tear
Hi!
What firewall and anti-virus software do you gous run?
I have tied alot of combos but that can't decide wich one to go with. Here are my cons and pros:
Norton Anti Virus 2004
Pros: Good, solid
Cons: Resource hog
Comment: I used to run this an liked it quite a bit until I one day found a virus on my laptop with an online webscan and NAV didn't find it! I don't trust it anymore... It's quite slow and I don't like the user interface that much
Norton Personal Firewall 2003
Pro: Good configuration options, stable
Cons: Slow and a resource hog, not so nice interface
Comments: A good firewall. Sometimes it could be tricky to find the way in the gui wich is very slow. Otherwise a good firewall
Symantec Personal Firewall Pro
I couldn't get this to work with my network. Whenever I'm connected to the domain server netmount mounts a couple of network drives for me and I couldn't get this firewall to permit netmount to run. I tried do disable the firewall but still netmount couldn't be run. So no cons or pros here cause I couldn't get it to work...
Symantec Anti Virus Corporate 8
Pros: Good, solid, quite fast, nice interface, stays in the background and does what it should
Cons: None that I have found
Comments: I would have run this If NAV2004 didn't failed for me as it did. Since this is the same comany I don't trust this one either.
Panda Anti-Virus
Pros: Quite fast, I like the interface alot
Cons: It crashes quite often.
Comments: I like this one. It's quite fast and I love the interface. I tested Panda Platinum 7 wich includes the firewall. I don't like the firewall. It has to few options. The anti-virus part would be great if it didn't crach as much as it did for me. From what I have heard Panda is a good anti vrus and they have been in the game for a long time.
McAfee Internet Security Suite 6
Pros: Nice Interface
Cons: Slow, unstable, lot of problem in the privace service with my network and domain controller.
Comments: I had to unistall the privacy service to gain access to my mounted network drives. I like the inteface wich is quite like the one ion Panda. But the virus search is slow and takes a long time.
These are the firewall and anti-virus I have tried. I can't decide wich one to use since none work 100% for me. I would like to here your opinions about the firewall you have tried and how they worked out for you...
What firewall and anti-virus software do you gous run?
I have tied alot of combos but that can't decide wich one to go with. Here are my cons and pros:
Norton Anti Virus 2004
Pros: Good, solid
Cons: Resource hog
Comment: I used to run this an liked it quite a bit until I one day found a virus on my laptop with an online webscan and NAV didn't find it! I don't trust it anymore... It's quite slow and I don't like the user interface that much
Norton Personal Firewall 2003
Pro: Good configuration options, stable
Cons: Slow and a resource hog, not so nice interface
Comments: A good firewall. Sometimes it could be tricky to find the way in the gui wich is very slow. Otherwise a good firewall
Symantec Personal Firewall Pro
I couldn't get this to work with my network. Whenever I'm connected to the domain server netmount mounts a couple of network drives for me and I couldn't get this firewall to permit netmount to run. I tried do disable the firewall but still netmount couldn't be run. So no cons or pros here cause I couldn't get it to work...
Symantec Anti Virus Corporate 8
Pros: Good, solid, quite fast, nice interface, stays in the background and does what it should
Cons: None that I have found
Comments: I would have run this If NAV2004 didn't failed for me as it did. Since this is the same comany I don't trust this one either.
Panda Anti-Virus
Pros: Quite fast, I like the interface alot
Cons: It crashes quite often.
Comments: I like this one. It's quite fast and I love the interface. I tested Panda Platinum 7 wich includes the firewall. I don't like the firewall. It has to few options. The anti-virus part would be great if it didn't crach as much as it did for me. From what I have heard Panda is a good anti vrus and they have been in the game for a long time.
McAfee Internet Security Suite 6
Pros: Nice Interface
Cons: Slow, unstable, lot of problem in the privace service with my network and domain controller.
Comments: I had to unistall the privacy service to gain access to my mounted network drives. I like the inteface wich is quite like the one ion Panda. But the virus search is slow and takes a long time.
These are the firewall and anti-virus I have tried. I can't decide wich one to use since none work 100% for me. I would like to here your opinions about the firewall you have tried and how they worked out for you...
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Tomay
what about avg, and kaspersky lab http://www.avp.mu/?
Mr.Guvernment
i use norton corptate 8.01 on all system in our home office -= trust it to death never gotten one virus
i do not trust mcafee as it has killed my boot sector in an older version and let in viruses.
AVG is good - but it has also missed virus for me.
i use a hardwrea router firewall for that side./
ontop of that i use Adware 6 and to date over the last year not 1 virus / infect, anything!
i do not trust mcafee as it has killed my boot sector in an older version and let in viruses.
AVG is good - but it has also missed virus for me.
i use a hardwrea router firewall for that side./
ontop of that i use Adware 6 and to date over the last year not 1 virus / infect, anything!
adamvjackson
Quote:What firewall and anti-virus software do you gous run?
Are you looking ideally for single PC/workstation protection or network/domain protection?
Are you looking ideally for single PC/workstation protection or network/domain protection?
tear
OP
I'm looking for protection for a workstation...
adamvjackson
On new stand-alone machines that I build, I usually install a version of Norton Anti-Virus, and a free software firewall, such as Sygate Personal Firewall.
I honestly fail to see how the claim that NAV is a "resource hog" argument can hold any water... Newer multi-gigahertz pcs shouldn't have any problems or resource issues whatsoever.
On my home machine, a P4, 2.26GHz, I can honestly not notice any performance differences with or without NAV 2002 professional installed.
I honestly fail to see how the claim that NAV is a "resource hog" argument can hold any water... Newer multi-gigahertz pcs shouldn't have any problems or resource issues whatsoever.
On my home machine, a P4, 2.26GHz, I can honestly not notice any performance differences with or without NAV 2002 professional installed.
DS3Circuit
Mr.Guvernment
Quote:On new stand-alone machines that I build, I usually install a version of Norton Anti-Virus, and a free software firewall, such as Sygate Personal Firewall.
I honestly fail to see how the claim that NAV is a "resource hog" argument can hold any water... Newer multi-gigahertz pcs shouldn't have any problems or resource issues whatsoever.
On my home machine, a P4, 2.26GHz, I can honestly not notice any performance differences with or without NAV 2002 professional installed.
When you cna install norton anti-v 2004 and see how slow it opens, starts anmd just generally runs
i got a 2.4 @ 3ghz and 1g pc3200 and it runs slower then it should.
I honestly fail to see how the claim that NAV is a "resource hog" argument can hold any water... Newer multi-gigahertz pcs shouldn't have any problems or resource issues whatsoever.
On my home machine, a P4, 2.26GHz, I can honestly not notice any performance differences with or without NAV 2002 professional installed.
When you cna install norton anti-v 2004 and see how slow it opens, starts anmd just generally runs
i got a 2.4 @ 3ghz and 1g pc3200 and it runs slower then it should.
adamvjackson
Quote:When you cna install norton anti-v 2004 and see how slow it opens, starts anmd just generally runs
i got a 2.4 @ 3ghz and 1g pc3200 and it runs slower then it should.
I will do that; However, the resource hog claim has been going around since at least NAV 2001...
i got a 2.4 @ 3ghz and 1g pc3200 and it runs slower then it should.
I will do that; However, the resource hog claim has been going around since at least NAV 2001...
BladeRunner
Well as a user of NAV at home since the 2000 version and currently a user of NAV2004 I have to say that all claims of "resource hog" are BS.
It doesn't slow the machine down, it doesn't take lots of resources.
It sits in the background giving you maximum protection, scanning files as they are executed and in no way slow the machine down.
If this program was the "resource hog" some people seem to claim then I'd expect the program to be using a lot of memory, which it isn't.
I'd also expect benchmarks be they synthetic, system or game to show a difference when NAV is either enabled or disabled - they do not.
It doesn't slow the machine down, it doesn't take lots of resources.
It sits in the background giving you maximum protection, scanning files as they are executed and in no way slow the machine down.
If this program was the "resource hog" some people seem to claim then I'd expect the program to be using a lot of memory, which it isn't.
I'd also expect benchmarks be they synthetic, system or game to show a difference when NAV is either enabled or disabled - they do not.
Mr.Guvernment
It is not BS - i have seen it in front of me.
When it is running in the system tray - i do not notice it - BUT from previous versions such as 2001 and on - when you double click on system tray icon to launch the program or start ir from programs - it takes longer to open and appear every frick'n year..lol and this is NOt BS.
As for the amount of ram is uses - i will check this out if i install it on a new system - i say it is aresource hog becuase when i go to start it - it makes any other program take longer to open as well - as if it is taking all resources to start it's self up and leaving nothing for anything else - this is not the case as it does not use %100 cpu and rma to get started but it makes other prorgam wait in line until it is done.
that is the part that is annoying for me.
When it is running in the system tray - i do not notice it - BUT from previous versions such as 2001 and on - when you double click on system tray icon to launch the program or start ir from programs - it takes longer to open and appear every frick'n year..lol and this is NOt BS.
As for the amount of ram is uses - i will check this out if i install it on a new system - i say it is aresource hog becuase when i go to start it - it makes any other program take longer to open as well - as if it is taking all resources to start it's self up and leaving nothing for anything else - this is not the case as it does not use %100 cpu and rma to get started but it makes other prorgam wait in line until it is done.
that is the part that is annoying for me.
BladeRunner
Sorry, but I disagree with everything you've said.
I'm a NAV 2004 users as I was a NAV 2003, NAV2001 - you get the idea.
It sits in a tony amount of memory even when utilising full system security.
Programs do not take longer to load up - well actually I must admit that I don't sit there with a stop-watch, but even with NAV running all of my Office applications load just as quick as when NAV is disabled.
Benchamrks show no difference if NAV is enabled or disabled.
Boot up is still instant on my WinXP boxes - even after entering my password and letting the very final part of WinXP load there is no waiting around for NAV to load or other applications waiting for NAV to load.
Sure NAV is the last icon to appear in the Systray but there is no waiting for it.
As I said before, I'm actually using the product and I'm using it on a daily basis.
It is not a resource hog, it does not take ages to load - in fact there is nothing at all wrong with it.
Add in the fact that for the last x number of years I've been using a NAV product of some description and I have not been infected by a single virus I think that is pretty conclusive evidence of how good it is.
I'm a NAV 2004 users as I was a NAV 2003, NAV2001 - you get the idea.
It sits in a tony amount of memory even when utilising full system security.
Programs do not take longer to load up - well actually I must admit that I don't sit there with a stop-watch, but even with NAV running all of my Office applications load just as quick as when NAV is disabled.
Benchamrks show no difference if NAV is enabled or disabled.
Boot up is still instant on my WinXP boxes - even after entering my password and letting the very final part of WinXP load there is no waiting around for NAV to load or other applications waiting for NAV to load.
Sure NAV is the last icon to appear in the Systray but there is no waiting for it.
As I said before, I'm actually using the product and I'm using it on a daily basis.
It is not a resource hog, it does not take ages to load - in fact there is nothing at all wrong with it.
Add in the fact that for the last x number of years I've been using a NAV product of some description and I have not been infected by a single virus I think that is pretty conclusive evidence of how good it is.
clutch
I use it on my workstation and in my lab on many systems, and it is, in fact, a resource hog. I have used McAfee products on servers, and when comparing the latest generation of scanners on servers the McAfee ones are a bit quicker to load up. With clients, the difference is more dramatic. I use both scanners on a regular basis, so I can speak to the difference. There are other products that run with less resources than McAfee, but I like the central management features of that product so I keep it around at other sites.
Mr.Guvernment
i dont mean other programs are slow in general.
Norton itself is slow to load for me - whether your beleive me or not - it is slow for me when i double click the system tray icon or go to tstart / programs etc - i am waiting at least 10-20 seconds for norton's window to pop up THEN if i try to open any other programs after and while i am waiting for norton to start - they hang until norton finally opens.
i have installed it after a fresh format and on a machine that is bogged down and it does the same on both for me.
i will sitck to corp. edition
Norton itself is slow to load for me - whether your beleive me or not - it is slow for me when i double click the system tray icon or go to tstart / programs etc - i am waiting at least 10-20 seconds for norton's window to pop up THEN if i try to open any other programs after and while i am waiting for norton to start - they hang until norton finally opens.
i have installed it after a fresh format and on a machine that is bogged down and it does the same on both for me.
i will sitck to corp. edition
toomy
For firewall i suggest Kerio Personal Firewall
works fine for me (winxphome; 1,1GHz; 256 RAM; 18 GB HDD)
You can set up options for every program on the system(what port or portrange, incoming, outgoing traffic, even when to allow and when not)
Antivirus software i'd say that
Norton Antivirus 2003 is the best i've ever seen
and if you set it up to update automatically, it won't let any viruses in.
works fine for me (winxphome; 1,1GHz; 256 RAM; 18 GB HDD)
You can set up options for every program on the system(what port or portrange, incoming, outgoing traffic, even when to allow and when not)
Antivirus software i'd say that
Norton Antivirus 2003 is the best i've ever seen
and if you set it up to update automatically, it won't let any viruses in.
pr-man
Trend Micro Internet Security Suite hands down. Antivirus has been awesome, updates regular, firewall is awesome I have checked myself with every security test I can find and always passes with flying colors.
