Dirge wrote:Stay away from anything produced by Norton or Symantec. I like Microsoft Security Essentials as it is unobtrusive and doesn't seem to use many resources when running. Not sure what bases you already have covered with your 5 independent applications.
mattbak73 wrote:ya NIS is exactly what i am looking for but i always heard it is a memory hog and i dont need that i'm pretty sure having 5 programs is one of my memory problems anyways. So has norton gotten better in that area or you just a sales rep?
[SDG]Mantis wrote:mattbak73 wrote:ya NIS is exactly what i am looking for but i always heard it is a memory hog and i dont need that i'm pretty sure having 5 programs is one of my memory problems anyways. So has norton gotten better in that area or you just a sales rep?
Norton seems fast and light to me. What really floored me was when I went back to it and NIS 2009 installed in something like -- quite literally -- 60 seconds.
I notice no slowdown of the system and it is usable during scans. The two systems that I am running it on are a Core 2 E6300 with 4GB of RAM and a Q6600 with 6 GB of RAM. Before switching back to it with NIS 2009, I was running AVG. I also had AVG on the E6300 when I had Windows 7 Beta on it since NIS had some early support issues with the beta. NIS is markedly faster and has noticeably less system load when scanning.
Neither system really has any memory use issues, though, so YMMV. Even with Win7 superfetch enabled, I seldom see memory usage climb over 50% when running multiple processes and folding.
Neil Stephenson wrote:The danger lies not in the machine itself but in the user's failure to envision the full consequences of the instructions he gives to it.
PainIs4ThaWeak1 wrote:My vote: MSE
PC World's vote: MSE, as well.
That was good enough for me to try it, and I think I'll stick with it.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests