Avira AntiVIR vs Norton Antivirus 2009

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 2:38PM

Hi,

Just thought I'd post this - http://expertester.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/avira-antivir-vs-norton-antivirus-2009-performance/

It's an interesting discussion of Avira AntiVIR vs Norton Antivirus 2009 and their performance hits on your system.

Might surprise some, it certainly did me!

Edit: - Also 1 more interesting article comparing three freeware Antivirus products - AntiVir by Avira, Avast by Alwil, and AVG by Grisoft:

http://wiki.castlecops.com/AntiVirus_Comparison

And 1 interesting video comparing the 3 on youtube:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KhXZo3dHulc

aliEnRIK · 27 November 2008 at 2:58PM

certainly an interesting find
However ~
Nortons DETECTION rates are NOT good (Which is surely the whole point of an 'ANTI' virus)
also, ive known it quarantine viruses (And im talking the latest version) and then make Internet Explorer unbootable!
And neither were doing anything. I wonder how theyd compare when ~ scanning and actually USING the computer

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 3:23PM

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Nortons DETECTION rates are NOT good (Which is surely the whole point of an 'ANTI' virus)

I may be missing something here but from looking on http://www.av-comparatives.org -> Comparitives -> "On-demand comparative August 2008 Online results", it shows

SET B (Oct07-Jul08), default settings: 97.4% for Norton, 98.6 for Avira
SET A + B (highest settings): 99.0% for Norton, 99.6% for Avira

Where:

Set A contains malware from Sept 2005 to Nov 2007
Set B contains malware only from the last 9 months

aliEnRIK wrote: »

also, ive known it quarantine viruses (And im talking the latest version) and then make Internet Explorer unbootable!

Number of false positives for Norton = 12 (classed as few), Avira = 17 (classed as many)

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not going out to buy Norton any time soon

aliEnRIK · 27 November 2008 at 3:30PM

I think you missed my whole point
Norton DOES use resources when the computers actually DOING something
Avira still has the better detection rates (Though more false positives I admit, but then a competant user would realise this most of the time)
And norton HAS stopped IE from WORKING on my mates computer (Surely you cant defend that??)

I hold my hand up, nortons better these days than its ever been (And about time)
But with the sheer number of problems ive had, I simply wouldnt touch it with a bargepole

Is all............

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 3:35PM

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I think you missed my whole point
Norton DOES use resources when the computers actually DOING something

It'd be interesting to know, similar to the youtube video, how much memory task manager shows Norton 09 uses while you're doing things...

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Avira still has the better detection rates (Though more false positives I admit, but then a competant user would realise this most of the time)
And norton HAS stopped IE from WORKING on my mates computer (Surely you cant defend that??)

I'm not defending it - it's all relative. I appreciate you've seen this in the real world hence your comment - I was just providing the stats to give a more rounded answer rather than 1 persons experience. No offence intended

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I hold my hand up, nortons better these days than its ever been (And about time)
But with the sheer number of problems ive had, I simply wouldnt touch it with a bargepole

Is all............

Agreed

aliEnRIK · 27 November 2008 at 3:42PM

No worries Dave
I see where your coming from. People shouting Norton down immediately from past experiences. And whilst its certainly took leaps and bounds in the better direction, Ive still found serious problems with it (Particularly resource hogging at times, letting things through it shouldnt, conflicting with OTHER programs and generally being a pain in the !!!)
I just dont think its worth the hassle (Particularly as people have to pay for it)

On the major plus side, its streets ahead of Mcafee which just keeps on getting worse!

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 4:12PM

aliEnRIK wrote: »

On the major plus side, its streets ahead of Mcafee which just keeps on getting worse!

Interesting extract from the report:

Current McAfee VirusScan 12.1.110 does not have Artemis while next McAfee consumer product will have it (currently in beta). The table below shows the detection difference of McAfee with Artemis technology (e.g. in the enterprise version) and without.

McAfee without Artemis
SET B Set A+B
84.4% 92.5%

McAfee with Artemis
SET B Set A+B
97.8% 99.0%

So it looks like it may become a real contender when it's finished Beta testing and available to the masses...

aliEnRIK · 27 November 2008 at 4:16PM

With regards to Mcafee ~ im more talking resource hog. It brings computers to a granding halt at times, and if theyre to add even more to it, id guess it will make it even worse!
On top of that, ive had more trouble with mcafee than I have with norton and that IS saying something......

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 4:24PM

From reading the links above, the AV comparison report and watching the video I'd have to say my choice for a free AV is still Avira AntiVir.

My choice for a paid AV would either be ESET NOD32 or Kaspersky with, for me, NOD32 winning.

aliEnRIK · 27 November 2008 at 4:35PM

I wish theyd take into account resources used and program conflicts/problems too when they do these tests

[Deleted User] · 27 November 2008 at 4:39PM

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I wish theyd take into account resources used and program conflicts/problems too when they do these tests

Wish no longer

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/contact.php

Avira AntiVIR vs Norton Antivirus 2009

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free