Spyware, viruses, & security : Norton. Why?.
Norton. Why?
by michhala - 2/10/06 11:59 AM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrman>>As a former short term Norton user, i fail to understand why it remains so popular.
For me, it is because NAV has successfully protected my computers since 1999.....and NIS since 2004.
Miki
That's good
by murrman - 2/10/06 12:18 PM In reply to: Norton. Why? by michhalaI'm glad you are problem free but unfortunely, appear to be a minority.And i did not say that using Norton guarentees infection!.Despite it usual problems, it appears from what i have been seeing in forums that its detection rates are presently not as good as they once were and users should be aware of this.If it still was #1 in detection and removal, then the others problems would be worth trying to deal with in order to use the best AV.But since it's not, why bother?.
Norton. Why?
by hostetae - 2/10/06 12:20 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanI found Norton to be a waste. I had it for two years and had virus problems both years. I had trouble installing from a download. I purchased a third year and a month later got another virus. I had to purchase a new computer and changed to Computer Associates Antivirus program for $20 and their Pestpatrol program for $20. Tried getting a refund for my unused Norton program - yea, sure.
Loss of faith...
by boomslang - 2/10/06 12:23 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanAs a long term (since Windows 3.1) Norton Antivirus/Systemworks user I have similar feelings. Norton 2004 was the last stable useable version in my estimation.
Norton AV 2005 was the beginning of the end for me for the following reasons:
(1) noticeable system performance degradation,
(2) failure to support use in a limited user environment, some installs either immediately or during their life, stop downloading the virus definitions unless you are an administrative account.
(3) randomly, the program starts requiring reactivation, sometimes as often as once a day. As long as it's only once a week, I'll put up with it, ARRRRGGG!
(4) more worrisome is the fact that as in the instance of the last virus outbreak, I was running two computer systems. One gets email and the other doesn't. I did a manual virus definition download on the email computer after watching Live Update go online after the virus defs were released that addressed the problem a day later and tell me my system was up to date. It took four days for the non-email system to have Live Update finally get off it's lazy behind and download the virus definitions. The Norton Antivirus updates may be somewhat better than most at catching stuff, but the timeliness of my NAV installations retrieving them has been leaving a serious infection window open for an unacceptable length of time.
Norton 2006 is just an unmitIgated disaster. All my friends who updated noticed an immediate downgrade in system performance, so much more than the 2005 versions they were running that some of them were provoked to bad language and several were annoyed enough to want to be downgraded.
Yeh!
by murrman - 2/10/06 12:47 PM In reply to: Loss of faith... by boomslangI personally know a few people using Norton and the only one without problems is still using 2004 edition.The rest are using the newest version.And as far as updates go, they are well behind the front runners in that category also.Now if you can get your updates to funtion, Norton's response time to a new virus is 10-12 hours on average.The top ones are 1-4 hours, so you can see that Norton does leave you exposed for much longer than other companies.
Norton AV
by Rocket - 2/10/06 1:17 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanI run norton AV 2005 had no trouble installing. I keep it up to date using live update. I also use the free version of Zone Alarm, the free version of Adaware and the free version of spybot, all up to date with no problems at all. I am not a computer wiz but have a little knowledge on how things work and must say that my experience with these products has all been positive. I did try AVG when it first came out and got virus after virus. I did an online scan with Symantec which removed the virus's then went back to using norton and have had no problems since.
Norton Why?
by lilburn - 2/10/06 3:00 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanBased on experience, not expertise, I found the same basic problems with both Norton and McAfee. You sign up, make them work (with a little luck) and, after 30 or 60 days, find that you have to send more money to make them work for another period of time. In other words, in order to keep them up to date on the latest viruses, you have to keep feeding the money machine.
As an alternative, I tried Panda. The software is available at Staples with the Staples brand on it. You pay one fee, about $40 the last time, and it keeps you updated every day when you turn your computer on. (I turn mine off each day as I use dial-up).
I have been using Panda for about a year and a half and it has performed flawlessly.
Norton. Why?.
by Ron Geiken - 2/10/06 3:26 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanI used Norton for many years, but after all the problems I had a few years ago trying to get the program to update, I finally disabled it and now use AVG free Anti Virus which seems to work flawlessly. I don't mind paying for anti virus protection, but with Norton, even though you paid, you couldn't get it to work Properly, and after many tries at the Norton (Symantec) web site to resolve the problem, I just gave up and went to AVG. I will never buy a Norton product again, because it can be difficult to use and the product support is inefficient.
Ron Geiken
I agree and Dissagree with Ya...
by Bradtech80 - 2/10/06 3:50 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanTo start with I am horrified about the names of some of the AV programs being glorified on some of the posts. A couple of them only have a 75% success rate at catching viruses let alone cleaning them off.
I agree that Norton has its problems. I am still to find one that does not. From research done there are only 2 antivirus programs that can say that they catch 100% viruses thrown at them. That is Norton and NOD32. Yes McAffe and a couple of others CLAME to by their own research but of course their labs can only throw at it what they have on record. I am talking about independent testing.
Norton is one to use up more system recourses then most and that is for good reason. It uses heuristics, an advanced program monitoring program that check for virus like activities. You can turn such features off but you are asking for trouble then. I know of a College in New South Wales, Australia that tried 4 AV’s because they kept getting a virus going around their network. On some of them they formatted and reinstall the AV’s to get the virus off but it kept coming back. After 2 weeks of me telling them to get Norton they used a 30day trial and clean off the virus without formatting and never got it back. They now use and swear by Symantec.
Which Norton were you using? Internet Security or Antivirus? Antivirus will not stop you from being an idiot on the internet. That is not with it is designed to do. It will only stop viruses and remove them. Internet Security is designed to protect you from the internet and online threats. The latest version even comes with Spyware and Adware removal facilities for those people silly enough to install them.
The other issue is are you using the Systemworks? That has been known to fix and damage systems. The best option for that is not a antivirus company. That includes McAfee which is even more potent to the pc. After using their FirstAid program you need to give your computer First Aid. [Looks like they have renamed that to Quickclean.]
Lastly, as most people have pointed out the system is only as good as the user. They NIS for certain will still let some programs threw because it will ask you, incase you need the program. It tells you first what you are about to do and if you say to install/use it that is the users fault. The only way around that is to not let the user install any at all… some AV’s do that and so they seem to be good. Any person can do that just by being logged on as Guest. As I have said earlier. The Program is only as good as the setup.
PS. You may wish to look at all the new partnerships that have been cropping up with companies needed better AV protection and you will notice that it is mostly Symantec (Norton’s company). Nokia have just signed up a deal for Symantec to run their AV on their latest phones. They found Norton was better than F-Secure… Go figure…
Doubt that
by murrman - 2/10/06 5:17 PM In reply to: I agree and Dissagree with Ya... by Bradtech80All recent testing proves otherwise.So there is underlying factors here just like norton with the computer companies.Same thing.I definitely won't be purchasing that phone.Norton probably won't let you make or receive calls!.
Confused by this whole mess
by Fredrick Bun - 2/10/06 9:47 PM In reply to: I agree and Dissagree with Ya... by Bradtech80I must be one of the odd ones, I have used a computer for about 6 years now, and by no means am I computer savvy, I'm still at first base, I have used norton all of those years, never had a problem, till last year when I upgraded to 2005 security, I couldnt get on certain web sites, and the rest were real slow, I knew it was norton cause everything was fine till I downloaded the new norton, I found a telephone number that was hidden in very fine print on the back of my manual, I called, I did get a support fellow very fast, but the big problem was I could hardly understand him, I kept on saying what, what, he started to get angry, but I would'nt give up, finnaly after many clicks on the computer per his instructions (about one hour) he said to re-start the computer, I did, and everything was fine, the only problem I ever had. Again, I guess I am one of the lucky ones, and never a virus in 6 years.
Tech support hates Norton
by badsponge - 2/10/06 4:05 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanI work at a help desk supporting our company's software, and all of us here HATE Norton. Anytime our software is having trouble working normally, the first thing I ask is, "Are you running anything from Norton?" Often they are, and when I have them disable it, our software works fine. No other security software gives our users the kind of problems Norton does. Users are so ignorant, they think they're going to get a virus when they turn it off, and when I tell them there are much better security solutions out there, many say Norton is all they know. Norton is good at advertising, that's it.
Norton's is terrible
by noviceuser57 - 2/10/06 4:47 PM In reply to: Tech support hates Norton by badspongeI got a new pc bought for me last year by a friend for an early birthday present.A emachine with a 160 gb harddrive and Windows XP..She also purchased Norton's with the computer.
I had problems with the Norton's from day one.I would try to update and it wouldn't.Then I would try to get into my Outlook and it would stop me from connecting to my IP server.I thought something was wrong with my OPS.I didn't realize it was the Norton's at first.Thought it was the XP I was running(my first time using XP).I reformatted and didn't reinstall the Norton's.Had no problems.Installed the Norton's then the problems began again.
I tried to contact Norton's to find out what might be causing the problems.Never talked to a real live person but I do know their automated support front to back now.I kept getting that I needed to change my LiveUpdate Files.I did.Norton's would stop my OutLook again and I would have to uninstall and reinstall and go through all the crap once again.
Finally getting fed up I took the Norton's completely off my system and installed Pc-cillian.I threw the Norton's cd away and will never use Norton's again.It is nothing but a load of crap..
Agreed - Norton Sucks Wind
by dlock - 2/13/06 1:06 AM In reply to: Tech support hates Norton by badspongeI work at a regional call center for a cable Internet provider. Many of the customers who call in are running Norton. Why? ''It came with the PC''. Or, ''I've always run Norton''. Or worse still, ''I dunno *what* I have...'' And the overwhelming majority of the time, Norton is the cause of the user's problems with their e-mail. Every time Norton rolls out an update, the calls start rolling in, and I get busy helping folks rebuild their Outlook Express accounts.
On the one hand, I wish that Norton would get their act together and start shipping software that works, doesn't slow users' PCs down to a crawl, and is a good value for the dollar. On the other hand, perhaps it's a good thing if they don't - I get to keep my job, and my house.
The lack of user knowledge is truly stunning, by the way. No one seems to have time to read the flipping manual, but they have all the time in the world to sit on hold and get someone to talk them through fixing their woes. People are being sold PCs as if they are appliances, and the brutal reality is they are *not*; they are sophisticated, complex, and yes, buggy machines that can cause a lot of trouble for the user when improperly used. Please spread the word - PCs are far more akin to Ferraris than Frigidaires. Spend a bit of time learning what you are about before touching the keyboard. You will save yourself a lot of heartache and money.
Try Kaspersky !
by altini_s1 - 2/10/06 5:34 PM In reply to: Norton. Why?. by murrmanI'm a computer technician and have testet many antivirus programs...
Norton is problematic and you can not uninstall it without causing problems.
For my opinion, Kaspersky antivirus is the best for the moment...
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
