[shenton]

I just got upgraded to Vista and now need to get an anti-virus software for Vista. But the stores has run out of Norton Antivirus 2007 so I am thinking of Norton Internet Security 2007 (3 users). Does NIS 2007 works on Windows Vista? One confusing aspect is Vista has a built-in firewall, will this clash with the firewall from NIS 2007?

Perhaps, the most important question is does Norton Internet Security 2007 works well in Windows Vista?

Thanks for any advice.

[kiwiguy]

Personally I would not install any version of Nortons, due to the often massive performance hit due to the high resource needs.

AVG free and the Vista firewall work just fine for me.

[Rich-M]

OMG whatever you do if you have to have Norton do not use the Internet security version. I would rather have a virus than that thing.
There have been some problems with Vista and Avg...I use www.nod32.com which costs but is the best or Avast which is free and seems to run well in Vista.

[rb1dab]

I have used Avast AV....it works well with Vista:

http://www.download.com/Avast-Home-E...-10019223.html

Have a good one.
Dave

[shenton]

Thanks for all the input.

I've heard that Norton takes up a lot of system resources - to the point it slows the computer down.

NIS 2007 also had some pretty bad reviews at Amazon.com. There is one or two positive reviews too. The last person who wrote a review said he had no problems with NIS 2007 on Vista (click the comments on the review to read the positive comment about NIS 2007 on Vista). It scored only 3 stars - which is an average score.

NIS 2007 is one of internet security suite that is made for Vista (the box said Windows XP/Vista). I haven't seen any other antivirus software (McAfee, Zone Alarm) that said Vista ready on the box in the store. I am undecided and am considering all the options from this thread. I found out that the Vista Home Premium editon that I have comes with a pre-installed NIS 2007 setup. I am tempted to run the pre-installed NIS 2007.

[shenton]

I found some reviews on NIS 2007 and thought people researching on the same subject may find it useful:

IT Week: Review: Norton Internet Security 2007 internet securityhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/computeracti...ernet-security

Good points
• Less resource-hungry than 2006 version
• Anti-phishing software included
• Two-way software firewall

Bad points
• Takes some ‘settling in’

[overall]
4 – Norton Internet Security is 80 per cent of an security suite at 60 per cent of its rivals’ price.


Review: Norton Internet Security 2007
A clean interface and effective scanning, but the RRP is high
http://www.vnunet.com/personal-compu...ernet-security

Verdict
Pros: Easy to use; clean interface; good detection rates

Cons: Big footprint; phishing filter is a dubious addition and won't work in Firefox; high price

Overall: It's slimmer than previous versions, but it struggles to justify the high price tag

[miserablegit]

i have had nothing but problems with NIS. i have vista ultimate, like another poster it came pre-installed with new pc , and i then got the full NIS suite having had it previously on XP.

now i am constantly unable to get internet access unless i switch the norton firewall off - sort of defeats the point.

utter cack. in fact so cack - i my switch off just time out and blocked this message.

[karl_stade]

Well... I work in a retail computer store that sells a lot of Vista PC's and the main AV product is Norton.

I have to honestly say that as they are both a. massive resource hoggers and b. a little bit unstable and buggy I would recommend neither, and especially not both on the same PC at the same time. Unless you have a PC with 2Gb high speed RAM and a decent dual core CPU and don't mind constantly having to troubleshoot stuff.

I sell Kaspersky Internet Security in my store as an alternative to Nortons. The 3-User copy is Vista compatible (tested fine) and is also the same price as Nortons 3-User, so my choice would be clear. Kasperksy is superior to most other Internet Security/Anti-Virus programs (except NOD32 I hear) in every way.. so the choice should be clear.

Honestly, if Ubuntu wasn't so tricky and could just run Windows compatible software (like games & Adobe software etc) I would be using it all the time.. it runs soo much faster and smoother on the same hardware than my copy of Windows XP does. It's really a bummer that you have to be a bit of a geekazoid to make anything work right on it.