Avira and comodo vs Norton internet security 2010?

My work gave me a free copy of Norton Internet Security 2010. Would it be leaner or better then my current setup of Free Avira anti virus and comodo firewall?

 

leaner? i think so. better? it would certainly reduce the annoyance levels (and drastically). no more ads when updating, no more Defense+ and Firewall alerts asking you for everything. And since its NIS, i think it has the transaction protection things...

 

Yes, it will be leaner regarding resource usage.
Better?
If you have no idea on how to configure and use Comodo FW and D+, it will be a relieve because NIS is 'install and forget', if that's what you want.
You can f.i. either let NIS decide on program installs or do the works yourself.
(One actually shouldn't use Comodo if you're unable to figure out how to use it, in that way it's more demanding).
Even if you are happy with your current setup, NIS2010 is well worth trying, I find it the best security suite available atm.

 

I haven't tried Norton 2010 yet but people say it's good. I doubt it's better than Avira because Avira is THE anti-virus program.

 

Avira is annoying in one aspect : more false positives.

 

For some reason, a Comodo process (cmdagent.exe) has started to utilize 100% of my CPU. Annoying as hell.

Right now I'm in safemode and everything is running just dandy. I'm thinking of jumping ship to Avira, since people have a high opinion of it. Eh. I don't really need a firewall.

 

NIS 2010 is very good indeed.
Avira FREE edition is great as well but it doesn't have full protection due to the FREE. If you have Avira Premium Suite, I would suggest you to go with Avira instead of Norton. Basically, Avira PS and NIS have excellent defense.
Comodo FW, I don't use it at all. No comment on it.

 

Norton advantages (over Avira free):
- Fewer false positives
- No once-a-day nag screen
- Central control console for managing all aspects of your computer's security (antivirus, antispyware, firewall, etc.)
- Lighter on resources

So... I'd go with Norton.

 

I guess you are better with Avast and comodo... Although I'm not that familiar with comodo but against Norton?? You can't go wrong,
I have used Norton before and it just slowed my PC, quite annoying.

 

If you're comparing Norton Paid with Avira Free, of course, norton will be better.
If you're comparing Avira Paid and Norton Paid, then, it is user preferences. Because both of them really great!

 

The OP was clearly asking about Avira Free (plus Comodo) vs. Norton Paid (NIS 2010).

 

i recently got NIS 2010 free for a year. i was using avira free previously. honestly, i don't really know jack about antivirus programs. definitely seems to be more configurable options. cooler looking GUI lol.

 

are you using Comodo Internet Security (AV+Firewall) together with avira? it doesnt have conflict? for the av?

 

Well, as my licence expired I've also done my personal research as to which Antivirus to buy.

Avira Premium has the best detection rate, that's all (any comparative results)
Norton 2010 has slightly lower (still amongs the tops), but is better at cleaning, and has faster scanning.

I think I'll buy Norton because of 64bit version (I'm on W7 64bit) as Avira doesn't have any 64bit version. Which will give you a bit of advantage on a 64bit system (opposed to running 32bit app in background accessing everything you touch).

I'll loose a bit of detection success, but also few false positives and you don't really need antivirus anyway (use your brain, UAC, limited user and firewall, that's all) so its enough...

 

Umm, I have 64-bit Vista and NIS 2010, and the Norton processes are 32-bit processes. They just mean that it's compatible with 64-bit Windows, no different than Avira. Unless there's some 64-bit version I didn't download.... But, I do think that Norton's a good choice anyway.

 

swarmer: gosh, program files x86, my baaad....

ok, so one advantage over (excellent) Avira is down, but I still like Norton better, mostly because of its Insight technology (you don't need to scan files which has already been scanned and are on white-list, improving system responsivnes and launch time of applications), which is much better done than in Kaspersky (with its NTFS streams dissaster)...

way to go Norton

 

Yeah... I don't know about Kaspersky, but I can say that I've had a better user experience with Norton than with Avira, which would often throw up warnings for web pages which were fine (like Yahoo etc.). Actually, I probably would've just used MSE, but I had already bought Norton by the time that came out, so I just installed NIS and I'm happy with it.

 

suprisingly, Microsoft Security Essential is very good product... but no matter how good it will be, MS can't win this battle.

as a virus maker, your main battlefront is Windows Operating System.

as a very good virus maker, your main antivirus to disable/slipp through/use security vulnerabilities or bugs.... is MS Security Essential.

having 3rd party antivirus in this case is like having linux, virus makers don't care much, but hell they care (and would be _really_ glad) if everyone just used FREE MS Security Essential, more when it scored pretty well in the tests, so it will give many ppl/organization (false) feel of security...

These days I would go with Norton, Avira, or Avast, I ditched Kaspersky (they gone too far) and NOD32, which isn't stellar as it was with its 2.7 version, gone all the way down ever since...