Antivirus Recommendations: Symantec vs Kaspersky or Other?

[Tsuioku]

Hi Everyone...
My Norton is expiring soon so I'm looking for a new antivirus software.
I'm currently looking at Symantec Corporate or Kaspersky since I know people that already have it.

Symantec Corporate (not Norton) seems quite popular amongst businesses but there are very few reviews online. Browsing around, Kaspersky seems to be ranked quite highly but I read that it is a resource hog.

Anybody have Kaspersky to leave a comment? Resource-wise, how does it compare with Norton?

I don't know much about anti-virus programs but I guess the main things I'm looking for is something that provides good real-time protection that does not slow down my computer too much (I'm OK w/ the amount of resources that Norton uses rite now so I guess it would be my reference point)


What would you recommend?

[JHEM]

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1

Regards,

James

[GomJabbar]

Anybody have Kaspersky to leave a comment? Resource-wise, how does it compare with Norton?

I've been using Kaspersky for the last couple of months. Subjectively speaking, I believe Kaspersky and Norton are similar resource-wise. They both slow down the system. The default setting for Kaspersky checks for updates every 3 hours. This is adjustable from 1 hour to 1 week, or can be turned off.

I "feel" better protected with Kaspersky than with Norton AV 2005. You can adjust virus scanning to pause when system loading exceeds some threshold you set. You can also choose not to perform a scheduled scan if on battery at some charge threshold that you set.

You can download and use Kaspersky for free for one month to try it out. When the month is up, protection stops until you license the program.

EDIT: The following was posted in error - One thing Kaspersky does is block some ads from loading. It was actually Kerio Personal Firewall doing this.

[ambientscape]

Hi Everyone...
My Norton is expiring soon so I'm looking for a new antivirus software.
I'm currently looking at Symantec Corporate or Kaspersky since I know people that already have it.

Symantec Corporate Edition seems quite popular amongst businesses but there are very few reviews online. Browsing around, Kaspersky seems to be ranked quite highly but I read that it is a resource hog.

Anybody have Kaspersky to leave a comment? Resource-wise, how does it compare with Norton?

I don't know much about anti-virus programs but I guess the main things I'm looking for is something that provides good real-time protection that does not slow down my computer too much (I'm OK w/ the amount of resources that Norton uses rite now so I guess it would be my reference point)


What would you recommend?

I'm using Symantec Corporate Edition (works like a champ!) and I get updates everyday. There's a topic discuss before about the anti virus software recommendation http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

[thibouille27]

Never even touch Norton antivirus (Corporate Symantec is OK) unlmess you want your Core Duo T2400 to become powerful as a P3-866. It is crap, crap and crap. Period.

[BillD]

Another vote for AVG here... It's free,it works very well,and they update it often...

From my own personal experiance I stay away from any Norton product,especially their Antivirus,they given me nothing but problems in the past...

[Ervin]

Rule no. 1: stay away from Symantec products (i.e. Norton). I used to be a big fan, but lately I simply cannot stand their waste of computing resources. However, many people swear by Symantec Antivirus (the corporate version).

One of the first things I did on my new ThinkPad was to uninstall "Symantec Client Security" or whatever its name was, especially after I noticed that the PC was using 350+ MB of RAM doing nothing (idle). After uninstall and a few system tweaks, I average around 250 MB, while working. Most of the difference is due to the uninstalled Symantec crap.

Among commercial antiviruses, I like most Nod32 from Eset. It's a gem. It has a Silent Mode which allows one to set it and forget it (until it's time to renew the subscription). It's worth every penny, although relatively unknown in the US.

Among free applications, both AVG and Avast have good reputation, with AVG being more popular.

[Tsuioku]

Edited my original post...

Thank you for your worries but I am NOT going back to Norton... When I said Symantec... I meant Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition...

Also added a Poll...

[dsigma6]

ive had no problems wih AVG free.

[techflavor]

CNN: Hackers can crack top antivirus program

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/intern ... s.flaw.ap/


Check that out before automatically assuming the "Corporate" edition is safe.

[GomJabbar]

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

IMHO, in the end it boils down to how important is your protection vs how important is a fast computer. Only you can be the judge.

Of course other things come into play that might influence your decision:
(1) What kind of web sites do you visit?
(2) Do you download software from questionable sites?
(3) Do you download Smileys?
(4) Do you open email from sources you don't recognize?
(5) Do you open email attachments even from acquantances if unexpected?
(6) Are you behind a firewall?
(7) Do you keep Windows up-to-date security wise?
(8) Which browser do you use?
(9) Are your browser security settings adequate?

[Jason986]

At my university, Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is given to each student. At last check they were giving out version 10.0.x. That said, I don't use it and neither do any of the techs I work with here. AVG is popular and so is Avast! (the later of which I use and can attest to). Symantec Corporate 10.0 has bugs. On a T43 and Dell D610 I tried it on, the systems would be extremely sluggish for about the first three minutes after Windows loaded due to the Symantec software loading up and scanning far too many files every bootup. A few registry hacks were required to fix it.

I like Avast! because I find the user interface more intuitave than AVG and because it just plain works. No bloatware for me! It also meets the same stringent campus security requirements as Norton, Symantec, and McAfee, so I have faith in it zapping problems befre they have a chance to zap me.

Jason

[KF9YR]

I've had good luck with AVG Free on my personal computers and on my friends personal computers (been using it for a couple of years now).

I help out with the computers at our kids Parochial Grade School ( K-8 ) and we installed the AVG Network Edition on the Server (Server 2003) and 40 desktops (XP Pro). We haven't had any problems there either.

At Work they use McCaffee on all our desktops (thousands) and I haven't seen anything to complain about there either. They used to use Norton but I don't know if we switched for performance/compatibility reasons or price...

Good luck with whatever choice you make.

[davidspalding]

There are good consumer comparisons out there of the biggies. I detest the bloatware called SAV and it's lesser brother Norton AV.

I use McAfee, bcause I got it with 3 licenses and a pretty darn good firewall, for < US$20 after mail in rebate. I found comparable, good firewall + AV + e-mail scanning packages started around US$50.

AVG is a good, simple solution. Tested it for a few days, wasn't disappointed in the slightest. But if you want flexibility about scheduled updates, scheduled scans, selecting what areas to scan on which schedule, you will have to buy something. I think Bit Defender (?) (not sure about the name) was a leader in one or two comparisons, but let your own needs, your own research, and - ahem - your own wallet be your guides.

[archer6]

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

I agree with your position, nice comprehensive post. My question is what do you use?

Thanks...

[GomJabbar]

My question is what do you use?

Read my first post in this thread.

[archer6]

My question is what do you use?

Read my first post in this thread.

Ooops.... that's what happens when I miss my afternoon Starbucks.

[Ervin]

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

The question is: how much of that "protection" do I really need? And is it worth the real price: the significant toll on my computer's performance? For me, there is software and there is bloatware. Norton Antivirus is bloatware. BitDefender is bloatware. Nod32 is software.

It does the job an antivirus is supposed to do, and can be set and forgotten, all of these while using only 20-30 MB of RAM. No nice box, no nice printed manual, no interface for dummies, just a well-designed piece of software. Download the trial version and you'll see what I mean.

P.S. Actually, that's the best advice I can give: download the trial versions, try out each antivirus, and see which one you like the most. The level of protection is really not that much different nowadays.

[teetee]

Exactly. It seems nowadays a product without fancy interface and useless services just won't sell. I used to use pctools under dos (now I am still using mc under linux) and saw nothing change after Symantec bought them. Same thing happened to Ghost program. From 98-2000 I used Norton Antivirus daily until their new version along with the product "Systemworks" came out which both dragged down the system a ton.

Nod32 works well as a mail attachment virus scanning engine on linux from my experience. It does exactly what I need but also acts like a transparant layer addition to my mail gateway.

Now on my win32 plateform I use a software called "AntiVir" (LINK) . The presonal edition is free of charge. It updates its virus definition database almost everyday. The most of all, it uses so little resource(minimum cpu time and about 20mb of memory) as a background program that I don't feel it drags down the system at all on my celeron 400Mhz, 192mb ram laptop even when I am doing a disk scan.

There are lots of choices out there when it comes to antivirus program. I believe the most popular one is not necessarily the best. The program designed from user's point of view instead of marketing purpose should have a chance to survive and grow. And hopefully after those nice programs gets the market, they will still keep their mind open (like google) and not be blind by quick money.

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

The question is: how much of that "protection" do I really need? And is it worth the real price: the significant toll on my computer's performance? For me, there is software and there is bloatware. Norton Antivirus is bloatware. BitDefender is bloatware. Nod32 is software.

It does the job an antivirus is supposed to do, and can be set and forgotten, all of these while using only 20-30 MB of RAM. No nice box, no nice printed manual, no interface for dummies, just a well-designed piece of software. Download the trial version and you'll see what I mean.

P.S. Actually, that's the best advice I can give: download the trial versions, try out each antivirus, and see which one you like the most. The level of protection is really not that much different nowadays.

[/url]

[GomJabbar]

The question is: how much of that "protection" do I really need? And is it worth the real price: the significant toll on my computer's performance?

For the average user, he won't know unless his antivirus did not provide the protection at that crucial moment when it was needed. It's kind of like insurance. You buy what you feel you can afford and hope it is enough. I agree, for most users, any antivirus program that is kept updated will probably provide the protection they need. It's just that some of us want all the protection available.

Really, the average user that is looking for premium protection can only go by what they read from antivirus software testing companies, organizations, etc. They are not going to personally test antivirus software by purposely bombarding their computer with viruses. I feel that forums such as this are useful for pointing users to sources of information on the subject and for reading about other users experiences.

Here is one site to review: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

EDIT: The following was posted in error in a previous post of mine above - One thing Kaspersky does is block some ads from loading. It was actually Kerio Personal Firewall doing this. I made a notation also in my post above.

[Tsuioku]

Here is one site to review: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Thanks.. The Reviews at AV-Comparatives were quite in depth and very useful. Didn't really know about ProActive protection until now but for the moment, I'll be a bit more lenient in this category.



Since each reviewer may have a different virus set possibly allowing different different programs to have an edge, what I decided to do was browse around different antivirus reviews and see which program is regularly ranked highly.

The regulars I mostly see are BitDefender, Kaspersky and NOD32. It was a difficult choice but at the end... the winner is... Kaspersky... [No flames please]

I think I'll give Kaspersky a try first and move onto NOD32 if it doesn't work out and BitDefender afterwards.
Thank you for everyone's help.

[Tsuioku]

It does the job an antivirus is supposed to do, and can be set and forgotten, all of these while using only 20-30 MB of RAM. No nice box, no nice printed manual, no interface for dummies, just a well-designed piece of software. Download the trial version and you'll see what I mean.

P.S. Actually, that's the best advice I can give: download the trial versions, try out each antivirus, and see which one you like the most. The level of protection is really not that much different nowadays.

If 20-30MB would be the memory usage of "software" then I guess Kaspersky isn't too bad. I just installed the antivirus portion of the program and setting virus updating to once a day. Comparing ram usage b4 and after installation at system startup, it uses ~25MB (vs ~80MB from Norton!).

So far... Startup time is a tad slower but I guess I can wait the extra 5-10 seconds (compared to Norton).

[carbon_unit]

Yes, it seems that the latest versions of Kaspersky are starting to get bloated too. I used to use it frequently on customers computers but now I am switching to NOD32 for users with frequent problems. For those without such high demands we are using AVG free or AVG Pro. For my customers I have found that while AVG misses a few things (they all do) it is easier for most people to setup and run. If it is not easy most people will not use it and then the program is ineffective.
People who frequent nastier sites need better protection and NOD32 is better suited for them but it is less intuitive to setup and run.
This is just my opinion but I deal with these issues everyday.
Different people have different needs.
While I do not agree with this statement:

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

The fact that it is slowing your system down doesn't necessarily mean it is doing a better job.
There is no one perfect solution out there, they all have drawbacks. You have to find a compromise that fits you.

This one explains why different people need different virus protection:

1) What kind of web sites do you visit?
(2) Do you download software from questionable sites?
(3) Do you download Smileys?
(4) Do you open email from sources you don't recognize?
(5) Do you open email attachments even from acquantances if unexpected?
(6) Are you behind a firewall?
(7) Do you keep Windows up-to-date security wise?
(8) Which browser do you use?
(9) Are your browser security settings adequate?

[galileo634]

NOD32!!!! I try Norton, Kaspersky, Bitdefender.... GO NOD32!!!! Great, great antivirus program.

[smids]

I've had many in my time. The best I have come across is F-Secure. I am on a free license with my University's corporate license but it really is worth it. It has a built in spyware checker too. I'm using F-Secure Anti-Virus Client Security which is like the corporate edition but even the Internet Security suite runs on the same engine virtually.

[yogibear]

While I am not an expert in this area, I suspect you can't get something for nothing. In other words, the degree of protection you get is proportional to the resources used by the antivirus software. Better protection = more resources.

IMHO, in the end it boils down to how important is your protection vs how important is a fast computer. Only you can be the judge.

Of course other things come into play that might influence your decision:
(1) What kind of web sites do you visit?
(2) Do you download software from questionable sites?
(3) Do you download Smileys?
(4) Do you open email from sources you don't recognize?
(5) Do you open email attachments even from acquantances if unexpected?
(6) Are you behind a firewall?
(7) Do you keep Windows up-to-date security wise?
(8) Which browser do you use?
(9) Are your browser security settings adequate?

Precisely!
I would like to add one things: (10) Do you use strong password for your OS credential or other account?

Back to this topic, my vote is the first one: Symantec Corporate.

[GomJabbar]

A couple more come to mind.........

(11) Do others use your computer - perhaps your kids?
(12) Do you share software with friends and coworkers?

[lophiomys]

my 2 cents about Kaspersky

as we have just decided to purchase and install
Kaspersky AntiVirus(KAV) "Business Optimal" for Small
and Medium Business, on the basis of testing KAV 6.0
Personal which was released around 1st of June 2006.

We learned the followning:
-- The bussiness version of
KAV (inclunding the AdminKIT for centralized administration)
is only available as version 5.0. And nowhere during the
online ordering process you'll find a hint that you are
buying only version 5 for KAV Business Optimal. For the BO
products there is simply no versioning info to be seen
anywhere, so you are likely to believe it to be the new V6.

- The KAV Business Optimal Workstation does not install
on a Windows Server product. Kaspersky wants you to buy
the much more costly KAV for Windows File Servers.

- The AdminKit needs MSDE 2000 or MS SQL Server 2005
Express SP1 installed (incluing MDAC 2., which caused
major and time consuming troubles beforehand.

++ Apart from theses intial annoyances, the KAV BO with
Admin Kit runs fine.

** On my R51 I have KIS 6.0 Personal running, without
any problems so far. Except from time to time I note a lot
of HDD background activity caused by KIS 6.0, what is a
bit irritating sometimes.

** BitDefender 8.0 and Avira AntiVir Personal Edition (free)
also did a good job on my R51.

** I hate Norton Antivirus which was removed from our
computers in favour of Kaskersky.

HTH

[kstuart]

Of course other things come into play that might influence your decision:
(1) What kind of web sites do you visit?
(2) Do you download software from questionable sites?
(3) Do you download Smileys?
(4) Do you open email from sources you don't recognize?
(5) Do you open email attachments even from acquantances if unexpected?
(6) Are you behind a firewall?
(7) Do you keep Windows up-to-date security wise?
(8) Which browser do you use?
(9) Are your browser security settings adequate?

That is that same thought that I had when I read this thread. My T40 arrived with Norton installed and I'm about to turn it off. I've used IBM PCs since the first model and the Internet for 20 years without ever installing AV software, and I've never had a virus execute, because:

- I've never used a mail program that has the capability to execute attachments without asking the user and I've never executed an attachment without a separate email from the sender verifying that they sent it.
- I do check executable files with a web-based file virus scanner, unless they are from already-scanned sources like Microsoft or Download.com
- I keep Windows up-to-date and use a hardware firewall (router) and a software firewall

I have to say that I find that most users who have AV software are the exact sort who know what to avoid doing.

Having said that, there is certainly nothing wrong with the insurance provided by running AV software.

[turbolium]

Have Kaspersky for over 5 years and love it !!!
tryed Norton/McAfee/NOD32 but kav is the best by far
i dont run it most of the time but when i need it it did great job stoping scripts and viruses....

curently running v5