2006 and NIS 2007 installed and they were painfully slow to boot. When the
systems were finally booted there was still a noticeable impact on
performance caused by NIS, and these were not "much older" versions of the
product. I've also experienced the problems with LiveUpdate breaking,
difficulty installing/uninstalling, etc. When things go wrong they can be
hard to straighten out, especially for novice users. This hasn't happened
often for me, but I haven't notice much improvement in recent versions with
regard to these issues. On the upside, I have heard good things about
Norton 360 - apparently it impacts performance much less. I haven't had a
chance to test it yet, but there's a mostly positive review at this site:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/...ity_suites.asp