Sammy said:
Yes. Using Norton 2004 and 2005; With 2005 slowing down more so then
2004; Where as 2004 seems to be slower then 2003 was.
You must be the only person I can think of who doesn't notice it.
Does the Parental Control feature still exist in version 2004 and 2005
(of Norton Internet Security)? If so, did you include it in the
install? Why? If you included it, you could try disabling it to see
what happens with performance. (Repeat the same question regarding
Norton AntiSpam included in NIS.)
When you say just "Norton", you don't narrow it down much. WHICH
Norton? Just Norton AntiVirus? Or Norton Internet Security (which also
includes Norton AntiVirus)?
I've seen plenty of whiners wailing about Norton's slowdown when in fact
they aren't talking about Norton AntiVirus compared against some other
anti-virus only product but are comparing Norton Internet Security with
*everything* of it installed and/or enabled and thinking that is a fair
comparison of just its anti-virus component. If you are talking about
NIS disable its firewall (you cannot choose not to install it), don't
install the Parental Control feature (if it is still available), don't
install Norton AntiSpam bundled in the suite, and then compare
performance loss. Even a Ford Mustang will beat out a Porsche if the
Porsche is towing a boat.
For Norton Anti-Virus *ONLY*, I haven't seen much a performance
difference between it and other anti-virus products (that also achieve
better than 95% coverage as tested and shown at
http://www.av-comparatives.org/ (but I have seen some difference in CPU
usage). High CPU usage doesn't NOT necessarily dictate loss of
performance. Even if a process runs at Normal priority, it can
relinquish its process when another wants equal or higher priority
execution. Even zombies know that trick: run heavily when idle but
throttle back when inuse.
Were you comparing ONLY Norton AntiVirus against the other AV products
regarding performance, or were you comparing the full suite of Norton
Internet Security against just an AV-only product? It's been awhile
since I've seen someone purchase *just* Norton AntiVirus when it
represents 75% of the cost of the suite (i.e., for a few bucks more, you
get the suite instead of just one component of it).
Some measurements (not from independent labs, however) show that Norton
AntiVirus will slow a system by 4% while McAfee VirusScan doesn't slow
it at all (real hard to believe), but other AV products also slow down
performance.
http://reviews.cnet.com/ZoneAlarm_with_Antivirus/4505-3667_7-30898743-5.html?tag=top
4% drag with NAV compared to system not running any AV program
http://reviews.cnet.com/Norton_AntiVirus_2005/4505-3681_7-30998882-5.html
"running Norton AntiVirus 2005 results in the same amount of drag on
system performance as running McAfee and Trend Micro PC-cillin"
Too often users claim there is a performance drag but neglect the fact
that they are running a dirty system. It has been polluted over a long
time with software installs, often from unknown or untrusted sources,
been repaired several times or crapware eradicated, and they think that
a polluted and mended system should perform flawlessly. If you want to
perform a true test of performance loss, do a fresh install of Windows,
apply all updates, install the product to be tested, update it, and then
benchmark it so it isn't hindered by all the other software you run, a
polluted registry, fragmentation, and other problems that are not the
fault of the product under test. The running with an 80-pound backpack
will fare better than his buddy that has a cold, bandages wrapping his
knees, and given a map written and updated by dozens other users of that
map.
I think users forget that Symantec is a software *publisher*. All of
their products were bought from someone else. They only perform
development thereafter to maintain a marketing edge for their product,
even if that edge is nebulous. Symantec is not a software developer.
That means their goals for their products are different. I've seen the
same happen with other software publishers. Figure in about 3 years to
start looking for alternatives, and in 5 years you really need an
alternative. Norton AntiVirus (and their firewall, too) are outside the
3-year window, and even outside the 5-year window. So I don't doubt
there is some degradation with the latest versions of NAV as it is
getting long in the tooth. Just be sure you are comparing apples to
apples and not apples to a truckload of apples.
When I switched from Norton AntiVirus to CA EzAntiVirus, I noticed a
just perceptible performance increase. However, I have yet to see
AV-Comparatives (or anyone else providing as comprehensive a test) show
the coverage for EzAntivirus so I'm in the dark as to it coverage. I
see lots of users saying to use AVG or Avast simply because they have
free versions, but their coverage sucks - but then I really don't know
how good is the coverage by EzAntiVirus.