RichTJ99 Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Hi all,I was hoping that someone could tell me the difference between Symantec Anti Virus & Norton Anti Virus. They seem to be made by the same company but seem to be two different applications. Is one better than the other? Is one of them easier on the system than another? Symantec anti virus looks to have less of a "footprint" on the system. Is this the case?Thanks,Rich
rustycaps Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 I seem to remember seeing this question on here not too long ago, and I think I replied to it as well - Symantec (8.1/9) is more business orientated, with server/client usage, whereas Norton (2003/4/5) is more for home usage.
Se7eNdUsT Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 Symantec does indeed have a smaller footprint. Norton is much heftier, so if you were basing your choice of AV on memory usage, choose Symantec.
RichTJ99 Posted October 23, 2004 Author Posted October 23, 2004 Symantec does indeed have a smaller footprint. Norton is much heftier, so if you were basing your choice of AV on memory usage, choose Symantec.I think the memory usage is what I would be basing it on. Is the protection level the same though? NAV 2004 / 2005 is quite a "fat" program. One would think that would make it more "secure". Is that the case?
MHz Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 NAV is a more secure program. I have networked with a SAV pc and sadly NAV picked up the virus that SAV was hosting. SAV relies on server/client basis of operation, that does not make it better at all. Compared to NAV, SAV is weaker for a sole operated system. Hence, NAV is for home owners.
Slimy Posted October 23, 2004 Posted October 23, 2004 sav is better, does the same that nav can but doesn't rely on so much ram, it is meant not to slow down large companiesthe proble is it costs more
paul3vanz Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 ill agree with MHz comment above, i used Symantec for a while but I have noticed it miss a few things, also its interface is a bit naff, nortons is much better.on a side note, i am now using Kaspersky Personal 5, which is great, it has a better interface than previous versions and has a great track record for picking up viruses. Costs around £25 of their web-site. The install is just under 10 meg.
RichTJ99 Posted October 24, 2004 Author Posted October 24, 2004 So, why would symantec offer a product that is lightweight but semi useless? I thought that virus definitions are the same for both. Wouldnt it make sense that SAV would have access to the same virus database as NAV? If both products are current with AV definitions then shouldnt they (in theory) be equal?
quicksilk Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Hi! to all hir! i think SAV is better than NAV some virus can't detect on NAV but SAV
totoymola Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 IMO, use NAV if you are a home user. I read an article before comparing these two. SAV is designed for corporate use, and NAV is for home use. NAV scans the your zip files too, SAV doesn't.
eminem_rh25 Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 IMO, use NAV if you are a home user. I read an article before comparing these two. SAV is designed for corporate use, and NAV is for home use. NAV scans the your zip files too, SAV doesn't.yeah it does.... just found a virus in a zip like 2 mins ago
totoymola Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 yeah it does.... just found a virus in a zip like 2 mins agoWhat are you using? NAV or SAV?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now