Tech Support Guy banner

AVG vs. NAV. Which is better?

  • AVG

    Votes: 29 43.3%
  • Norton AntiVirus

    Votes: 27 40.3%
  • Both are equal

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Other AntiVirus (Please specify).

    Votes: 8 11.9%

AVG vs. NAV. Which is better?

8191 Views 65 Replies 25 Participants Last post by  brendandonhu

Which of the two AntiVirus softwares, AVG and Norton AntiVirus, is better?

In addition to your opinion, please also vote at the poll to enable me to make a decision.

Cost is not a criteria here, but features and security surely is!!

Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Since you aren't worried about cost, I will write this pretending both are free. I currently use AVG beacuse its free, but for you I will reccommend NAV. Both programs catch all the viruses and have heuristics and email scanning, but NAV has lots of added in features that arent imperitave for security, but they are good to have.
Count me in as a McAfee fan. Always have been.

Interesting note: the latest issue of Computer Shopper magazine lists McAfee Home Edition as one of its Top Five software bets for the year. NAV wasn't even mentioned.

We use Norton at school, but I prefer McAfee. :) I'd also never trust something free when it comes to security.
From my understanding of both programs, they both do their jobs equally well - provided you keep them updated. I prefer smaller, simpler programs that do their job well using less system resources, which is one reason I use AVG. I currently have a Norton Systems Works CD with NAV on it but I'm staying with AVG as my anti-virus program.
but NAV has lots of added in features that arent imperitave for security, but they are good to have.
Can you please elaborate about the extra goodies in NAV?

I'd also never trust something free when it comes to security.
I kind of agree with you and that is why I started this thread. But I have seen many people recommending AVG in these forums and even at some other places. I use NAV at present.

What so special about McAfee? How does it out number both these popular AV softwares?

Thanks for your opinion. I agree that we need to keep virus definitions up-to-date to be able feel and be secure. So in your opinion AVG does not use up too many system resources and on the comparison NAV does use up system resources!! Point taken!

I use AVP

Not free, but you can try the 30 day demo out first.

You can update daily, and monthly there is a bigger update. I also like it as it only sets one thing up in the startup under MSCONFIG, so looks neater :)

It has a useful feature in that if you go to a website with a malicious Java Applet or ActiveX script, it will warn you.


See less See more
Heres the key features from their website.

NEW! Detects and blocks viruses in instant message attachments.

NEW! Exclusive Worm Blocking technology detects worms such as Nimda in outgoing mail to prevent them from infecting other computers.

ENHANCED! Automatically removes viruses, worms, and Trojan horses.

Scans and cleans both incoming and outgoing email messages.

Downloads new virus definitions automatically to protect against new viruses.**

Script Blocking defends against fast-moving script-based viruses such as "ILoveYou" and "Anna Kournikova."

Worm Blocking and Script Blocking can detect new threats even before virus definitions are created for them.

Includes step-by-step instructions for installation, even on a computer that has already been infected.

most AVs do all that stuff, but in reading PC World this month they named a few featuresof Norton and I dont remember what they were.
See less See more
Okay. AVP. I have heard about it and heard good things. I have also tried it during desparate situation (my machine was badly infected :) ). Thanks for your opinion.

Does this magazine have its own web-site? I feel it must be having. Can you please find this article there and post the link here? Thanks.,aid,106718,00.asp
Norton allows you to control the security of its heuristics, and cleans viruses automatically without even stopping what you are currently doing.
AVP is what I use at home, it's scheduler always works so my updates are always current, it scans for open ports, email, whatever you want to enable and also has add ons for most popular messaging services. McAfee hasn't been worth a spit since it initially came out and it's track record of stopping anything is suspect. Norton has way too much overhead for me and makes it impossible to work while it is running.

I would choose AVG over both Norton & MCafee, it's free and does a great job. I bet the paid version is even better than the free one.
Rockn what do you mean you cant do any work with NAV????I have had for around 3 years and do all kinds of work while it is running.....have never had a problem thus far........
A post at another thread seems quite important for the discussion at this thread.

Here is the link
I hope AVG works. My ISP has caught all my email viruses and I haven't got any through surfing yet.(Knock on wood). Here is what I get from my ISP:

The virus software on has reported that you were
sent a virus from [email protected], with the subject "Undeliverable mail--"japanese lass' sexy pictures"".
The E-mail containing the virus has been removed to prevent further damage.

the W32/[email protected] virus !!! was found in file: Unknown File

I have got three of those this week.

I am switching to TCI Roadrunner so I guess I will loose that function.
I’m on about my 5th version of NAV. It is all I have ever used and I have no basis for comparison other than reading sites that test them. Each version has been more aggressive and had more features than the preceding one.

I’m baffled by someone saying NAV has a lot of overhead. My computer has been running a little over 4 days since my last reboot, and in that time NAV has used a total of 35 seconds of CPU time, which includes a full system scan. Compare that to over 6 hours CPU use for Zone Alarm during that period. The computer boots to exactly the same available resources whether NAV is disabled or active. NAV uses a little RAM, but most of us have plenty of that anymore and any running program is likely to use a few Mb.

Since NAV does a good job of intercepting an incoming virus no matter how it tries to enter, the full system scan seems a bit redundant, but I have the computer run it at odd hours when I’m not using the computer. If you had to run a scan for some reason while using the computer it might slow things down on an old computer. I’ve done it and it isn’t bad, but it is the only thing that could even slightly be considered “high overhead” with Norton.

Other than the most important feature of never having let a virus on my computer, the thing I really like about Norton is its low overhead and maintenance. Once a week there is a little message that it has updated the definitions – even the message is tiny and self-cancels after a few seconds. You can manually update daily through a Symantec site separate from the live updates and have definitions that are updated on a daily basis. But I consider myself low enough on the virus food chain that I’m not likely to be the first to get a new virus. I get the occasional message that it has intercepted a virus, which has become more frequent of late. I suppose I could automate that, but I like to know what e-mails have a virus in them in case one is from a friend I would want to warn.

I also like that it scans outgoing e-mail. The last thing I would want to do would be to pass a virus on to my friends and associates. I didn’t use the Outlook or Outlook Express address books until Norton added that feature.
See less See more
Slipe, I see your reccommendation is Norton. I do have 1 question, how do you record how much CPU time a program uses?

BTW, AVG also scans emails and has Resident Shield to scan actively as you open web sites and browse the web.
I’m not recommending Norton. I have no basis for comparison. I was mainly responding to comments about it having high overhead.

If you are using Win9x/ME you can use Wintop to keep track of both current and cumulative CPU use. It is part of the old Win95 Kernel Toys. Wintop works fine but I wouldn’t want to use the other stuff on anything but Win95:

TaskInfo has the exact same display plus other stuff:

One of the few good uses I have found for Norton Utilities is that it will break down how much RAM each running process is using at any given time.

Does AVG scan outgoing mail? Norton started doing that with the 2001 version. Seems redundant but I like it.
Yup AVG does incoming/outgoing mail, boot viruses, macros all that good stuff.

I will check out those 2 programs.
I have used McAfee in the past, and didn't care for it, it was a pain to Download the updates, and it seemed like they were updating the engine WAY to often. I have never used Nortan, as I found AVG first.
It has caught several viruses, and never missed abeat.
AVG seems to use much less system resources than McAfee also

I do still use McAfee's Uninstaller on occasion, and have never had any problems with it...Rhett

I was asked to move my opinions over here regarding AVG:

Funny, I just got done airing my opinions on this subject at DSLReports.,1~mode=flat

To sum up my opinion, based purely on research of credible security tests, is that AVG is one of the poorest performers of the AV world. That said I have not used this product and infact until very recently I assumed it was a good product just based on how often I see it recommend in this forum and others to newbies, but what I have read recently has changed my mind.

My sources are

1. The Virus Bulletin. AVG has failed 18 out of 19 tests condcuted between 1998 and 2002. In fact the only test it did pass was on a DOS machine in 98.

2. AV-Testing.Org a project of the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg of Germany. 2002 01 Test, AVG scores very poor on On Demand Zoo Detection, compressed file formats, and script viruses.

3. Virus Test Center - University of Hamburg, Germany. For my OS (Win 2000) AVG scores 13th out of 15th place for apps tested for scanning and doesn't even rate for malware.

The end result is that it appears that the folks at GRisoft have a lot of work to do. As well, all of these tests would be the pay version which would have all the bells and whistles.

This is saying a lot considering how I feel about Symantec, but I would have NAV on my machine before, or well, just about another dozen other AVs.

My current bias is for NOD32 from Eset. Here is a link.
See less See more
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Not open for further replies.