Laptops Desktops Monitors & LCDs Graphics Cards Handhelds Phones Software Networks Printers More »
search
AnchorDesk

Robert Vamosi
What's wrong with today's antivirus apps

Robert Vamosi
Senior Editor, Reviews
Monday, January 20, 2003
TalkBack!Add your opinion
How do software companies entice you to upgrade to the latest versions of their software? Usually, they hope the new version contains enough enhancements to compel you to make the leap. However, as we've seen with Microsoft's operating systems, improving software doesn't always mean you'll upgrade--after all, there are still several thousand people worldwide running Windows 95. For many, as long as the old software works, there is no reason to pay for an upgrade.

With antivirus software, however, you must update your application with the latest virus signatures in order for it to be effective. That's why it's such bad news to the thousands of you using Norton Antivirus 2000 and 2001 that Norton's maker, Symantec, is pulling the plug on not only technical support, but also virus signature updates for these older products.

ADD TO THAT the fact that you must pay for virus updates from Norton--and its competitors--and you'll see why it's so hard to find reputable yet reasonably priced antivirus program these days. I, for one, still haven't found my ideal solution.

With the release of Norton Antivirus 2003, Symantec says Norton Antivirus 2000 customers won't be able to simply renew their subscription to the latest virus signatures, as they've done for the past two years. Instead, they must first pay $30 to upgrade the software.

According to the support policy spelled out on Symantec's Web site, when you purchase any new Symantec product, you should expect to pay for 2 years of technical support and 2 to 3 years of virus updates (depending when you buy the product). After that, you must upgrade to the latest product--or go without antivirus protection.

DIRTY TRICK? Not so, says Symantec product manager Tom Powledge. He explains that it's in your best interest to upgrade to the latest Norton product, because antivirus software engines need to evolve as viruses and other security threats become smarter. This means that the scan engine technology available in Norton Antivirus 5.0, for example, isn't going to stop the complex threats appearing today--and that'll you'll be better protected with the 2003 version.

Still, while I see Powledge's point, there remain a few flaws with Norton's current policy--and with the product itself. First, Norton Antivirus automatically installs as part of other products, namely Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. Customers who are comfortable running, say, SystemWorks 2001, must now upgrade to SystemWorks 2003, whose enhancements over the 2001 version are essentially cosmetic. In the case of Norton Internet Security, while NIS 2001 ran fine, NIS 2003 crashed several times on my laptop during its boot cycle. It was difficult to uninstall NIS 2003, too; I had to download a special removal tool from Symantec.

Which brings me to the second problem: Ever try and remove Norton Antivirus from your computer? It's not easy. (In order to upgrade to the latest Symantec antivirus software, you must  manually uninstall the older version.) The Windows uninstall process doesn't always remove all of Norton's various changes to the Registry, so, as with NIS, you have to download a special Norton Antivirus removal tool from Symantec to complete the task. Symantec's Powledge assured me the company is taking the complaints about user installation and upgrade very seriously--but he offered no immediate remedies or solutions.

Antivirus apps from McAfee, Trend Micro, and Panda also require the removal of older versions, but the process isn't as complicated as with Norton.

ANOTHER MAJOR COMPLAINT I have about antivirus software is the high price of update subscriptions. While speaking to Powledge, I suggested, as I've written about before, that antivirus updates should be free--at least for home users. He responded: "Doesn't our name have value with the customer?" I took this to mean we have to pay for quality. Norton's name does date back to the early days of antivirus software, as does McAfee's. For that reputation, we pay $10 a year for McAfee or Norton antivirus updates.

What really doesn't make sense is that other antivirus vendors have begun to charge even more for their subscriptions. Panda Software, for example, charges roughly $7 per month or a whopping $108 dollars for 36 months to keep its antivirus software up-to-date. In addition, upgrading from Panda Platinum 6.0 to the latest version, 7.0, will cost you $59.95. And upgrades from all versions before 6.0 cost $69.95--the same price paid by new customers.

Another player in this field, Trend Micro, recently increased its annual support fee to a whopping $26 when it released of PC-cillin 2003. The increase, however, comes with one year of free technical support and a promise to include an automatic upgrade to latest version of Trend's PC-cillin when one is available. In light of Norton and McAfee's fee-based technical support, $10 annual antivirus subscription, and $30 upgrade price, Trend's $26 fee starts looking like a good deal.

I'd love to steer you to a reputable antivirus program that doesn't charge for antivirus updates. But, after reviewing the latest releases from Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and Panda, I still haven't found one. Over the course of this year we'll review more antivirus products, and if I find a perfect--or at least better--solution, I'll let you know. In the meantime, you're gonna have to pay to stay safe online.

How should antivirus companies handle software upgrades? How much should they charge for virus updates? What's your favorite product? TalkBack to me!

Previous Story   

Special sponsor stores

Virtualization

advertisement
Click Here