Is NORTON a good anti virus software????????

My opinion is "no." The reasons: -Norton is one of the slowest to release a signature update. -Norton has most of the market, making it the first engine against which a virus author will test his/her new prototype. -Norton is a resource HOG. -Norton frequently leaves elements behind in the uninstall process, which are very difficult to remove, yet must be removed in order to regain functionalities that get locked up during uninstallation. I've even had the NRT (Norton Removal Tool) fail me once, and had to spend a half hour manually removing folders, registry keys, and scheduled tasks. Since you're asking the question about Norton, I'm assuming that you are willing to pay money for security software. My recommendation for an antivirus would be Kaspersky. It is the fastest to update of all vendors, and one of the only products left today that still offers rescue disk creation. Of course it's up to you to make the disks, but they can save you if a virus manages to get past Kaspersky's monitor and destroy the MBR or kernel. For a firewall, my recommendations in order of greatness are: BlackICE, Sunbelt (formerly Kerio), and McAfee. These products all offer inline protocol monitoring, to block drive-by threats at the network layers TDI and NDIS. Most other popular firewall products only detect threats at the application layer, at which they are more vulnerable because the malware has already compiled into memory, and also leave most decisions to the user. ZoneAlarm and Comodo are a couple of examples. These are better for reactive, outbound protection, like blocking a Trojan from phoning home after a reckless user installs it locally. But the fact remains that most threats are external, and are better fought off with proactive, inbound protection. By the way, if I had a limited budget, and had to choose either the best firewall and a free, mediocre antivirus; or a mediocre firewall and the best antivirus; I would choose the former (the free version of Sunbelt Personal Firewall is actually adequate for average users; as well as McAfee Personal Firewall Express, found in the free AOL Safety and Security Center). Remember that the firewall, not the antivirus, is a PC's first line of defense. And a good one can bring most attacks to a screeching halt before the antivirus ever sees them. Hope this helps!

I too want to know this! In our institute, I downloaded McAfee anti-virus software, but I installed it in the D: drive. Usually we are advised to place all startup programmes on drive C:. I dont know for sure, but the system slowed up on startup. Everytime we started the system, it would take several minutes to display the 'desktop'. My colleague deleted the software due to this(without informing me). Since then of course, the system starts up faster, but I feel it is riskier if there is no anti-virus software on it. What is your opinion? Does the drive for loading the software, matter? Which is the fastest loading anti-virus s.w? I would appreciate a quick response.

NOOO. I found problems with it at home and work. I use McAfee now and I like a lot better than Norton.....

NOT I DONT THINK SO AVG IS MORE THEN BETTER

If Norton AntiVirus 2005 is long on dependability, it's short on sizzle, adding only a few modest enhancements to last year's version. Norton's strengths remain its well-designed interface and impressive virus-blocking performance history. The new Quick Scan tool, which automatically searches for viruses following updates, is a welcome addition; however, we're less thrilled with the much-touted worm blocker because it doesn't match the level of protection found in full-fledged firewalls offered in competing antivirus packages. Current Norton users should upgrade to 2005, however, as the upgrade costs only $5 more than Symantec's annual subscription-renewal fee. But new users should shop around for an antivirus program that also includes a firewall, such as last year's Editors' Choice, Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security 2004, or the newly released ZoneAlarm with Antivirus. Norton AntiVirus 2005 now takes less time to setup and configure than before. In version 2004, a preinstall antivirus scan examined every file on your PC--time-consuming overkill. This year Norton saves time with its new Quick Scan engine, checking only the usual-suspect files and folders--those with Startup entries or with System-Start INI or batch entries--and skipping less likely files and folders, such as music and image folders. After the quick presetup scan, Norton installs itself, automatically downloads the latest virus definitions and program files, and runs a mandatory, comprehensive post-setup scan. Our initial setup took just less than 45 minutes; plan to step away from the PC and brew some tea in that time, though, as Norton is a major resource hog during its system scan, essentially rendering your PC useless for other tasks. For instance, in our informal tests, Microsoft Word took 35 seconds to load during a system scan. With no scan running, it took just 6 seconds on our 2GHz Celeron with 512MB of RAM.

It's okay. I like PANDA better though.

I prefer using McAfee but Norton is a good antivirus program as well. Those are the two best in my opinion so you should not go wrong with either one. McAfee alerts me right away of a virus or worm and gets rid of the virus. Norton did not do that for me.

I did not find it very good.Try a free version.AVG anti-virus

as user of it, i say it is very good anti virus software

I also have it on my PC and I haven't had any problems with it since I installed it.

Norton is not a good anti virus software at all. It is very disobedient. Moreover it is not free. It creates more problems than to solve. It is very difficult to uninstall Norton also. Dont use it. Use AVG or McAffee. These are free and better software than Norton.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!! I know lots of people who have had nothing but trouble using Nortons!!