 |
 Norton AntiVirus 2005: Is it worth it?
by Andrew Cooper
February 10, 2005 - Part I
Preface
Recently, I observed an interesting and contrasting picture: Many computer magazines were giving Norton AntiVirus awards and "thumbs-up" reviews despite stark criticism from people who had used the program for a certain period. Those users pointed to endless bugs and various inconveniences, underdeveloped algorithms, and a bloated program interface.
Wanting to create a "master opinion" of the program and settle the disputes, I installed the program and compiled this review of the 2005 version.
Installation and updates
Norton AntiVirus has always been a heavyweight in terms of installation-file size, and the Symantec people decided not to waver from that principle with the 2005 version. Weighing in at around 40 MB, it can hardly be considered a "snap" download.
At installation, the program offers to check the computer for viruses so that it can be installed on a clean system. I skipped this option and proceeded to the finish.
Then, like other programs, NAV 2005 instructs the user to download the latest updates to its antivirus definitions and internal components through its LiveUpdate tool. When I followed this procedure, the program downloaded more than 6 MB of data and rebooted my Windows-run computer twice. Folks with slow Internet connections have a choice of update components to download.
First-time launch
The main window of the program has a Symantec-style color palette. The interface is simple and clear, and has everything normal folks would ask for: the ability to perform virus scans, remove many types of malicious code, and configure the program's settings easily.
But this colorful window comes at a steep price: NAV uses 18 MB of system memory in its idle (monitoring) state, making the overall memory consumed by the program and its components a whopping 35 MB.
The program recommends that users make a full system scan to ensure that their systems are virus-free and protected. I recommend that novice users, and also people who have not checked their computers with an antivirus application for a long time, perform a full system scan. As for me, I skipped the full scan, because the program would virus-check unnecessary files—such as MP3s, videos, and pictures—and for a 160 GB hard drive, the scan would take way too much time.
I confined myself to a selective scan, picking folders that I thought were the most vulnerable: the Windows installation directory, the Program Files folder, and the Documents and Settings folder.
The scan completed in about 17 minutes, which I considered a good result. During the scan, Norton was able to locate and remove two "threat" objects: a Hacktool (actually, a legitimate utility for checking the outbound data protection of a firewall program) and a virus-infected email that was marked as a "virus infected" by an antispam program and that I never intended to open myself.
But then I decided to play a little trick: I restored the Hacktool to its original location, renamed the file, and changed the file type, so that the copycat.exe file became the picture.gif file. And guess what? There was no reaction from Norton, which thought the file was perfectly legitimate. Quite strange. You can imagine my surprise when I reverted the picture.gif file to its original name and extension, and Norton was silent again. Outrageous! Only after a 5-minute delay did it begin recognizing the virus again.
Read next:
Continue to Part II
|
|
