Norton Anti-Virus 2003's effect on performance

[clicknext]

Does anyone know what effect this program has on system performance mainly for games, but also for other things when its virus auto-detecting thing is running?

 

[spacelord]

I would like to know, also.

 

[adreamer1st]

It probably depends on what kind of system you are running it on. I have it on an althlon 2200+ with a TI4600 w/ 512mb pc2700 ram. I don't notice any difference with it on or off playing games. I guess I could run some benchmarks to test that theory.

The only delay I really notice is when I send/receive email as it scans it.

 

[mcveigh]

it depends on the system. I've seen people put 2003 on a 300 celeron w/ 64MB of ram, it really slows things down then but on a modern 1Ghz+ system I don't think you'd notice a difference. I use AVG antivirus on older machines

 

[Slickone]

Is NAV 2003 more bloated than 2002?

 

[grunjee]

I think it's a real pain in the ass. In my experience it's like they don't want you to disable it. When it runs in the background and I play a game, I get a stutter literally every second. Really obnoxious. And no, it is not another program, it is NAV.

Basically to disable it, yet still be able to start it when you want to, you not only have to set all the options to "disable" within NAV's menu... you have to use msconfig to stop the startup programs... AND you have to edit the services (of which there are 2-3) to be manual from control panel.

That's what I call a pain in the ass. I don't understand why they can't just have an option when you install it to the effect of "I'd like to run this program only when I choose, not in the background all the time."

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention... my system specs are a P4 running anywhere from 2.4 - 2.76 GHz, a gig of Corsair PC3200, Radeon 8500, Audigy, and 120 gig WD SE hard drive.

 

[Slickone]

And that is NAV 2003, correct?

 

[grunjee]

Originally posted by: Slickone
And that is NAV 2003, correct?

Yes, this is NAV 2003.

 

[Noid]

yea ... ita a pain to Disable ... grrr

I had McAffee before N2003 thou ... it was worse.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Is NAV 2003 more bloated than 2002?

Should be less, we've made great improvements in load (reducing it) from NAV2001 thru NAV2003. The autoprotect service (the main thing which is running and scanning files in real time) is much smaller with a much smaller memory footprint. We do various tricks for performance, for exmaple AP includes caching so files are only scanned once (unless they are written to).

Bill

 

[Slickone]

So less bloated but more intrusive then?

 

[grunjee]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Slickone
Is NAV 2003 more bloated than 2002?

Should be less, we've made great improvements in load (reducing it) from NAV2001 thru NAV2003. The autoprotect service (the main thing which is running and scanning files in real time) is much smaller with a much smaller memory footprint. We do various tricks for performance, for exmaple AP includes caching so files are only scanned once (unless they are written to).

Bill

bsobel, do you work for Norton then? If so all I have to say is, they need to make a button that says "Turn this sh*t off until I turn it back on." Well more polite than that but you get the point. And it needs to work -- if you want it off then it needs to turn off, not keep running in the background... and not with all these "safeguard" services still running, etc.

... Because it DOES have a significant impact on performance at least in games. Slimmed down or not from past versions, it will drive any gamer crazy.

Any way you can send that up the pipeline? Again this is assuming you work for them, it kinda sounds like it from your post.

 

[bsobel]

bsobel, do you work for Norton then? If so all I have to say is, they need to make a button that says "Turn this sh*t off until I turn it back on." Well more polite than that but you get the point. And it needs to work -- if you want it off then it needs to turn off, not keep running in the background... and not with all these "safeguard" services still running, etc. ... Because it DOES have a significant impact on performance at least in games.

I work here at Symantec (Norton), I'm currently in a different business unit, but at one point I was an architect on the av product.

Slimmed down or not from past versions, it will drive any gamer crazy. Any way you can send that up the pipeline? Again this is assuming you work for them, it kinda sounds like it from your post.

Well, there is the security issue of do you really want to turn it off. I play games to and I don't see any noticable difference with it on vs off, since we're only going to be scanning the files at open, I don't see where the overhead it coming from. That said, I'm more than happy to send the comments to the consumer team (more specifically to the developer who really owns the consumer autoprotect).

Bill

 

[Noid]

bsobel... sorry if I sounded rash.

I disable it during gameplay also. Some of us use routers and firewalls during gameplay. Thus no real reason to have Norton running at the same time.

I think your products are excellent. And have been a user of Norton when DOS was 3.0 and earlier.

I'm sure your development team has received that request a million times. I hope maybe it can eventually be implimented for some of us that desire that function.

 

[bsobel]

sorry if I sounded rash.

No worries, I know that software can be frustrating some times (I also have my pet peeves with certain products, I have an ex-coworker who now works at Intuit, unfortunately for him I run Quicken and blast him quite often )

I'm sure your development team has received that request a million times. I hope maybe it can eventually be implimented for some of us that desire that function.

I'll kick a little harder and see what happens.

Best,
Bill

 

[VicodiN]

Personally, I hate NAV...2003 specifically... It seems to love to wh0re all possible system resources, and is a glutton for wrapping its tentacles around every frickin' file on your computer...

Ive since switched to CA's eTrust EZ Antivirus, and am more then happy with it... For 20 bucks, youre without the headache of all of Norton's and MacAfee garbage, as well as being comfortable with your virus protection being in the good hands of the NY based company of Computer Associates

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VicodiN
Personally, I hate NAV...2003 specifically... It seems to love to wh0re all possible system resources, and is a glutton for wrapping its tentacles around every frickin' file on your computer...

Can you be more specific, not to be defensive but I don't see how we 'wh0re all possible system resources'

Ive since switched to CA's eTrust EZ Antivirus, and am more then happy with it... For 20 bucks, youre without the headache of all of Norton's and MacAfee garbage, as well as being comfortable with your virus protection being in the good hands of the NY based company of Computer Associates [/quote]

Bill

 

[mcveigh]

I like nav2003 on my 1600xp 512 ram and XPpro. it runs UT2003 fine.

it also works great on my laptop P3-750 256ram and xp pro

 

[Slickone]

Also shouldn't this be an option when installing?

bsobel, I can't remember what it was, but weren't you going to try to get something implemented into NAV not too long ago? Did that happen? Or am I having a deja vu?

Could features like mentioned above be added to patches or have to wait for NAV 2004?

Edit - also, thanks for the interest and trying to implement the change requests here.

 

[bsobel]

be an option when installing?

In my opinion, no. You can easily make everything an option during install and overload most users with too many choices. The feature you referenced is only in the pro version, and you can choose not to install it.

bsobel, I can't remember what it was, but weren't you going to try to get something implemented into NAV not too long ago? Did that happen? Or am I having a deja vu?

I'm happy to forward any feedback to the team (and often do), so possibly yes, but you'd have more specific.

Could features like mentioned above be added to patches or have to wait for NAV 2004?

2004 would be most likely.

Bill