Norton hate
Norton hate
Back in what era? Norton was quite unreliable historically. During Windows 98 and XP, it was likely one of the least reliable antivirus programs available, plagued by bugs and heavy resource consumption. Today, it performs much better. AVG is significantly worse than Norton at this stage. In the XP era, AVG was a reasonable choice, but they've since declined sharply to a very low point.
I don’t care about either of them much, both give me bad impressions. For me, Kespersky works fine unless I need antivirus protection, then I switch to Avast.
The ideal antivirus isn't fixed—it shifts with each update. Monthly, quarterly, and yearly reviews show slight improvements or declines among different products. While some brands stand out, like Kaspersky for paid solutions, others such as ESET and Avira have seen their popularity wane. AVG and Avast were once top picks but have both declined in performance. AVG is particularly criticized for pushing users to upgrade and underperforming in recent tests. Even the free versions aren't as effective as they once were. Personally, I rely on Kaspersky combined with MalwareBytes for extra protection, or a mix of Windows Defender, Microsoft Security Center (for Windows 7), and MalwareBytes. Note that Windows Defender often lags in testing results.
I haven't tried it since XP (and mostly thought it was bad), so whether it's good or not is uncertain. If a company missteps, I aim to affect their business somehow. In this situation, I share my past experience with it.