To Be or Not To Be--Norton Antivirus 2003
Written: Aug 27 '03
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Solid, reliable antivirus program. Now checks IM file transfer. Increased worm and trojan protection
Cons: Long time to check all files. Eats system resources.
The Bottom Line: It's Norton Antivirus 2002 with some added features. Transfer files via IM? Need better worms/trojan protection? New user, not upgrading? I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
| happy2000usa's Full Review: Symantec Norton AntiVirus 2003 Professional Editio... |
Author’s Note: You'll probably note I'm late reviewing software. While I am a lazy writer, that usually has little to do with it. Actually, I rarely pounce on software when it's first released. Beta testing is not what it once was, and I prefer to buy the software after the bugs have been exterminated.
In the case of antivirus software, I make an annual decision driven by update subscription. When I'm asked to contribute for another year of virus definitions, I decide if I want to take them up on the offer or invest in a newer version of the software. Consequently, I rarely have an antivirus program on my computer that's less than a year old.
Remember When?
When my father refers to the old days, we're talking WWII and the depression. In computers, when we talk about the old days, it's only a ten or fifteen year leap back in time. Apple and Bill Gates were arguing about who was the father of the GUI. (If I'd fathered something called a 'gooey', I'd be prone to let someone else take credit.) Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was the 'in' program--unless you were a disciple of Steve Jobs. Most smokin' machines had 640K RAM. More important to this discussion, programs came on floppy disks.
In those days, there wasn't much worry about viruses. Your only concern was picking up one from an infected disk proffered by a friend. The antivirus program would fit--including definitions--on one 3.5 inch floppy. Even then, many users ran without an antivirus program. There just weren't that many viruses.
Then came the Internet.
While the worldwide web opened up avenues never before available to us, it also made our machines vulnerable. The story used to be told that when the Soviet Union broke up, there were a lot of programmers put out of work. While waiting for gainful employment, these folks amused themselves by writing viruses. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's pretty obvious 'we've come a long way, baby'. Open the list of virus definitions in your current antivirus program. War and Peace is a quicker read.
Back when you were hunched over your Tandy Model IV with its huge, built-in twelve inch monitor, an antivirus program was a nice to have item, but not essential if you were careful about limiting the sources of your disks. Today, only those who enjoy pain should run a computer without an antivirus program.
The Added Attractions
In the old days, I'd get an email--or even snail mail, in the really old days--that there were new definitions posted on some BBS. I updated my program--with my speedy 2400 baud modem. Today, new viruses--or new variations of old viruses--pop up daily. It's essential we update out virus definitions frequently. Norton took the pain out of that a few years ago with an auto-update function--Live Update--that checks for new virus definitions every time you're on line. (If you enable the feature.) I won't say it's essential you opt for automatic updates, but if you're like me--suffering from borderline Alzheimer's--it's a real plus.
The new programs also combat trojan horses, those bits of code that transfers control of your computer to someone else. While it's wonderful this software detects such nefarious unwanteds hiding in your computer, I tend to think my first line of defense is my firewall. If the bad guys can't get in, and the trojan can't call its mother, you've solved the serious part of the problem.
Everyone knows that, until recently, most viruses spread via email. The newer antivirus programs check incoming email. Norton, if you select the option, also checks outgoing mail. While this takes several seconds, depending on the length of the email, it's nice protection for the recipients. Some of my correspondents even add a line in their signature block stating their antivirus program had checked the mail. (...But are the definitions up to date? You don't know.)
Then there are the security flaws in Windows... and the constant rhetoric about how hackers target Microsoft. It makes sense to me. Ninety percent of the PC's in the world run Windows. That means the majority of the hackers have windows on their machines while they're looking for holes. Had ninety percent of the people been driving the Corvairs that exploded when rear-ended, we'd have see the same reaction toward Chevrolet as the current damning of Microsoft. I mention this because while antivirus programs such as Norton 2003 minimize security breaches by catching untoward code, you still have to rely on Microsoft's Windows Uppdate site to patch the holes.
Help! It quarantined my mother's letter! This feature in 2003 is similar to previous versions. When the program detects a virus, it isolates it, rendering it ineffective. Why not just delete it? First, the program might be able to repair the file, so you won't lose your mommy's letter. Second, have you wondered how all these antivirus programmers keep up with the daily onslaught of new viruses? You can opt to be a good citizen and send your infected file to Symantec to analyze. Who knows? It might be a brand new virus, and they'll name it after you.
A final feature on the newer antivirus programs is the crash disk. You can make a set of floppies or, if you can make the CD drive work, you can use the CD. Why is this important? Common sense. If I were writing a virus, what would I target? I'd try to find a way to shut down the antivirus program and the firewall. If I'm in a really destructive mood, I might add it to the boot sector and prevent the computer from booting. The crash disk set lets you check and repair your hard drive without booting Windows. Norton 2002 and 2003 operate the same in this respect.
So What’s New? How is Norton 2003 Better Than Norton 2002?
The main added feature to Norton 2003 is in checking files transferred via instant messaging. That plugs yet another hole. Prior to this, someone could send you a file via ICQ or one of the other IM programs, and you could opt to open it immediately. If you did, and it was infected, so was your machine. It bypassed virus protection. Unfortunately, most of us were too lazy to save the file to disk, then virus check it before opening it. Since teenagers no longer talk for hours on the phone, opting for instant messaging, this feature alone might be worth the upgrade--if you have mini-humans in your house.
2003 does a better job with trojans and worms--or so they say. It has the same script blocking protection as Norton 2002, but this one will clean outgoing mail when one of the cyber-crawlers decides to send itself to everyone in your address book. Their claim is the program will automatically delete trojans and worms without interrupting your work, just like this and previous versions handle viruses. Norton 2003 takes this a step further. They say the program can recognize trojans and worms even before the definitions are updated to include them.
You'll note my use of 'they say' and 'they claim'. To my knowledge, I have yet to have had the pleasure of a worm or trojan attack, so I can't say how effective these features might be.
Norton 2002 has a quirk. When you first install it, it checks the web for updates and installs them. Symantec suggests repeating this procedure until all of the updates are installed. In my case, it took four reboots. This can be particularly excruciating for those folks still on dialup. When I set up my father's Norton, it took over an hour to download and install all the updates.
Norton 2003 seems to work better. The note from Symantec suggesting that you might have to check for updates several times before it's fully up to speed is gone. I did note, however, that I had to go through the update procedure twice before the program's cyber mother told me it was current. So, I guess it is an improvement.
Was It As Good For You?
I had heard some of the bad comments. Norton Antivirus 2003 caused system lockups and crashes. It slowed the machine. It wouldn't work with XP. Someone else said it wouldn't work with Windows 98. Then there is the underground rumor saying the program was designed not to work with ZoneAlarm, thereby forcing you to use a Symantec Personal Firewall.
Wrong.
I bought the Antivirus 2003 Professional edition. It comes with two licenses and, since my home breeds computers like a rabbit farm, I wanted to put it on multiple machines. Why should I pay Peter Norton $49.95 a copy when I can do two computers for $69.95? (At least that's what I would have paid had I bought the program when it first emerged.)
I have it loaded on a Windows XP machine and a Windows 98SE platform. Both use ZoneAlarm. Guess what? It works fine on both computers.
That's not to say I fell in love with the 2003 version. I do a lot of multitasking and was less than pleased when I discovered this version boots two additional programs when I turn on the machine. As a result, it eats about 15% of the available resources.
This doesn't surprise me any more than the horrendous amount of time it takes to check my hard drive (45 minutes.) As the viruses and worms proliferate, it takes more of a program to catch them. The resources required zoomed with the 2002 version because of the script blocking program. I can only assume these two new programs in the 2003 version--loaded over and above the script blocking--are necessary to check for worm infestations.
Note: It takes 45 minutes because I check every file on the hard drive, and I have a lot of them. You can opt to bypass checking certain file types that you're sure are clean to speed the process.
On my XP machine, Norton checks compressed files as they're downloaded from the net or via email. That function doesn't work on the Windows 98 machine. It's no big deal, but I do have to remember to right click on the saved file and virus check it before opening it on the older unit.
Just to compare, and to stay safe, I also check my machine with an online virus checker-- my old favorite, McAfee. Three times, that check has turned up viruses Norton missed. I'm not damning Norton here. For all I know, Norton had already cleaned some viruses McAfee wouldn't have caught. My point is that no matter what program you use, there's going to be misses. For the truly paranoid, such as myself, running both a resident and online virus check programs makes sense.
So is there anything I reallydidn't like? You bet.
First, and this seems to be a characteristic of all the later versions of Norton Antivirus, it takes forever an a day to open the control panel after you click on the icon.
Second, and of far more import, is technical support--though I've never had to use it. A friend of mine had a problem with the program. (He runs Windows ME.) He called me with an amazing discovery. There is the usual free technical support--perusing the library and FAQ's--but he wanted to talk to a human. For that privilege, Symantec wanted $29.95. Thirty bucks for a $49 program he got from EBay for $12? He took his $29.95 and bought a new program from a competitor.
The Bottom Line ...Or To Buy Or Not To Buy
Norton Antivirus 2003 has the same feel and controls as Norton 2002. Live Update works the same. Scanning is the same. (I schedule the lengthy virus checks for the middle of the night.) Both protect outbound and inbound emails. The 2003 version has better protection against worms and trojans, if that is important to you. It also includes protection for instant messaging file transfers. If you don't transfer files via IM and are running a firewall, I'm not sure if it's worth the extra money--and computer resources--to upgrade from 2002 to 2003.
This brings me to my opening note. There's another reason you won't see me reviewing an antivirus program when it's new. Money. Norton Antivirus 2003 costs $49.95 at the Symantec site. The professional edition with two licenses costs $69.95. (The addiotnal license is the only difference between the standard and professional version.) An upgrade from 2002 is $29.95 per machine. If you wait six months, you can find the program on the web for half price or less. Wait a year, and the bargains abound.
Let's face it. An antivirus program is an antivirus program, whether it be the newest or an older version. As long as you keep the virus definitions updated, you're reasonably protected. So, when new programs come out, you have to decide if the additional whistles and bells are worth the price and the increased use of computer resources. Perhaps it's more cost effective to keep your current program and pay for renewing the Live Update subscription for another year.
If you're really stingy, you can update your definitions--free--by manually going to the website or picking them up at CNET or ZDNET. You'll lose the instant update feature, however, when new definitions are issued. (So no whining if you pick up the Gotcha virus on Tuesday, the same day the definitions were updated, but you only check for new definitions on Friday.)
It's you're decision. I upgraded two machines. My primary writing and research computer? I don't IM with that computer and have it behind a good firewall. It's still running 2002.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
happy2000usa
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Wayne Arnold
Location: Tracy, California, USA
Reviews written: 97
Trusted by: 171 members
About Me:
Writer, editor, beta tester, pilot, traveler. I'm an easy mark, always evaluating new software.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.