Support Forums

I find that McAfee internet security is a great piece of software.

(06-02-2011, 12:33 PM)davidmarker Wrote: [ -> ]DO NOT GO WITH NORTON its bs software, go with malwarebytes, avg free/paid, then comondo firewall free/paid all together you'll be protected.

lol Norton is one of the best today, up there with Bitdefender, ESET, and Kaspersky. AVG is actually one of the worst.

(06-03-2011, 06:20 AM)Unleashed Wrote: [ -> ]lol Norton is one of the best today, up there with Bitdefender, ESET, and Kaspersky. AVG is actually one of the worst.

Norton is great, but uses a lot of CPU. I think i am gonna go back with ESET.

Nod32, Always catches the Virus before it strikes. I've downloaded tons of sketchy things, nothing has gotten past it yet.

To be honest, I use AVG Free, it's quite amazing as it always detect those bullshit rouge AV's that downloads itself to your computer BUT I seem to have problems with the scanning but that's probably just me. I hate Norton. I also had NOD32 which was okay but I didn't feel protected with it.

(06-03-2011, 02:01 PM)Sykez Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest, I use AVG Free, it's quite amazing as it always detect those bullshit rouge AV's that downloads itself to your computer BUT I seem to have problems with the scanning but that's probably just me. I hate Norton. I also had NOD32 which was okay but I didn't feel protected with it.

Exact thing with the NOD32. I didn't feel protected either. I have no idea why. Because it is one of the best.

(06-03-2011, 06:57 AM)Stiggie Wrote: [ -> ]Norton is great, but uses a lot of CPU. I think i am gonna go back with ESET.

Test out the newer version of Norton 360 (preferably 2010, or 2011, recommended by myself) because they have improved since the 2009 and earlier versions with memory use. I all fairness, I find that my computer uses up less RAM when I run norton as opposed to Avast, or Bitdefender (latest versions). They already have a strong database with known malicious strings, so I believe that their main focus for 2011 was user functionality, as well as computer performance and optimizing.

(06-03-2011, 02:20 PM)Unleashed Wrote: [ -> ]Test out the newer version of Norton 360 (preferably 2010, or 2011, recommended by myself) because they have improved since the 2009 and earlier versions with memory use. I all fairness, I find that my computer uses up less RAM when I run norton as opposed to Avast, or Bitdefender (latest versions). They already have a strong database with known malicious strings, so I believe that their main focus for 2011 was user functionality, as well as computer performance and optimizing.

Uh, i didn't knew that. It seems Norton is the best AV. Since it doesn't use a lot of CPU, and got a great AV. Then it seems like it is the best. But sadly i got it in only 60 days :/

(06-03-2011, 02:24 PM)Stiggie Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, i didn't knew that. It seems Norton is the best AV. Since it doesn't use a lot of CPU, and got a great AV. Then it seems like it is the best. But sadly i got it in only 60 days :/

I know where that opinion of many others comes from about the whole RAM rumor, but when I gave it another shot with the 2010 version, I was surprised at how much it had changed, I'll admit it did take up a little extra RAM at some points in time, but overall it did a lot better than the previous 2008 version I had. It can be a pain in the a$$ to get set up and everything, or remove it when you want, but while it's working and on your computer, you shouldn't have much trouble with it, and for what it's worth, i've never had a virus when I ran Norton 360 2011. It's internet firewall was one of my most favorite features.

So i've been leaning towards Norton and Bitdefender for the last while, until I can see any other AV's out there spark some new competition to date.

I'm not working for Bitdefender or Norton lol so I have no reason to lie, I just believe that they have improved quite a bit, and stepped it up. The ratings after quite some time of researching were pretty high recently in 2011 as well, so i've relied on them for the last few months. Keeping an open mind to other AV's out there too, because the whole security world of a Windows PC is always changing, but for now, what works, works .

(06-03-2011, 02:39 PM)Unleashed Wrote: [ -> ]I know where that opinion of many others comes from about the whole RAM rumor, but when I gave it another shot with the 2010 version, I was surprised at how much it had changed, I'll admit it did take up a little extra RAM at some points in time, but overall it did a lot better than the previous 2008 version I had. It can be a pain in the a$$ to get set up and everything, or remove it when you want, but while it's working and on your computer, you shouldn't have much trouble with it, and for what it's worth, i've never had a virus when I ran Norton 360 2011. It's internet firewall was one of my most favorite features.

So i've been leaning towards Norton and Bitdefender for the last while, until I can see any other AV's out there spark some new competition to date.

I'm not working for Bitdefender or Norton lol so I have no reason to lie, I just believe that they have improved quite a bit, and stepped it up. The ratings after quite some time of researching were pretty high recently in 2011 as well, so i've relied on them for the last few months. Keeping an open mind to other AV's out there too, because the whole security world of a Windows PC is always changing, but for now, what works, works .

I am surprised as well. I am currently running it, and it is using 4,800 KB, which is amazing. It is really great, and they have big make a big difference from the 2008 to now. I am for sure gonna hang on with Norton, if there was a free Norton AV :/