wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:31:05 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:03:23 -0500, HK wrote:

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:06:00 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
If I could I would cancel Norton.

The problem is I don't know what to replace it with.
AVG Free. Automatic updates. http://free.grisoft.com/

avast! is also good.
http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
JimH,
Can you see how much memory AVG uses. McAfee uses about 25,000K
Less than a quarter of that.
Avast and AVG received the lowest ratings of the 12 anti-virus programs
tested by Consumer Reports. AVG was on the bottom.
Well, that does it for me...a low rating on a computer security program
from Consumers Reports. Yup. That's definitive.
*Norton* was rated #6. ~giggle~


The latest Norton suite is also touted by PC Mag, but I had so many
problems with the 2006 version, I dumped it and I doubt I would try it
again. In addition to the fact it is nearly impossible to remove from
the registry and from "hidden locations," I thought it was incredibly
bloated, and I could tell it was slowing everything down.
Running Symantec Anti-virus on over 3000 desktops and lotsa Netware
and a few Windows servers here without any serious problems. "Norton
Suite" is not primarily an anti-virus, and should not be lumped in
with this discusssion.



The norton internet and security suites include NAV.

Understood. However, comparing a "suite" with a standalone anti-virus
and trying to compare footprints and complexity is absurd, and shows a
general lack of understanding of the subject. You may as well compare
MS Notepad to Adobe Professional and complain that the Adobe product
seems big, slow and bloated.


Oh, please. Go split those hairs with the hairsplitters here who give a
damn. I don't. Screw Symantec and its crapware.