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.
Already have an account? Login
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
I have been Beta Testing WSA for short since early 2011 and have not been disappointed in the product at anytime so I can agree with your assessment! Just in case you want to read about all the functions here is the link to Online Help File
You are pleased how NIS and WSA coexist together but you will be surprised how your PC will be thriving only with WSA. I was having NIS and WSA (formerly Prevx) together for ages. However NIS2013 is a big leap back as far as performance is concerned. You can check NIS forum and you will see what I am talking about. Therefore I gave farewell to NIS and kept WSA what makes me fully happy :D
Nevertheless if you don't have problems with the both, you are on a happier side and enjoy them both ;)
Two other internet security packages that I recently found to be quite helpful are: East-Tec Eraser 2012 (which cleans and securitizes your files) and Adfender (which prevents pop-ups).
My next venture is to eliminate Windows XP Professional and move to Windows 7. I have been a fan of XP for years but, sadly, Microsoft will soon stop supporting it. Also, if you have a "counterfeit" XP disk, Microsoft has now injected a warning notice that pops up on your screen that advises that "you might be a victim of software counterfeiting." This happened about two weeks ago. It even has you clicking on a tab to "resolve" the problem (by buying Windows 8 no less) or save it for later, before you can proceed. Cripes, you can't get away with anything these days! :8
We don't talk about Pirated Software here as it's illegal to use such products and is condoned by the Vendors and the Security Community.
Like I said, there are going to be lots of folks that are in for a surprise! It's a rude awakening to learn that your software is counterfeit, regardless of the fact that it works well. I paid for authentic Microsoft software which I thought was included in the cost of the construction of my machine. Caveat emptor!
Windows 8 actually launches today, which is super exciting! I've been playing around with an evaluation copy at work for a while now, but I'm psyched about getting it onto at least one of my boxes at home.
Since it sounds like you'll need to get a new OS anyway, you'll probably be pleased to know that this version of Windows won't cost you an arm and a leg. I know I am! Just $40 - not bad!
It looks like Norton and Webroot are not all that compatible after all.
One other thing: The portion of the Webroot program that asks you to check off the items you'd like to back up does not list "PDF files." You have to enter "PDF files" manually in order to have those files backed up. Including the "PDF files" option as part of the checklist would appear to be a very minor correction, and it should be made.
I think what the replies in that thread are getting at is that there is a marketing incentive to pre-emptively label another program as incompatible.
One way of looking at how to market an antivirus product is to make it as compatible with anything else as possible, which makes people who run more than one AV solution very happy. That's what Webroot does. If there is an actual incompatibility, we want to know about it, so we can fix it. If this is anything more than a mysterious message from Norton, our support agents will want to look at that, and I'd advise putting in a support ticket.
Another way of looking at it is that if your customer is running two AV solutions, there is a chance they may like the other one more and go with it. So there is an incentive there to persuade them into going with yours. Webroot does not do this, but certain other antivirus providers might.
In short, if there is an actual incompatibility, and you notice any odd behavior, please let us know by contacting support. Otherwise, if the message allows you to skip uninstalling Webroot, as was indicated in the other thread, you could do that.
I have no intention of uninstalling Webroot Secure Anywhere. If push comes to shove, I'll uninstall Norton. I'll let you know if I encounter further problems with either Norton or Webroot by not uninstalling Webroot. I did reboot the machine and both programs seem to be working well.
BTW, I took a screenshot of the error message. if you want it I can email it to you.
Or, if there is personally identifiable info, or your preference is for going through support, you'd want to use the link in my post above. We'd send you a utility you can use to gather the screenshot and return it.
Thank you for offering to send up the image. I'm curious to see what this error message looks like.
If you will give me an email address, I will send you the Norton error message as an attachment.
Incidentally, I did not uninstall Webroot and I have not seen the error message again.
This, by the way, is why I had so many problems trying to upload an image to this thread.
Also, like I said earlier, the Norton error message has not popped up again. Just that once. Both systems (Norton and Webroot) seem to be coexisting otherwise.
And this is what RWM has.