Thread: Norton may not be the best

I have used Norton Anti Virus 2007,Norton Anti Virus 2008 and at present I am using Norton 360 Version 3.0 (subscription ends in May 2010).

I downloaded Malaware Bytes and did a complete scan of my computer.I was prompted to restart the computer after removing the malaware.

After I restarted the computer the Norton 360 Version 3.0 detected a virus SUSPICIOUS.ADH,which does not allow the user to restore the computer to an earlier date (i:e, System Restore)

I was trying to restore my computer to an earlier since two months but it wouldn't work and Norton 360 was useless in detecting the SUSPICIOUS.ADH virus.

It was Malaware Bytes which detected the malaware (i:e,SUSPICIOUS.ADH virus (maybe it had another name in the Malaware Bytes scan results) and only after restart (i:e,after Malaware Bytes prompted me to restart) Norton 360 detected the virus.


I can't think that after using Norton for a long time,I have realized that it was in fact useless,when it comes to detecting malaware.The malaware was in my C: drive for a long time,but repeated comprehensive scans with Norton 360 was useless.

I thought Norton was the best.

Norton never suited me and always get problems with it, specially in detecting Trojans. Therefore I prefer Quick Heal.

Originally Posted by Sam Bentley

Norton never suited me and always get problems with it, specially in detecting Trojans. Therefore I prefer Quick Heal.

Quick Heal use more resources of the computer than Norton.
Norton is very faster and can able to detect almost all viruses....
try Norton 360 v4, very good one..........

I am used all antiviruses and get to conclusion that no one can beat NORTON.