I’m just looking at these two, so I’d like to ask that we keep this thread on the two software options I’ve listed and that’s it.
Norton
Kaspersky
I got a new personal computer for home use, and it seems to have Norton already installed, and is waiting for me to activate it. I did not know it came with Norton, so I assume it is either part of the software package pre-installed on my computer when I bought it, or it’s something I paid extra for without knowing it. It’s an HP laptop running Windows 7.
I also purchased the Kaspersky 2009 Anti-Virus CD. I did this because
a) I wasn’t aware of the Norton program already installed and
b) I’ve heard great things about Kaspersky.
I need to do some research on the Norton software, but my assumption is that it was just loaded by HP as part of the pre-packaged software. That’s fine, but I’ve heard about Norton and how much of a nightmare it can be. So I’ve held off on activating it.
I did try to load the Kaspersky CD, but it won’t load until I delete Norton. Since I did not receive any software cds with my laptop (I had to create the source/backup CDs myself), I’m not sure if I delete the Norton software I’ll be able to get it back. There is nothing in my documentation that discusses any specific pre-loaded software except Windows 7.
So, for those of you that have used one or the other (or both), which one would you use? I am leaning on deleting Norton and loading Kaspersky, but I’d like to hear from any of you that know these products before making a final decision. If there is a definite benefit to using Norton, I’d like to know. Or if you’ve used Kaspersky and have positive or negative experience, please let me know that as well.
My vote is for guess #3: It is only a trial package which will work for 30 days, and then you’ll have to pay for it if you like it and want to continue.
Please read the fine print before making your decision. Get all the facts. Right now you’re presuming that both will work for the next year, and I really doubt that.
That’s not ALL it does… it IS supposed to help catch malware, spyware, etc from infecting my computer. And I’ve been infected before, and spent considerable time cleaning up my hard drive. So I believe it serves a valuable function.
As others have mentioned, the Norton is a trial… 30 days, I believe.
However, I actually purchased Kaspersky.
I guess this is brings me to another question. Are all of these anti-virus programs yearly investments (i.e., paying for a new “subscription”) to keep it active?
Actually, he likely (unless he has a Mac) already has a malware infection, but just doesnt know it.
The whole bit about staying off porn sites and staying clean is hwaaay out of date. You could have got Malware even on Snopes.
No real computer pro I know even thinks this is even vaguely possible. Now, true, I know several that believe that with Windows 7, some good freeware, and some caution, you’re fine.
My understanding is that the subscriptions are to keep the program updated with info about the newest viruses. You can keep running them forever, but with protection only from the old viruses.
Here is a link to PC Magazine’s reviews of security suites from a few months ago. Both Norton and Kaspersky get good reviews, but they awarded Editor’s Choice to Norton Internet Security 2010
(At one point, I subscribed to PC Magazine and based purchasing decisions on its reviews, but the magazine is merely a shadow of its former self.)
Btw, I do run a passive antivirus scanning on the backup harddrive I send offsite twice a year. No viruses found ever in the last 10 years. I just don’t run antivirus on my main computer.
The only people I know that get virus infections are… the people who protect themselves with antivirus programs.
How’s that?
Because IME, the particular user’s behavior has a greater impact on getting infected vs the antivirus software used (or not used).
Antivirus doesn’t help at all with zero-day exploits. It also doesn’t detect many rootkits. Norton antivirus didn’t detect the Sony rootkit until a year after hacker pointed described it in a web article. To add insult to injury of antiviruses weaknesses, you have to put up with a computer that’s slower than molasses when real-time scanning is enabled.
I use my computer for mundane business purposes. No pirated video games. No sex websites. It’s the type of behavior that creates a ticking time bomb.
If I thought Kaspersky or Norton were worthy of the trouble, I’d use them. That’s my opinion.
I do use firewalls. They help. I don’t use antivirus, they make things worse. I do recommend antivirus for some folks but I tell them that if they have a family sharing a computer that clicks on everything, you will have a virus infection regardless.
That detects Viruses. I am talking Malware, aka Spyware, Adware, etc.
Nor is behavior a certain protection. Like I said, the CW about pirated video games and sex websites is outdated. The ads here could be infected. Snopes had ads which were infected. So did sites one click away from MSN.
Like I said, antivirus is not very good at detecting malware, or spyware such as rootkits.
Nothing is certain. That is true.
However, I’m stressing that for some folks, the type of computer behavior trumps antivirus software.
The ads for snopes are filtered via firewalls and blacklists at the network level instead of antivirus software at the computer level. In my experience, it’s better to block things like ads.tribalfusion.com at the firewall level rather than let it through and then try to block the javascript.
Neither, all AV is about as good as the other, but both the ones you mention are especially bloaty. Save your pennies and just download Microsoft Security Essentials for free.
But behavior is a lot harder to change than installing an antivirus/antispyware program. If you are careful what kind of bimbos you pick up when trolling bars, you don’t need a condom, but the smart fella wraps that rascal.
