[1mikec]

I read your article Top Internet Security Suites (March '08) on page 73 and found it interesting that there was no mention of how much some of those suites slow down a computer (especially Norton).

It blew my mind that there was NO mention of Eset in the ratings.

But what really blew my mind was the FULL PAGE advertisement for Eset right in the middle of the article (page 77)!

Why was Eset skipped in the ratings?

I use Eset and after trying a lot of other suites find it does a terrific job and doesn't slow my computer.

I would like to see where Eset would fall in your rating system.

Mike C

[wolfing]

I also don't remember seeing Zone Alarm security suite in the article, which stroke me as odd. I thought maybe it was one of those suites with a different name?

[lkcantwell]

I found that interesting also that Zone Alarm was not mentioned. I also find it very interesting that the # 2 rated internet security suite was BitDefender. Well, based on past experience with Norton taking over my computer, I decided to order a 3-license of the Complete Internet Security Suite 2009. Well, low and behold, I now have viruses on all 3 computers. I've already uninstalled BitDefender and have asked for a refund. We'll see how that goes. Trust me, if they don't refund my money, I'm going to broadcast to everyone I know about the poor performance of BitDefender. One of the viruses shut down the boot sector on that computer, and now what a mess I have to fix.

What did I do? I went back to Iolo Antivirus and Firewall. I am a firm believer in Iolo System Mechanic to keep all my computers running well.

[glbritton30]

Yes, I too wonder why Zone Alarm was left out. It has an excellant firewal but not so good anti-virus engine and defs. It still should have been included with Eset too. Maybe these two don't fall into the "top" category?

I use Norton Internet Security 2009 and it does a great job without using resources like former incarnations of the suite. In an update it now flags results from Google, yahoo, et.al. as safe of unsafe with a shopping rating as well for sites with a shopping cart.

[Foxylady48180]

glbritton30, on 09 April 2009 - 06:02 AM, said:

Yes, I too wonder why Zone Alarm was left out. It has an excellant firewal but not so good anti-virus engine and defs. It still should have been included with Eset too. Maybe these two don't fall into the "top" category?

I use Norton Internet Security 2009 and it does a great job without using resources like former incarnations of the suite. In an update it now flags results from Google, yahoo, et.al. as safe of unsafe with a shopping rating as well for sites with a shopping cart.

I, too, use Norton Internet Security 2009 and you are correct; it does a very good job for me too. I guess that's why it rated so highly. I've read here that it uses too much system resourses. but I don't find that to be the case at all.

This post has been edited by smax013: 08 September 2009 - 11:12 AM
Reason for edit: fixed quote tags

[istanbul]

Foxylady48180, on 03 September 2009 - 09:04 AM, said:

glbritton30, on 09 April 2009 - 06:02 AM, said:

Yes, I too wonder why Zone Alarm was left out. It has an excellant firewal but not so good anti-virus engine and defs. It still should have been included with Eset too. Maybe these two don't fall into the "top" category?

I use Norton Internet Security 2009 and it does a great job without using resources like former incarnations of the suite. In an update it now flags results from Google, yahoo, et.al. as safe of unsafe with a shopping rating as well for sites with a shopping cart.

I, too, use Norton Internet Security 2009 and you are correct; it does a very good job for me too. I guess that's why it rated so highly. I've read here that it uses too much system resourses. but I don't find that to be the case at all.

İt's great to come across people who comment from experience.NİS 2009 is indeed a very good program,and definetely Light on resourses.
Good to hear from you guys.