Norton versus Kaspersky

[.D0T']

For me, Kaspersky is the supereior product. It is less system intensive and provides a better detection rate. Whereas, Norton seems to hog system resources, and provide an average detection rate.

Kaspersky all the way.

[Whizdom™]

Kaspersky, no question. Plus Norton is a major resource hog.

[Drake™]

Kaspersky is very over protective.

[.D0T']

Kaspersky is very over protective.

Would you rather have a product that was over protective, that was lightweight and not resource intensive. Or a product that was under-protective, and was a resource hog?

I would opt for the first one everytime.

[Yin]

Kaspersky is way better. Norton is overall just a shitty antivirus.

[Av917]

Kaspersky is the better option by far...

[Backslash]

I just like the way Kaspersky scans the files without hogging system usage.

[Yin]

Norton takes up so many resources, it makes your computer WAY slower.

[Quintus]

Seeing as the poll is already a dead give away, I, too, vote for Kaspersky.

[Kaleb]

I wanted to make a poll, just to see which one is better. Norton has too many things on it and it doesn't perform a really good infection clean up as Kaspersky does (In my case)

For me, I prefer kaspersky all the way. But that's just me. What are your opinions on this?

Lo fuckin l, norton sucks ass