Norton 2006 (firewall and antivirus) vs ZoneAlarm and AntiVir

[drkclw]

System:
Athlon XP 2900+
1GB PC3200 RAM
160GB IDE HD
120GB IDE HD

I will use this system for listening to music and web browsing. I know Norton is bloated and a resource hog but that doesn't matter to me since I have plenty of HD space and a more than capable CPU and RAM. I'd like to know if anybody who has the 2006 Norton software the antivirus is better at detecting viruses than AntiVir and if the Personal Firewall is better than ZoneAlarm's free firewall.

 

[potato28]

AntiVir. Much much better than Norton. Owned both, and AntiVir kicks Norton all over the place.

 

[KoolDrew]

Norton just plain sucks.

Use any anti-virus of your choosing with the native SP2 firewall. I would suggest avast! for free anti-virus.

 

[John]

[*]AntiVir has a better detection rate than AVG and Avast.
[*]Antivir + Kerio (free) = a solid solution
[*]NAV 04 & up = teh suck
[*]Kaspersky to rule them all!

 

[drkclw]

so Kerio>ZoneAlarm>Norton firewall

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: drkclw
so Kerio>ZoneAlarm>Norton firewall

Just use the SP2 firewall. Outbound filterin at the host-level does not help security at all.

 

[Rottie]

laptop uses antivir 7 and sygate personal firewall 5.6
desktop uses nav 2005 and zonealarm security suite 6.1