| |||||||
| Windows XP Discuss the Microsoft Windows XP Operating System |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-23-2008, 08:40 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Brad wrote: > Hi, > > Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se > computer(s) in the past. > > Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home edition. > It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) pre-installed. I am > thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows me to control (preferences) how > it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I don't want NAV always running in the > background. I want to be able to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I > want, the same way I did using NAV 2001. > > What is your experience with the new version of NAV? > > Thanks in advance, Brad > > Before you type your password, credit card number, etc., > be sure there is no active keystroke logger (spyware) in your PC. > I wouldn't get Norton considering the track record I've had with them on other customers machines. The disaster happens when it malfunctions. If it malfunctions it becomes increasingly difficult to diagnose. When you have Norton you can't rely on safe mode as a means to determine if security software is the issue. Why? Because the services that load the protection also manage to startup there. Yep. Norton figured out how to get it to load there. Also as others have stated it doesn't remove itself correctly a good portion of the time and then you have to run the removal tool. We provide our own security to our customers if they have it. Most will remove prior security before installing ours. We still get calls about odd issues caused because Norton or Mcafee did not remove themselves correctly. -- Robert Pendell shinji@elite-systems.org "A perfect world is one of chaos." Thawte Web of Trust Notary CAcert Assurer      |
|
04-24-2008, 06:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Protect very well?? Where on earth did you get that from? Give facts. "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.2279859a2317bfb6989716@adfree.usenet.com. .. > In article <78CD15D0-0BAD-479C-9541-457A9EA2A8AE@microsoft.com>, fac_187 > ********.com says... >> Symantec products get favorable reviews for reasons that are difficult to >> fathom. > > The commercial products are almost always low on resource load, faster, > and provide great quality. > > That said, their home user products are terrible resource hogs, but they > still protect very well. > > > -- > - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. > - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a > drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |
|
04-24-2008, 06:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Wow. Are you brainwashed. "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:uMUTxPZpIHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message > news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Brad wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>> computer(s) in the past. >>> >>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>> using NAV 2001. >>> >>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >> >> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >> degree McCaffee. >> >> There are several problems with Norton: >> >> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. > > Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is > using any at all. > >> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the secret >> Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the registry for >> detritus left behind. > > There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around for > years, no different than any of the other applications and Symantec isn't > the only one that has registry entries that are not removed. > >> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't tell >> you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an application >> that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every bit of software >> that tells you to "disable your virus checker" before continuing really >> means "Disable Norton." > > If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the > importance of shutting down running programs when installing an > application. > > > -- > > > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } > Conflicts start where information lacks. > http://basconotw.mvps.org/ > > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 > > |
|
04-24-2008, 07:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Far from! -- Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } Conflicts start where information lacks. http://basconotw.mvps.org/ Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:DK0Qj.273$506.156@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. .. > Wow. Are you brainwashed. > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message > news:uMUTxPZpIHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Brad wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>> >>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>> using NAV 2001. >>>> >>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>> >>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser degree >>> McCaffee. >>> >>> There are several problems with Norton: >>> >>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >> >> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is using >> any at all. >> >>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the secret >>> Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the registry for >>> detritus left behind. >> >> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around for >> years, no different than any of the other applications and Symantec isn't the >> only one that has registry entries that are not removed. >> >>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't tell you >>> it's bothering the install process. You end up with an application that >>> won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every bit of software that >>> tells you to "disable your virus checker" before continuing really means >>> "Disable Norton." >> >> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an application. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >> Conflicts start where information lacks. >> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >> >> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >> >> > > |
|
04-24-2008, 07:40 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus HeyBub wrote: > Brad wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >> computer(s) in the past. >> >> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >> using NAV 2001. >> >> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? > > I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser degree > McCaffee. > > There are several problems with Norton: > > 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. > 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the secret > Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the registry for > detritus left behind. > 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't tell you > it's bothering the install process. You end up with an application that > won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every bit of software that > tells you to "disable your virus checker" before continuing really means > "Disable Norton." > > Back in 1939, the playwrights Kaufman and Hart wrote a comedy titled The Man Who Came To Dinner. I believe that play became the design model for NAV, the only difference being that one is a comedy, one is not. Allen |
|
04-24-2008, 08:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Brian A. wrote: > "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message > news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Brad wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>> computer(s) in the past. >>> >>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>> using NAV 2001. >>> >>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >> >> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >> degree McCaffee. >> >> There are several problems with Norton: >> >> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. > > Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is > using any at all. You didn't install it properly is my guess. Google "Norton+resource+hog" yields 226,000 hits. > >> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the >> secret Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the >> registry for detritus left behind. > > There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around > for years, no different than any of the other applications and > Symantec isn't the only one that has registry entries that are not > removed. It IS a secret. It's not mentioned in their documentation nor is it part of the normal uninstall process. Further, running it once is often insufficient. Further-further FINDING it on Symantec's website is non-trivial. > >> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't >> tell you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an >> application that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every >> bit of software that tells you to "disable your virus checker" >> before continuing really means "Disable Norton." > > If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the > importance of shutting down running programs when installing an > application. We write software for a living and Norton has to be disabled before our software will install properly (because we're adding things to the registry). This is not true for AVG, Avast, and several other AV programs with which we've experimented. Moreover, when Norton DOES interfere, it gives no indication that it did so. The only clue we get is when our customers can't run our product. |
|
04-24-2008, 08:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Thousands of posts have been sent concerning problems with Norton and Symantic programs. Yet you claim they're great. If that isn't being brainwashed then you must be a Norton salesman. I.E. FOS. "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:OwMJI9hpIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Far from! > > -- > > > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } > Conflicts start where information lacks. > http://basconotw.mvps.org/ > > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 > > > "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message > news:DK0Qj.273$506.156@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. .. >> Wow. Are you brainwashed. >> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message >> news:uMUTxPZpIHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >>> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Brad wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>>> >>>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>>> using NAV 2001. >>>>> >>>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>>> >>>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >>>> degree McCaffee. >>>> >>>> There are several problems with Norton: >>>> >>>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >>> >>> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is >>> using any at all. >>> >>>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the >>>> secret Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the >>>> registry for detritus left behind. >>> >>> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around >>> for years, no different than any of the other applications and Symantec >>> isn't the only one that has registry entries that are not removed. >>> >>>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't >>>> tell you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an >>>> application that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every bit >>>> of software that tells you to "disable your virus checker" before >>>> continuing really means "Disable Norton." >>> >>> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >>> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an >>> application. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >>> Conflicts start where information lacks. >>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >>> >>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >>> >>> >> >> > |
|
04-24-2008, 09:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message news:eXP9ToipIHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Brian A. wrote: >> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Brad wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>> >>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>> using NAV 2001. >>>> >>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>> >>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >>> degree McCaffee. >>> >>> There are several problems with Norton: >>> >>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >> >> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is >> using any at all. > > You didn't install it properly is my guess. Google "Norton+resource+hog" > yields 226,000 hits. Someone is going to have to contact Symantec then and let them know that the product isn't hammering the CPU after their product is installed. I'll guarantee that I installed it ptoperly and I won't be the one contacting them since I have no problems using their products and my systems run just fine with or without any of their products. 226,000 hits means nothing to me, you'll find my posts along with others who have no issues with Symantec products, those that have or had issues who voice out, and those that are followers who voice only on what they've read/heard without ever using the product. Again, no matter the program/application, the users mileage will vary due to the way their machine is setup, configured and/or kept in a clean state (both system/OS wise and machine/hardware/software gunk wise). Symantec is not the only application developer in the world and they are most certainly not the major cause of the many OS failures. > > >> >>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the >>> secret Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the >>> registry for detritus left behind. >> >> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around >> for years, no different than any of the other applications and >> Symantec isn't the only one that has registry entries that are not >> removed. > > It IS a secret. It's not mentioned in their documentation nor is it part of > the normal uninstall process. Further, running it once is often insufficient. > Further-further FINDING it on Symantec's website is non-trivial. > I'll look into that since I haven't read one of their manuals since back when. Either way manual or not, if an error did occur and I know they do, no matter the application including other than Symantec, an error code number would be generated which could be looked up for a possible solution. FWI, their removal utility has been in circulation for at least the last 5-7 years. >> >>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't >>> tell you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an >>> application that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every >>> bit of software that tells you to "disable your virus checker" >>> before continuing really means "Disable Norton." >> >> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an >> application. > > We write software for a living and Norton has to be disabled before our > software will install properly (because we're adding things to the registry). > This is not true for AVG, Avast, and several other AV programs with which > we've experimented. Moreover, when Norton DOES interfere, it gives no > indication that it did so. The only clue we get is when our customers can't > run our product. > Then the code you write has anomalies of something on the dark side. I'm not saying any malicious code is being written, yet I'd rather have an app that tags code as a possible security risk and/or not tag it at all. If you don't see a popup message that something was blocked as being potentially dangerous, then it's truly obvious of who hadn't installed the Symantec application properly. -- Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } Conflicts start where information lacks. http://basconotw.mvps.org/ Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 |
|
04-24-2008, 09:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Wrong again on the second count, I never mentioned Symantec products were great. I mentioned I've used them form back when and never had any concerning issues to me. Strike Two. Not only are you off the board on you third statement, you obviously have no clue what-so-ever about me. Strike Three, Buh Bye. -- Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } Conflicts start where information lacks. http://basconotw.mvps.org/ Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:vM2Qj.2050$LQ4.1779@newssvr11.news.prodigy.ne t... > Thousands of posts have been sent concerning problems with Norton and Symantic > programs. Yet you claim they're great. > If that isn't being brainwashed then you must be a Norton salesman. I.E. FOS. > "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message > news:OwMJI9hpIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Far from! >> >> -- >> >> >> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >> Conflicts start where information lacks. >> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >> >> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >> >> >> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message >> news:DK0Qj.273$506.156@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. .. >>> Wow. Are you brainwashed. >>> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message >>> news:uMUTxPZpIHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >>>> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>> Brad wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>>>> using NAV 2001. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>>>> >>>>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >>>>> degree McCaffee. >>>>> >>>>> There are several problems with Norton: >>>>> >>>>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >>>> >>>> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is using >>>> any at all. >>>> >>>>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the secret >>>>> Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the registry for >>>>> detritus left behind. >>>> >>>> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around for >>>> years, no different than any of the other applications and Symantec isn't >>>> the only one that has registry entries that are not removed. >>>> >>>>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't tell >>>>> you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an application >>>>> that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every bit of software >>>>> that tells you to "disable your virus checker" before continuing really >>>>> means "Disable Norton." >>>> >>>> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >>>> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an >>>> application. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >>>> Conflicts start where information lacks. >>>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >>>> >>>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >>>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
|
04-24-2008, 09:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus Clue I have about you is that you use or have used and push Symantec products. That's all I need. "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:eZOM3DjpIHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Wrong again on the second count, I never mentioned Symantec products were > great. I mentioned I've used them form back when and never had any > concerning issues to me. Strike Two. > > Not only are you off the board on you third statement, you obviously have > no clue what-so-ever about me. Strike Three, Buh Bye. > > -- > > > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } > Conflicts start where information lacks. > http://basconotw.mvps.org/ > > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 > > > "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message > news:vM2Qj.2050$LQ4.1779@newssvr11.news.prodigy.ne t... >> Thousands of posts have been sent concerning problems with Norton and >> Symantic programs. Yet you claim they're great. >> If that isn't being brainwashed then you must be a Norton salesman. I.E. >> FOS. >> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message >> news:OwMJI9hpIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Far from! >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >>> Conflicts start where information lacks. >>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >>> >>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >>> >>> >>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message >>> news:DK0Qj.273$506.156@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net. .. >>>> Wow. Are you brainwashed. >>>> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message >>>> news:uMUTxPZpIHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Brad wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>>>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>>>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>>>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>>>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>>>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>>>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>>>>> using NAV 2001. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>>>>> >>>>>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >>>>>> degree McCaffee. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are several problems with Norton: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >>>>> >>>>> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is >>>>> using any at all. >>>>> >>>>>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the >>>>>> secret Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the >>>>>> registry for detritus left behind. >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around >>>>> for years, no different than any of the other applications and >>>>> Symantec isn't the only one that has registry entries that are not >>>>> removed. >>>>> >>>>>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't >>>>>> tell you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an >>>>>> application that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every >>>>>> bit of software that tells you to "disable your virus checker" before >>>>>> continuing really means "Disable Norton." >>>>> >>>>> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >>>>> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an >>>>> application. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } >>>>> Conflicts start where information lacks. >>>>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm >>>>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
|
04-24-2008, 09:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus You apparently don't read these newsgroups regularly. I repeat, you are brainwashed. Symantec problems have been almost 80% of the posts on this newsgroup in the past. The percentage is diminishing as more and more people are uninstalling their products. "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message news:O1CAQAjpIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message > news:eXP9ToipIHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Brian A. wrote: >>> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message >>> news:e5AGWFZpIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Brad wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Note: I have used NAV (Norton's AntiVirus) 2001 on a Windows 98se >>>>> computer(s) in the past. >>>>> >>>>> Over a month ago, I bought a new Dell laptop with Windows XP home >>>>> edition. It came with Trend Micro PC-cillin (30 days trial) >>>>> pre-installed. I am thinking about buying NAV, assuming it allows >>>>> me to control (preferences) how it "behaves" as NAV 2001 did. I >>>>> don't want NAV always running in the background. I want to be able >>>>> to "run" NAV to check folders, etc. when I want, the same way I did >>>>> using NAV 2001. >>>>> >>>>> What is your experience with the new version of NAV? >>>> >>>> I doubt anyone on this group would recommend Norton, or, to a lesser >>>> degree McCaffee. >>>> >>>> There are several problems with Norton: >>>> >>>> 1. It is a resource hog, burning up to 15% of available CPU cycles. >>> >>> Huh? As I currently look, not a single Symantec I have installed is >>> using any at all. >> >> You didn't install it properly is my guess. Google "Norton+resource+hog" >> yields 226,000 hits. > > Someone is going to have to contact Symantec then and let them know that > the product isn't hammering the CPU after their product is installed. > I'll guarantee that I installed it ptoperly and I won't be the one > contacting them since I have no problems using their products and my > systems run just fine with or without any of their products. > > 226,000 hits means nothing to me, you'll find my posts along with others > who have no issues with Symantec products, those that have or had issues > who voice out, and those that are followers who voice only on what they've > read/heard without ever using the product. Again, no matter the > program/application, the users mileage will vary due to the way their > machine is setup, configured and/or kept in a clean state (both system/OS > wise and machine/hardware/software gunk wise). > Symantec is not the only application developer in the world and they are > most certainly not the major cause of the many OS failures. > >> >> >>> >>>> 2. It is difficult to remove. Very difficult. You have to run the >>>> secret Symantec removal tool several times then manually scan the >>>> registry for detritus left behind. >>> >>> There's nothing secret about their removal utility, it's been around >>> for years, no different than any of the other applications and >>> Symantec isn't the only one that has registry entries that are not >>> removed. >> >> It IS a secret. It's not mentioned in their documentation nor is it part >> of the normal uninstall process. Further, running it once is often >> insufficient. Further-further FINDING it on Symantec's website is >> non-trivial. >> > > I'll look into that since I haven't read one of their manuals since back > when. Either way manual or not, if an error did occur and I know they do, > no matter the application including other than Symantec, an error code > number would be generated which could be looked up for a possible > solution. FWI, their removal utility has been in circulation for at least > the last 5-7 years. > >>> >>>> 3. Norton interferes with many software installations - and doesn't >>>> tell you it's bothering the install process. You end up with an >>>> application that won't work and you don't know why. Virtually every >>>> bit of software that tells you to "disable your virus checker" >>>> before continuing really means "Disable Norton." >>> >>> If you truly believe your last statement, you truly don't realize the >>> importance of shutting down running programs when installing an >>> application. >> >> We write software for a living and Norton has to be disabled before our >> software will install properly (because we're adding things to the >> registry). This is not true for AVG, Avast, and several other AV programs >> with which we've experimented. Moreover, when Norton DOES interfere, it >> gives no indication that it did so. The only clue we get is when our >> customers can't run our product. >> > > Then the code you write has anomalies of something on the dark side. I'm > not saying any malicious code is being written, yet I'd rather have an app > that tags code as a possible security risk and/or not tag it at all. If > you don't see a popup message that something was blocked as being > potentially dangerous, then it's truly obvious of who hadn't installed the > Symantec application properly. > > > -- > > > Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience } > Conflicts start where information lacks. > http://basconotw.mvps.org/ > > Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm > How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 > > |
|
04-24-2008, 10:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus In article <MI0Qj.272$506.124@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, unknown@unknown.kom says... > Protect very well?? Where on earth did you get that from? Give facts. Read the reviews from independent testing groups. Symantec Antivirus is always in the top 1-3 products for malware blocking. -- - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |
|
04-24-2008, 11:40 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Thinking about buying Norton's AntiVirus On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:44:36 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: >In article <MI0Qj.272$506.124@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >unknown@unknown.kom says... >> Protect very well?? Where on earth did you get that from? Give facts. > >Read the reviews from independent testing groups. Symantec Antivirus is >always in the top 1-3 products for malware blocking. It may be, but it can also block performance. Out of 4 computers I tested, only one performed well with Norton. What good is it if a product catches all malware and bogs your system down? No anti-virus product is perfect and none will catch 100%. Better |
