Computer Problems

[kaosmark2]

I got a load of viruses a while back when I downloaded a whole batch of SNES roms. I've been AV-software free for about 7 years though and haven't got any virus in that time. If I visit a dodgy site to do something like that I tend to boost up Linux on my old PC then isolate the files I want and transfer them. I presume that most other dodgy sites are porn.

AVG 8 years ago was the best free AV I'd found, hence my recommending it, and 8 years ago it was hell of a lot less bloated and intrusive than Norton, hence my recommending it now, although I realise that knowledge is fairly out of date, albeit knowing a couple of people who use it doesn't mean it isn't shit software.

[the_hedge]

Can you just not go back to one of the restores dates?

Failing that I would back up all your docs and restore to factory settings. I tend restore it factory every 9 months just to clear all the crap when it starts slowing down.

[windy_miller]

I have not used Norton for years, so maybe the latest one is better than it used to be, but a few years ago it used to bring a computer to its knees. I think Norton have lost a lot of customers over the years as everyone realized they could get better programs for free. Maybe that made them improve their software, but its probably too late. I think they make most of their money by having their software pre-installed on new computers, and relying on people to not look for alternatives.

I have noticed Avast getting more bloaty recently which has prompted my move to Windows Security Essentials. Basically I want a virus checker that doesn't get in your way. Avast used to do that but recently has been popping up all sorts of annoying messages.

[eFestivals]

I have not used Norton for years, so maybe the latest one is better than it used to be, but a few years ago it used to bring a computer to its knees.

I've not used Norton for a few years (3+ now I think), and I used it since at least 2000 - and it never once brought any of the computers it was installed on to it's knees. You couldn't even notice a difference in the speed of the PC from before install to after install.

And that was me using the full Norton 'security' package too, not just the AV bit.

And now I use AVG - just the AV bit - and there's no difference.

It's just myths. People feel important by saying they know a product is crap.

Edited October 2, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I've not used Norton for a few years (3+ now I think), and I used it since at least 2000 - and it never once brought any of the computers it was installed on to it's knees. You couldn't even notice a difference in the speed of the PC from before install to after install.

And that was me using the full Norton 'security' package too, not just the AV bit.

And now I use AVG - just the AV bit - and there's no difference.

It's just myths. People feel important by saying they know a product is crap.

That would be hyperbole, but from 99-2004 it was certainly bloatware that popped up far too often.

[eFestivals]

That would be hyperbole, but from 99-2004 it was certainly bloatware that popped up far too often.

nah, it really wasn't - otherwise the suggested alternatives would have made a difference. They didn't.

[windy_miller]

I think Neil must be the only person on the planet who was perfectly happy with Norton between 1999 and 2004.

[eFestivals]

I think Neil must be the only person on the planet who was perfectly happy with Norton between 1999 and 2004.

Nowhere have I said I was happy with it.

I'm merely pointing out that it certainly didn't cause the effects that people claim for it.

My experience of it is no less valid than your own, and whereas the slaggers have a clear reason for having a biased view, I'm 100% neutral about it.

Back in the late 80s or early nineties, i've no doubt that the likes of you would have been saying "Dr Solomans is better" when that and Norton were the exact same product with just some different branding.

[Paul ™]

Neil right, everyone else wrong thread again then?

I personally don't use any AV software now on any of the PC's or laptops in the house, just careful what we use them for and do on them.

[eFestivals]

What is that "clear" reason ? Specially since you seem to think it makes your view more valid...

a clear hatred of Norton - one which didn't or doesn't reflect the reality.

There's a million things which can slow down a PC, and for some people their belief is that it's Norton. And yet here's betting few of those people actually did any testing to check it was Norton but placed the blame there anyway.

Unless .... they were running 'modern' software on an old PC, which the PC wasn't able to cope with; exactly as was happening last week on this website when some people (but not others) found things slowed down because their PCs couldn't handle the Flash which was sometimes being served up.

As I said, there's been loads of posts made here over the years saying that Norton is shot and AVG is so much faster - and yet it's not. Those people are defo mistaken about AVG being faster, which of course also gets to mean that Norton is far less of a problem than they've been saying.

[eFestivals]

Neil right, everyone else wrong thread again then?

it must be Paul. All we need now is you to throw in a completely unwarranted accusation, and you can keep walk around thinking how you're beyond reproach.

[eFestivals]

I don't "HATE" Norton.... I dislike a poor product they have produced...

I'll give your suggestion a go in a minute on a spare PC I have here, and then AVG, and then Norton, and then do some timed tests .... here's betting that any differences are too small to be noticed.

[Paul ™]

it must be Paul.

Thought so

[eFestivals]

Its kind of cute the way Neil thinks he is the only one here... Or on the planet... That is capable of doing a bit of testing / investigation...

Someone has a superiority complex

When the claims of others don't match up to the experienced reality, I ain't going to put any belief in those claims.

But of course, I suspect that you put your belief in the things you've experienced as wrong.

[eFestivals]

You are comparing AVG to Norton and coming to the conclusion that Norton is not a resource hungry bitch... That is stupidly simplistic in my opinion...

No, I've arrived at the conclusion via experience of both that those people who have said that AVG is much faster than Norton are wrong.

And given that their claims of AVG being so much faster is based on Norton being bloated - just as you've said here - and yet AVG is not faster, so I doubt the bloat claims as well.

That doesn't mean that it couldn't be slimmed down of course, but the claims of how bad Norton is doesn't stack up to the claims that have been made.

BTW Barry, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how I know nothing about how AV software scans for virus' ... you said I was wrong, but you've failed to say a single bit of why. Would that be because you can't back up your original words, perchance?

[eFestivals]

You ever factored in that how good certain software is depends very much on what the user is doing So your experince may never be the same as someone elses...

For example, I develop using tools like Toad, Visual Studio, etc... You notice HUGE issues with performance and virus checking when doing this. ESET excels in this area.

all it's doing at every point is intercepting and scanning data that is being written to disk or to memory (plus the same for disk reads) - so the specific application being run means naff all.

[kaosmark2]

AVG might be shit now. I know a few people who still use it but I don't have any AV software. Norton between 99-04 was bloated and awful, and AVG noticably less so. AVG still caused a fair whack of slowdown, which is why I stopped using AV at all around 05/06 but back then it was less clunky than Norton.

Neil, what you're saying, is your personal experiences of AV software didn't notice a difference, so noone else could possibly have had a different experience to you and therefore we all must be either lying or blinded by bias. It's a bit of an extreme and unreasonable stance, noone is dismissing your observations and experiences in the same way.

[eFestivals]

You made out that every file saved to or read into memory needs checking... If that was true then most computers would grind to a halt Maybe you are right after thinking about it... Maybe that is where they are going wrong Is that the big £100k+ job you once had LMAO

If you want your AV software to do what it claims, then not checking every file means that the AV software is not doing what it claims it is.

Or are you of the belief that virus writers don't exploit vulnerabilities, and instead write their software to the rules of an operating system?

[eFestivals]

Neil, what you're saying, is your personal experiences of AV software didn't notice a difference, so noone else could possibly have had a different experience to you and therefore we all must be either lying or blinded by bias. It's a bit of an extreme and unreasonable stance, noone is dismissing your observations and experiences in the same way.

It's no less of an "extreme and unreasonable stance" to say that AVG is so much faster than Norton when it's not.

Meanwhile, I've just disabled AVG on my PC so that I'm now running no AV. Can I spot the difference? Nope, I can't.

(and my PC is at least 6 years old [perhaps older], and wasn't high-spec when bought).

[eFestivals]

If all you do on your computer is a little web browsing and sending the odd email you probably won't notice much difference between the different AV products...

Telling you now if you do something intensive like development you do...

the programmers and (supposedly) heavy computer users I know have tried telling me that I don't need everything I have installed on my computer ... and then I've proven to them that I do. I'm the heaviest computer user that my group of friends knows (and that includes some serious programmers, not players like you).

I really hope you are not using something like Norton to protect your servers...

that would require me to be stupid enough to use windoze for my servers.

I do run AV software on all my servers, but there's not really any need for any AV software because everything on those servers comes from safe sources (such as my own PC).

Edited October 2, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

It's no less of an "extreme and unreasonable stance" to say that AVG is so much faster than Norton when it's not.

Meanwhile, I've just disabled AVG on my PC so that I'm now running no AV. Can I spot the difference? Nope, I can't.

(and my PC is at least 6 years old [perhaps older], and wasn't high-spec when bought).

Yes it is. People are saying a stance based on personal experience (and my own use is "was"). So are you. The difference is, you're belittling everyone whose got a different experience as being wrong and biased. I can't see anyone claiming that you're lying about what you're doing, just questioning other factors to see why your experience might be different to everyone else's.

[eFestivals]

Yes it is. People are saying a stance based on personal experience (and my own use is "was"). So are you. The difference is, you're belittling everyone whose got a different experience as being wrong and biased. I can't see anyone claiming that you're lying about what you're doing, just questioning other factors to see why your experience might be different to everyone else's.

I'm not saying their PCs weren't slowed down. I'm saying they were slowed down for a different reason than they've chosen to believe.

And I say that on the basis that what they said is not my experience. It's hardly an unreasonable conclusion to make.

The alternative would be having a belief contrary to my experience - which I'm sure is not something you'd do yourself, so why expect it of me?

[windy_miller]

all it's doing at every point is intercepting and scanning data that is being written to disk or to memory (plus the same for disk reads) - so the specific application being run means naff all.

Not true. I also use Visual Studio every day, and a crap virus scanner can wreak havoc on its performance. Many people in my office actually run their PCs with the virus scanner turned off as it can be too much of a pain in the arse sometimes.

[eFestivals]

Are you doing anything intensive ? Ever thought your usage pattern might have an impact ?

I'm certainly throwing a huge amount of data around my system at all moments - and it's data movement that counts.

I have open right now 16 different applications (with 8 of those running constant background tasks), and that is my typical daily use.

[eFestivals]

I also use Visual Studio every day, and a crap virus scanner can wreak havoc on its performance.

shouldn't that sentence finish with "... at compile time"?

If the processor is maxed out (which it typically is with compiling), then doing anything else will have a noticeable effect.

That's more the limits of the processor than a problem with AV software.

Edited October 2, 2012 by eFestivals