Norton Internet Security

Yellow Dog

Hi,

My Norton Internet Security subscription ends soon.

As users of Norton will know it costs more to renew than to buy.

In my search for the cheapest option I notice there is:

Norton Internet Security 2011 and

NORTON Internet Security 2011 Performance Pack

What if any is the difference?

NORTON Internet Security 2011 Performance Pack is available from PC World for €39.99

http://www.pcworld.ie/Product/NORTON-Internet-Security-2011-Performance-Pack/301520/180.1

While Norton Internet Security 2011 costs €59.99

http://www.pcworld.ie/Product/NORTON-Norton-Internet-Security-2011/300715/180.1

Please don't reply with alternative options. I have used Norton for years now without any complaints.

Raekwon

In my experience Norton Internet Security makes the systems that it's installed on feel very laggy and bloated and for that reason alone I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. IMO the product range from ESET is miles better.

To answer your question though there is absolutely no difference between the products that you provided links for aside from the licences (one can be used on 3 personal computers while the other can only be used on one).

Rabidlamb

Microsoft Security Essentials
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

or Avast
http://www.filehippo.com/download_avast_antivirus/

Both free & less of a resource hog than Norton.

keen

Was in the process of posting something similar then noticed the below. Norton users are so stubborn, bite the bullet Yellow Dog. For your computer and pockets sake.

"Please don't reply with alternative options. I have used Norton for years now without any complaints. "

Yellow Dog

To answer your question though there is absolutely no difference between the products that you provided links for aside from the licences (one can be used on 3 personal computers while the other can only be used on one).[/QUOTE]

Strange, as the 1 user is the more expensive!!

ShooterSF

Yellow Dog wrote: »

To answer your question though there is absolutely no difference between the products that you provided links for aside from the licences (one can be used on 3 personal computers while the other can only be used on one).

Strange, as the 1 user is the more expensive!!

It seems to be marked down for a sale price and was dearer.

As a more general comment I would say from what I've heard Norton has improved in recent years to where it does a decent job but the idea of not considering the free alternatives because you have used it for years seems odd.

I paid for software years ago that I wouldn't pay for today because the free alternatives have improved so much e.g WinRAR vs 7zip etc. It's not a knock against the commercial software which is as good as it always was just that it would be silly to pay for it because I did before.
I wont suggest any alternative as you have said you don't want one but I would suggest over time reconsidering your outlook on this issue...

JonathanAnon

arrgghhh Norton ... reverse, reverse, reverse....

A couple of years ago I installed it on a BRAND NEW PC... Norton SystemWorks..... And guess what happened.. the system ground to a halt... I wouldnt even consider subscribing again..

Like was said above, just get Microsoft Security Essentials... if you dont like that, then get AVG... I've been running MSE for the last six months, and it works VERY well..

PogMoThoin

If You do insist on paying for one get Eset Nod32, only one worth paying for IMO

Keano

JonathanAnon wrote: »

arrgghhh Norton ... reverse, reverse, reverse....

A couple of years ago I installed it on a BRAND NEW PC... Norton SystemWorks..... And guess what happened.. the system ground to a halt... I wouldnt even consider subscribing again..

Like was said above, just get Microsoft Security Essentials... if you dont like that, then get AVG... I've been running MSE for the last six months, and it works VERY well..

I would have said the exact same thing a few years ago. When people would ask me to look at their pc's or laptops because they are really slow the first thing I would do is uninstall Norton.

However, on my current laptop with Windows 7 I have Norton Internet Security 2010 and it runs away in the background, no annoying pop-ups, not hogging the system. It's a huge improvement but of course it's not free!

Dilbert75

And if, as I do, you have several computers being used by the family, Norton's Online Family software allows great control over content, times, etc. For that alone I find it worth it - even if I weren't a confirmed Norton fan...

meercat

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Microsoft Security Essentials
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

or Avast
http://www.filehippo.com/download_avast_antivirus/

Both free & less of a resource hog than Norton.

agree
microsoft security essentials for me

DanWall

I had the old Norton years ago and stopped using it because it was said to slow the sytem down.(everyone says this) I have the new Norton on my Windows 7 laptop, it works well and I cannot see it slowing the system down. Yes I pay for it, but like I pay extra to put good oil in my car, I do not mind for something as important as keeping my PC clean.

Naikon

Dont waste money on AV software. The real threats you should worry about will go undetected by these products anyway. Norton does not have the ability to audit every single line of the Windows kernel/library code. AV software is basically a scam.

Kristopherus

meercat wrote: »

agree
microsoft security essentials for me

And me also. Miles ahead of Norton IMHO.

Overheal

Nortons alright but its not the zippiest security out there but its quite robust. I like it because I can usually find it during the Black Friday sales for $10 to cover 3 PCs.

Oh and to say MSE is miles ahead of Norton IntSec - Eh, no. I like MSE, it's free and all, but it misses a fair number of things and doesnt do nearly as much, and is part of just another freeware cocktail of spyware/adware/firewall/antivirus security. If I can do all of that with one program for $10 a year, im gonna do it. Not the biggest annual "scam" I deal with. You know my County Treasurer charges me a $12 fee to process my motor tax??? I have to literally pay them to take my money.

jay93

imo Microsoft security essentials has never let a virus get in on my computer ever once the virus tries to run it gives a warning straight away its not worth paying for norton or the likes as i've found them to detect alot less and of course you have to pay for them.
I've also noticed that all other AV programs seriously hog the system slowing it down making programs lag etc.
right now MSE is using only 232kb of RAM :eek:
my macafee AV used over 100MB !!!
Big differance is memory usage thats for sure!

cookie1977

I'd agree with Jay. Look up some independant advice. Av comparatives reviews software regularly and gives it's opinions:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
Also VB100 rates av's regularly:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/vendors

MSE regularly score excellent in these tests especially for a free av.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Nortons alright but its not the zippiest security out there but its quite robust. I like it because I can usually find it during the Black Friday sales for $10 to cover 3 PCs.

For the past 3 years I've bought KIS2009, KIS2010, and now KIS2011 for less than 10 on Black Friday sales at Fry's. Left sluggish Norton a few years ago and would not return.

Overheal

jay93 wrote: »

imo Microsoft security essentials has never let a virus get in on my computer ever once the virus tries to run it gives a warning straight away its not worth paying for norton or the likes as i've found them to detect alot less and of course you have to pay for them.
I've also noticed that all other AV programs seriously hog the system slowing it down making programs lag etc.
right now MSE is using only 232kb of RAM :eek:
my macafee AV used over 100MB !!!
Big differance is memory usage thats for sure!

McAfee used 100MB? Eww.

NortonIS 2011 sits at 5.4MB when I'm not in the menu's or performing scans. I think NIS2009 had under a 100MB footprint but it was still up there. Both it and MSE get an Advanced+ rating from the Comparatives website, but I think I will be sticking to Norton for all the other layers of protection. Both it and MSE have missed things on me before. No matter your confidence level (even if you think it's never missed anything) with any of the active programs you should still sweep the system regularly with malwarebytes. Even the best real-time protector (PANDA got 62% in those tests) still misses stuff.

Here's the 2010 summary for all tested programs in all categories: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/summary/summary2010.pdf