Norton hate
Norton hate
Earlier Norton Anti-virus versions were quite problematic. They used up a lot of system resources, had frequent bugs, and were difficult to remove completely (removing them via the control panel often left behind leftover files, leading to further complications). But things improved significantly with their updated releases. Starting around 2011, Norton 360 and Norton AV delivered much better performance. They operate efficiently without overloading the system. Additionally, they consistently receive strong ratings in independent antivirus evaluations. The main complaints about older Norton products usually stem from outdated tastes of the late 90s and early 2000s.
It seemed acceptable once, but all I’m familiar with are Avira or Avast. I’ll never use Norton again—it shows up as a MOBI driver disc even after installation. I remove it completely and don’t leave any remnants.
The top antivirus would be one that offers strong protection, fast detection, and reliable updates.
Most of your worries have faded significantly over the past 4-5 years. The problem isn't malware; detection rates match those of leading free and paid antivirus solutions, including false alarms and real threats. Performance usage has improved greatly and is now efficient. I haven’t experienced consumer AV support before—only enterprise-level assistance—and I’m unfamiliar with it. It doesn’t pressure you into paying extra. Many free options are even worse now, pushing you toward their premium plans (AVG is particularly problematic, though Avast isn’t far behind). Using common sense, you shouldn’t pay for Norton unless you’re fully informed and agree. The renewal reminders near expiration are normal for paid services.
Norton AV was once extremely problematic. It consumed a lot of resources, slowed down significantly, and was quite costly. Since around 2010-2011, things have improved a bit. The company completely rewrote its software, making it much more efficient and fast now. It also offers strong detection capabilities as noted by many independent reviewers. Still, it remains pricey. Alternatives like Avast provide solid protection for free, which is usually enough for most users. More advanced features often come with a higher price tag. Much of the criticism comes from those who used it in the 90s and 00s when it performed poorly and hasn’t been updated since then.
I regularly rely on ESET Smart Security, having used it for nearly a decade without any problems.