Hello, I have Norton Internet Security 2006 and I also have Ewido but I run Norton all the time and Ewindo only when I suspect a problem. My real questions are "How good is Norton?","What is the down/up side of Norton", "What are the alternatives?".
Thanks in advance!

Hello Stran93r and let me be the first to welcome you to BC.

Well i will be short on this one, but you will get many other opinions i can assure you of that.

Norton all-in-all is a very good Anti-Virus, it does as it should and thats what you pay for. There are many anti-Norton users out there, this is mainly because it uses alot of your CPU to run,which hogs the speed at which your computer runs. Its ok on newer systems, but older ones will show a definate decrease in speed with it on them.

Also,once Norton is on your system,it can be a bit of a pain to remove,possible, just awkward.
If you have already paid for the full version of Norton and your system is running at a good speed, then keep it on there. No point in removing it if you have paid for it, unless your system is running really slow.

Yes, there are many other AV's out there that you may wish to switch to once your subscription has expired, some very very good free AV's too. Have a browse around the forum and have a look HERE and see what you find.

Oh, and you should run ewido at least once a week to be sure nothings creeped on there.

Happy browsing

Norton is as good as any other Antivirus, since none are perfect.
The biggest complaints about Norton, as graveangel stated, is it's a systen hog (uses a lot of resources), and is a real bear to uninstall.
For some freeware Antivirus alternatives, check graveangel's link, under the Antivirus heading.

graveangel , for me you've summed it up perfectly. I don't like Norton for the reasons you stated but i must admit it gives good protection.

Stran93r , my advice............use up your prescription then arm yourself with the freebies , you'll be pleasantly surprised how effective they are. Of course as NIS 2006 includes a firewall and anti spam as well as antivirus you will need separate apps to cover all these areas.

I guess because I've used Norton for so long and it's a brand name it seems like it's the best way to go...but in reality it isn't...

One other problem that Norton has which may not be an issue for everyone, is that it doesn't scan IMAP mail. My University mail was IMAP, there was no POP option, consequently none of my mail was scanned by Norton - so if you have IMAP mail, make sure to choose a AV that scans IMAP mail, several of them don't.

Guess what? When Panda On-line found 6 related virus files on my computer, they were ALL attached to my IMAP mail, not one to my POP mail which Norton does scan for.

Which reminds me: no one virus checker is 100% perfect, so it's a good idea to occasionally get a 2nd opinion, as it were, from various on-line scanners. Just be sure when you use them that you temporarily turn off the real-time protection to prevent conflicts. Turn it back on when the scanning is finished.

Orange Blossom

Maybe I should point out that mail scanning doesn't contribute to your security, since the resident (real-time) scanner will scan the mail when you open it.

Hmm. So you're saying that it doesn't matter if it's not scanned when it's downloaded? And what about the attachments? From my experience, the real-time mail protection in ZA and in Symantec scan mail as it's downloaded, but Symantec won't do this with IMAP mail. My ZA will even quarantine suspect attachments - as they are downloaded, and I suspect even whole messages if necessary. And there is still the fact that my IMAP mail had virus files whilst my POP mail didn't.

Orange Blossom

The mail-scanner scan emails and attachments as they are downloaded. The real-time scanner scan the mail and attachments as they are opened. So technically you scan them twice, and if one doesn't find the virus the other won't either.

OK, that begs the question--will AVG (that is what I use) alert you if it finds a virus before you download an infected email or attachment? If it does, will deleting the infected email before opening prevent further infection?

I would think so. I'm a little leary of trusting an as-it's-opened scan. By that point it's been opened it may be too late. It seems to me that it's better to quarantine the bugger before it's opened, especially if there are both recognized and unrecognized viruses in the unopened mail. The latter might not get quarantined upon opening, but it certainly would upon downloading.

How about an analogy: sick animals that need surgery. Is it better to quarantine the sick animal before the surgery begins or after the surgery has begun?

Orange Blossom

I think it is useful to remember that many ISPS/E-mail providers will ALSO scan your E-mail and attachments; in this case, your AV is a second layer of protection.
Regards,
John