Is Norton 360 THAT bad?

[evilarceus]

My parents pay for Norton 360 (please don't ask why, I honestly don't know) and I thought that I might as well use it too. Is there anything bad about it, besides it being overpriced? I just have too many problems with Windows Defender taking too much of my CPU all the time :L

[Chasem121]

It isn't a bad Antivirus, just overpriced basically.

 

A power user like most people on the forums can get by just fine with malwarebytes + Windows Defender + Common Sense

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Overpriced, resource intensive, and the big one... the detection rates are not great. Most malware can disable it making it completely useless. Even the worst of the worst paid remote administration tools all the kids are using these days generally bypass Norton.

[Guest Kloaked]

It's gotten better over the years, but I continue to recommend against it in favor of free options and not going to sketchy websites.

[NannerBeans]

I get Norton for free through my University but I still don't use it. 

[Swndlr]

Nope

I loved it when I had it.

[Curufinwe_wins]

By bad you mean it is not better than the free AVs available and is a massive resource hog, and causes an insane amount of glitches with old versions/hardware including not letting you connect to internet without updating AV but not able to update AV without internet?

 

Yea not that bad...

 

Seriously, please don't.

[That_Random_Guy]

Its really cpu intensive. lower end computers really suffer with norton. Its also way overpriced and hackers can get around it 

[danomicar]

It's fine for me. I'm in the same situation, my parents pay for it and it covers multiple systems so I thought "why the hell not?"

 

I find it gives me a lot of false positives but for the most part works as intended. Never had any malware issues with any of the systems it's currently installed on.

[Gix7Fifty]

Years ago it had a bad rep due to it being a resource hog but always a good AV. It is much lighter now and offers some of the best protection. I recently jumped ship to BitDefender only because it was considerably cheaper, if Norton was the same price I would still be on it. 

[scottyseng]

My parents pay for Norton 360 (please don't ask why, I honestly don't know) and I thought that I might as well use it too. Is there anything bad about it, besides it being overpriced? I just have too many problems with Windows Defender taking too much of my CPU all the time :L

 

I've been using Norton 360 since it first came out. I've shifted to Norton Security (Pretty much the rebirth of Norton 360). Norton Security lets you protect 5 PCs (You can split the key with friends to reduce the overall cost) instead of the usual 3 PCs with 360. I've never had any issues with it slowing down my PC what so ever. It usually only ever runs when my PC idles. Even when I manually force a scan, it doesn't suck enough resources for me to care.

 

As for infections, you are the primary antivirus. Norton is just a backup. I've never managed to get my PC infected at all over the years though.

 

My server runs Symantec Endpoint Protection because it's running Windows Server 2012 R2. It's about a year old now. No issues there either, but wow, Symantec's stuff isn't quite as user friendly as Norton (Took me a while to notice that the settings aren't in the program, but on the website interface. It uses cloud policies to control the Endpoint Protection.)

[Jack64911]

i would stick with Malwarebytes and maybe AVG/Avast. As a poweruser, i felt Norton was WWAAYY to over protective and I found it extremely annoying.