Norton AV 2003 or 2004?

[The Lorax]

As stated above, new machine...
Should I re-install NAV 2003 or spring for 2004?
I saw it a Sam's Club, cheap.

 

[wsb1234null]

As stated above, new machine...
Should I re-install NAV 2003 or spring for 2004?
I saw it a Sam's Club, cheap.

Neither.

 

[optikl]

As stated above, new machine...
Should I re-install NAV 2003 or spring for 2004?
I saw it a Sam's Club, cheap.

That's your decision. I personally wouldn't touch any commercial version of
Symantec's AV past 2002. Now, if you can get your hands on a copy of their
corporate edition......

 

[Blevins]

Now, if you can get your hands on a copy of their
corporate edition

I take it that their Corporate Edition has less bloat?

 

[Charlie]

NAV 2004 has "Product Activation" which is Symantec server-side
authentication. It has a fixed max number of "activations" which may or may
not be an issue down the line sometime for your operating scenario. Because
of that I have uninstalled NAV 2004 Pro just tonite (ran out of
"activations" and installed NAV 2003 Pro since I didn't feel like calling
them Monday and beging for an activation.

Either one gives top-rated virus detection and cleaning and is an ICSA
Certified AV scanner which has consistently been a top scoring product.
This "bloatware" crap some folks harp on is simply a term they heard someone
else use and so they simply parrot it back like a mindless monkey. Or would
that be a mindless parrot??

Charlie in Mississippi

 

[Blevins]

Either one gives top-rated virus detection and cleaning and is an ICSA
Certified AV scanner which has consistently been a top scoring product.
This "bloatware" crap some folks harp on is simply a term they heard someone
else use and so they simply parrot it back like a mindless monkey.

Would that be the same type of "mindless monkey" as the Symantec Shill
Charles Johnson?

Fact is, Norton, although it's virus detection has vastly improved
over the years and provides adequate protection, is still rather
bloated. Anyone with an I.Q. of more than two digits can see that.

McAfee, although not as badly, also suffered from the useless bloat
syndrome in the past few years. However, I did notice when checking
out their latest 8.0 Home version that McAfee, for whatever reason,
largely decreased the size of their VirusScan software from previous
versions. The installation file is just over 8 MB.

I think if Symantec took the same approach they would have a product
well worth buying.

As it stands, I'll keep Nod32.

 

[optikl]

I take it that their Corporate Edition has less bloat?

It's a much different product. It's basically an on-access and on-demand
scanner. It runs well on evey machine I've installed it on. If you check VB
archives, most of the recent Symantec testing has been done on their
corporate edition product.

 

[Charlie]

OK Blevins...quantify the "bloatware" claim. Show us URL's for data, test
results, numbers, speed comparisons, ram usage, cpu load, etc..that can
clearly show the "bloat". Surely somewhere on the net this twerrible "bloat:
effect has been extensiviely documented..right? After all..most of us here
are well past the 2 yr old criteria you cited. Your soliloquey is more of
the same..year afyer year..shoot from the hip with buzz words that you do
not know the meaning of.

So..prove your "bloatware" claims...............we are waiting. Y A W N
........................

OK pal...ball in your court................

Charlie in Mississippi

 

[ss_spa]

Fact is, Norton, although it's virus detection has vastly improved
over the years and provides adequate protection, is still rather
bloated. Anyone with an I.Q. of more than two digits can see that.

Norton Requirements:
# REQUIRED FOR ALL INSTALLATIONS
# Internet Explorer (minimum version 5.01 SP2 required, 5.5
recommended)

McAfee requirements:
# Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher

Interesting that the two most bloated offerings demand that Internet
Explorer is a must in order to use.
I couldn't find any other AV package that needed IE in order to be
usefull.

Sounds like just one more reason to stay away from these two products.

tim

tim

 

[Blevins]

It's a much different product. It's basically an on-access and on-demand
scanner. It runs well on evey machine I've installed it on. If you check VB
archives, most of the recent Symantec testing has been done on their
corporate edition product.

I'd like to try it out but my guess is that it's rather expensive
since it's designed for corporate use.

 

[optikl]

I'd like to try it out but my guess is that it's rather expensive
since it's designed for corporate use.

Our corporate license allows employees to use it for personal use, which is
how I got hold of it. I'm not sure, but I believe it's sold for a min 5 user
license at about $ 40 a user.

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<AS3ub.168621$mZ5.1182385@attbi_s54> posted on Mon, 17 Nov

Our corporate license allows employees to use it for personal use, which is
how I got hold of it. I'm not sure, but I believe it's sold for a min 5 user
license at about $ 40 a user.

Was just running the bot through a crack group last night and saw a gen
for NIS2004, but like a bass fishing contest, it was catch and release.

 

[null]

Was just running the bot through a crack group last night and saw a gen
for NIS2004, but like a bass fishing contest, it was catch and release.

So are all realtime scanners so far as I'm concerned.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[* * Chas]

I call this bloatware:

Main Norton AV 2002 folder in C:\Program Files 13MB+
Norton Live Update 7MB+
Various Symantec files in C:\Program Files\Symantec folder
and C:\Windows folder 600K+
C:\Program Files\Norton Rescue Disk 3.9MB+
C:\Program Files \Common Files\Symantec Shared 39MB+

That's over 65MB!

I run NAV 2002 on the systems I use for E-mail because it
saves me a lot of bad message downloads when there is a
E-mail malware attack.

I run F-Prot for Windows on all of my other systems. It's
about an 8MB footprint.

 

[Charlie]

You have no understanding of the already bogus term "bloatware" or you are
a newbie to computing.
Back in the "old days" of Intel 386 - 16 mhz processors 8M ram total and 20M
(not G) hard drives then yes, file size on the storage device was a factor.
Today with 80G hard drives the smallest you find typically even in the least
expensive desktop machines what is the BIG deal about 65M vs 8M even if we
believe your numbers ..eh?? 65M on an 80G drive occupies 0.0008125 % of
the total drive capapcity. Is that some kind of terrible thing??? Get
up-to-speed with modern day standards and then "do the math" before you call
something bloatware.

Moreover even back then the typical use of this term had to do with the
"resource stacks" in Windows operating systems and not hard drive size.
Even today some call certain apps "resource hogs" unknowingly and
unwittingly. Since the NT operating system came into being and then WinXP
built on that technology those "resources stacks" are no longer present in
those OS's so that meaning of "bloatware" is also wrong, outdated,
misleading and believed only by those who heard some other misinformed soul
preach to them about it.

Typically these days the much bally-hooed term bloatware usually refers to
cpu cycles usage and/or ram usage and that too is fading as any real
consideration since cpu speed and ram capacity far exceeds the needs for 99%
of users apps.

Take a break and unwind..it's the Holiday Season....

-ps how many "Ram Booster" or "Modem Booster" programs do you own friend???
LOL!

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

Back in the "old days" of Intel 386 - 16 mhz processors 8M ram total and 20M
(not G) hard drives then yes, file size on the storage device was a factor.
Today with 80G hard drives the smallest you find typically even in the least
expensive desktop machines what is the BIG deal about 65M vs 8M even if we
believe your numbers ..eh?? 65M on an 80G drive occupies 0.0008125 % of
the total drive capapcity. Is that some kind of terrible thing??? Get
up-to-speed with modern day standards and then "do the math" before you call
something bloatware.

Not everybody has the money/time/will to invest into new hardware to
compensate for the immense incompetence and total indifference of
today's wannabe programmers.
Guess what - there is old hardware out there that works absolutely fine
(maybe even better than all the supposedly "modern" and "cutting edge"
hardware which is often just a pile of malfunctioning crap). Why replace
it? That's not economical, not sensible.

It is entirely possible to write sleek and efficient software. Some of
Norton's competitors do (though the general trend is to overburden the
core of the software with megatons of useless bloat, look what happened
to Kaspersky). So why not do it?

Typically these days the much bally-hooed term bloatware usually refers to
cpu cycles usage and/or ram usage and that too is fading as any real
consideration since cpu speed and ram capacity far exceeds the needs for 99%
of users apps.

You think so? Then how do the perceived speed differences between
various programs come into being?

-ps how many "Ram Booster" or "Modem Booster" programs do you own friend???
LOL!

As far as I am concerned, not a single one. I just don't install junk
(or bloatware) like NAV. Computer hygiene is not only about preventing
viruses...

 

[Charlie]

Hi Frederic..I hope you had a great Holiday Season,
Now...show me the real unbiased performance test data that supports your
claims about bloatware.
We have gone through this before. Your worn-out shoot-from-the-hip answers
are unsupportable and will remain so unless you can show us the data!! You
are way too smart to try and perpetrate this same bloatware theory like the
uninformed and unwashed masses parrot.

BTW since nearly every PC maker in the country supplies NAV in a trial
version or limited subscription time limit ..maybe they should all consult
with you because obviously they are all unknowingly slowing down their
products. See...Frederic? You are out of ammo...again and again and
again.....

How many years have we been doing this dance dear friend? I respect your
civility which is a rare commodity on Usenet..but Frederic.."show us the
data" !!! "perceived speed differences" (your words) are a long long way
away from real test data....

 

[Robert Moir]

Hi Frederic..I hope you had a great Holiday Season,
Now...show me the real unbiased performance test data that supports
your claims about bloatware.
We have gone through this before. Your worn-out shoot-from-the-hip
answers are unsupportable and will remain so unless you can show us
the data!! You are way too smart to try and perpetrate this same
bloatware theory like the uninformed and unwashed masses parrot.

So can you show *us* the data that supports *your* arguement?

BTW since nearly every PC maker in the country supplies NAV in a
trial version or limited subscription time limit ..maybe they should
all consult with you because obviously they are all unknowingly
slowing down their products. See...Frederic? You are out of
ammo...again and again and again.....

If you think that OEM bundling deals are made on anything other than a
financial basis you are deluding yourself. Oh, btw, which country were you
talking about when you talk about "the country". Yours or Frederic's?

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

Now...show me the real unbiased performance test data that supports your
claims about bloatware.

Easy, install NAV and a couple of other AV programs and compare their
size on disk. That's the first step.

Then ask yourself why on Earth NAV requires Internet Explorer. That
would be the second step.

We have gone through this before.

Yes but it's always fun.

Your worn-out shoot-from-the-hip answers are unsupportable
and will remain so unless you can show us the data!! You
are way too smart to try and perpetrate this same bloatware theory like the
uninformed and unwashed masses parrot.

The "unwashed masses" are unfortunately way too uninformed. They are not
aware that there are alternatives to Norton, that software is a
determinant factor of the overall speed of a computer system, and so on.
So it's not realistic to accuse the unwashed masses of disseminating the
bloatware theory. In fact they like everything that's colorful and
animated but maybe if they were aware that they have a choice they would
prefer something else?

BTW since nearly every PC maker in the country supplies NAV in a trial
version or limited subscription time limit ..maybe they should all consult
with you because obviously they are all unknowingly slowing down their
products.

"Money money money...". It all revolves around the dough.

Besides, I doubt that there's any significant (in the sense of
perceptible) difference between NAV and other AV products on *new*
computers. But, you see, not everybody owns one of those. You need to
look at the computers out there in the real world, not at the computers
in the store. And don't tell me Symantec's target segment is confined to
buyers of new computers.

Then you need to be aware that, some day, those cute new computers will
be obsolete, so obsolete that the most recent version of NAV will
probably again not run comfortably on them. A vicious circle. Where is
progress in all that?

And is bloat really only about speed? Is it not also about disk space
consumption, about how many entries are pounded into the registry?

How many years have we been doing this dance dear friend?

I have no idea; are you the guy from Arizona who switched from NAV to
something else and back from something else to NAV? Did the switching
occur at the same time you moved to Mississippi?

 

[Conor]

You have no understanding of the already bogus term "bloatware" or you are
a newbie to computing.
Back in the "old days" of Intel 386 - 16 mhz processors 8M ram total and 20M
(not G) hard drives then yes, file size on the storage device was a factor.
Today with 80G hard drives the smallest you find typically even in the least
expensive desktop machines what is the BIG deal about 65M vs 8M even if we
believe your numbers ..eh??

It's **** all to do with HDD space but resources it uses whilst running
such as RAM.