Norton figures
Last week, I started running some tests on the Home Office PC I’ve been building over the last few weeks. I decided to download a popular security alternative to Norton, AVG 8.0, and see how it uses the PC resources. This was going to be the baseline against which to compare the new and improved Norton Internet Security 2009.
For those of you who don’t want to read the earlier article, you should know that I measured seven different variables, all of which Norton claims have dramatically improved. They are:
- Memory footprint
- Download size
- CPU usage
- Scan time
- Update time
- Installation time and size
I have already run the test for AVG, the results of which are in the earlier article. Below, we’ll see how Norton did. Now, keep in mind that the results are being compared to AVG 8.0, and not to previous version of Norton.
So, how did it do? Eh, I’d have to give it mixed results, though I am impressed by even that much from Norton.
Download Size: 61.5MB (AVG is 50MB)
Norton Internet Security 2009 is a 62MB download. That’s not huge, by any means, but it is larger than AVG’s by about 12MB.
Installation Time: 59.6s (AVG is 2:46)
This is very impressive. Norton promises an installation under one minute. For those of you who’ve ever installed Norton before, you can see why this claim would have a comical element to it. Yet, there you have it. Under one minute. Just so… but still under one minute.
Installation Size: 72.8MB (AVG is 63.7MB)
This figure is a result of a 62MB Norton folder, as well as a 10MB Installation Folder which remains on the disc. Combined, you have used us about 11MB more space than if you had installed AVG. When average drives are topping half a terabyte, this is not a whole bunch. But still, it’s more than AVG.
Memory Footprint: Incremental between 3MB, 8MB and 9MB (AVG was Between 3MB and 20MB)
Norton uses a surprisingly small amount of RAM, particularly when running a full system scan. While AVG was comparable when either sitting in the tray, or displaying it’s security options… running a full scan would use up 25MB, compared to Norton’s 9MB. This is great.
CPU Usage: Between 0.3% and 37% (AVG was between 1.3% and 25%)
It’s sad to say, but it looks like while running a full system scan on AVG used up more RAM, it was more taxing to the CPU with Norton. AVG rarely topped 27% and averaged 25%, while Norton did spike up to 45%, while running an average 37% when scanning.
Scan Time: 11:54 (AVG was 24:13)
Norton pretty much halves AVG’s scan time. This is really impressive and a clear advantage to Norton.
Update Time: 24s (AVG was 47s)
Once again, Norton’s time is half that of AVG’s. These updates are also seamless, while AVG did require some user interaction the first time it updated.
So, what does this mean? Norton beats AVG in:
• Update time
• Scan time
• Memory Footprint
• Installation Time
It loses in:
• CPU usage
• Installation size
• Download size
My thoughts and conclusion in the next article.
Comments
Thanks for the detailed overview david – I’ve been running Norton for years and recently installed the Norton ‘09 version which runs great, as always.
thanks for your tips always helpful