Nav Problem

[Izagaia]

NIS and NAV are good products. Bloated beyond hell, but they do the job and then some for the average joe/jane sausage-head PC-user. Systems with less than 512mb ram will definitely feel the crunch resource-wise.

I have found that symantec client-based corporate editions of their firewall and anti-virus softwares offer all the same protections and securities at half the resource cost.

Hell- compare how fast your system starts up using Norton products versus Symantec corporate products...



izzy will never go back. B)

[Chewie]

Originally posted by Izagaia@8 May 2004 - 21:48
I have found that symantec client-based corporate editions of their firewall and anti-virus softwares offer all the same protections and securities at half the resource cost.

Hell- compare how fast your system starts up using Norton products versus Symantec corporate products...



izzy will never go back. B)

Just checked Task Manager and added up the RAM occupied by Symantec AV v7 (got TPF Pro firewall now)... 36,452KB.
That's not really a small footprint for an anti-virus.

I haven't noticed a difference between NAV and SAV as far as computer performance goes. That could be because I've got 512MB RAM, but I'd have thought they'd both be paged to disk anyway because I just leave 'em be.

[Izagaia]

Originally posted by Chewie UK+8 May 2004 - 17:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chewie UK &#064; 8 May 2004 - 17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Izagaia@8 May 2004 - 21:48
I have found that symantec client-based corporate editions of their firewall and anti-virus softwares offer all the same protections and securities at half the resource cost.

Hell- compare how fast your system starts up using Norton products versus Symantec corporate products...



izzy will never go back. B)

Just checked Task Manager and added up the RAM occupied by Symantec AV v7 (got TPF Pro firewall now)... 36,452KB.
That&#39;s not really a small footprint for an anti-virus.

I haven&#39;t noticed a difference between NAV and SAV as far as computer performance goes. That could be because I&#39;ve got 512MB RAM, but I&#39;d have thought they&#39;d both be paged to disk anyway because I just leave &#39;em be. [/b][/quote]
I was generalizing, perhaps exaggerating alittle, I am afraid. But the basis of my arguement, I believe, still holds truth. I had read somewhere that NIS 2004 uses alittle less than 100meg while SCS runs at roughly 60meg.

I have no clue, in hell, as to the total resources consumed by both products. Nor would I have any notion of knowing which processes to total up to even begin guessing.

This is what I am currently using. A package which I think to be similar to NIS products in terms of performance and contents. Though I do understand on a much broader, uniquely different scale.
http://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com/pro...uctID=154&EID=0

All I can testify is that my system, running XP Pro on a [email protected] with 256mg ram, loads more than twice as fast at start up (over five minutes for all processes to load with NIS in place and only a minute and a half when using SCS) when say compared to when I was using NIS2003&2004 Pro. Internet pages load (1.5Mbps dsl on IE browser) instantaneously. Full system anti-virus scans (@150,000 files on a 40gig HD) perform in less than an hour (avg 40 min) compared to the hour and a half that NAV was notoriously noted for.

If this is indication that the two product lines perform vastly different, then my favorability lies with the Symantec enterprise line hands down.

[backlash]

I have the professional version of NIS 2003, but the Live Update still has an expiration. :|

[AndrewBarker]

Originally posted by backlash@14 May 2004 - 22:35
I have the professional version of NIS 2003, but the Live Update still has an expiration. :|

its the corporate version that live update doesn&#39;t expire