New To This Site

I discovered Webroot by sheer accident.  I have been a Norton user for many years.   About a week ago I upgraded to Norton 360 Premier.  With Norton, I am all too familiar with the amount of time it takes to complete routines, such as scans and backups, but I do consider it to be good software.
 
While doing some research for the best internet security programs (I did a search on Cnet) I came across Webroot.  The contrast between Norton and Webroot intrigued me, so I purchased Webroot Secure Anywhere Complete.  I wanted to compare the differences between the Norton and Webroot software.  Much to my surprise, I learned that I could run Norton and Webroot on the same machine without creating conflicts.  So, that's precisely what I did ... I installed both programs.
 
Much to my surprise, they seem to be functioning well, with no glitches or slowing down of processes.  I am told that Webroot is non-intrusive, which allows it to function, and not compete, with Norton.  So far, this seems to be the fact.
 
However, the speed with which Webroot performs tasks, as compared to Norton, is noteworthy.  As an example, a Norton full system scan takes me about two hours, while a Webroot full system scan takes me about two minutes.  Also, I backed up some files on Norton ( like Webroot, Norton offers 25 gb of backup), which consumed about 12.4 gb.  I then backed up the same files on Webroot and it only consumed about 1.2 gb.  Now, I'm sure I must have missed something, because I find it hard to believe that a Norton backup would consume so much while a Webroot backup would consume so little.*
 
In any case, the contrast between the two products has been duly noted by me, and I'm sure, as I become further acquainted with both programs, I'll notice additional disparities.
 
Webroot, so far so good.  Pretty impressive software!
 
*  I've determined that the main reason my Webroot backup was so small compared to my Norton backup is because I did not backup my "pdf files" on Webroot.  This happened because  "pdf files" were not included in the checklist of items to be backed up.  So, I assumed that "pdf files" would be backed up, when if fact they were not.  I discovered this issue when I compared certain files from my C drive with those that were backed up and noticed lots of omissions, in particular, "pdf files."  I had to enter "pdf files" manually and have now backed them up as well.  I have alerted Webroot of this matter and have suggested that they modify their checklist to include "pdf files."  Actually, given the large number of "pdf files" on c drives of most computers, I'm surprised Webroot didn't include this as part of their checklist to begin with.  Now that I have backed up my entire C drive, it only consumed 9.4 gb on Webroot, compared with 12.4 gb on Norton.  That's a big difference, and I am at a loss to explain why the Webroot backup is so much more efficient, but it is.