FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee

[Pop]

1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
CPU utilization.).

===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.

[...]
That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
idea.

===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
in, ...

I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
properly with WXP. [...]

===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
track of who might be getting in who's way.

Pop

 

[Al Smith]

These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far

back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
was using MSDOS 6.22.

I gave up on Norton antivirus back in the Windows 3.1 days. It
caused more problems than any virus. McAfee was better, but it got
worse. The last version I bought was so bad, I had to uninstall
it. It was causing my mouse to freeze every few seconds as it
sucked up all the resources of my CPU. I switched to InnoculateIT,
and later to AVG, and both of those products gave me no conflicts
and didn't hog resources.

 

[Dan]

I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.
: > [...]
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:

 

[Dan]

BTW, does anyone know how much a retail full copy of MS-DOS 6.22 costs and
where I can buy it safely? I want to explore MS-DOS more in my search for a
true maintenance operating system to present to Microsoft on Chris Quirke,
MVP and Gary S. Terhune MVP's advice. Thanks in advance for all of your
help.

: These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
: back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
: was using MSDOS 6.22.
:
: Gary S. Terhune wrote:
: | I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: | *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
: | has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
: | Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
: | the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
: | that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
: |
: | Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
: | became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
: | automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
: | with the OS.
: |
: | The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
: | is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
: | that they come preinstalled.
: |
: |
: | : ||
: || : ||
: || This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: ||
: || 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: || fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: || CPU utilization.).
: ||
: || [...]
: || That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: || the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: || included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: || plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: || all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
: || have no idea.
: ||
: || I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: || greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: || properly with WXP. [...]
:
:
:

 

[Dan]

AVG all the way! :>

: > These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
: > back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
: > was using MSDOS 6.22.
:
: I gave up on Norton antivirus back in the Windows 3.1 days. It
: caused more problems than any virus. McAfee was better, but it got
: worse. The last version I bought was so bad, I had to uninstall
: it. It was causing my mouse to freeze every few seconds as it
: sucked up all the resources of my CPU. I switched to InnoculateIT,
: and later to AVG, and both of those products gave me no conflicts
: and didn't hog resources.

 

[Dan]

Pop, did you ever try to remove Symantec products in order to try a
competitor's product like Computer Associates E-Trust EZARMOR? It is really
difficult and with Norton (Symantec) System Works 2005 you have several
hundred registry entries that you have to manually delete in order to fully
clean a registry. It is not automatic. Trust me because I have done it and
I like computers but it is not fun staring at the screen in order to remove
several hundred registry entries because a behemoth company like Symantec
that screws individual consumers does not care about the little guy (or girl)
and just wants to screw the consumer. Sure their corporate editions may be
great (???) I don't know about the corporate editions because I never used
them. I like to go on first-hand knowledge and not always what I learn from
texts, magazines, the internet, the government, etc. Have a great day and
please reconsider your position because I feel your knowledge is flawed but I
anxiously await your rebuttal. I Yield The Floor to You, Pop with a willing
and gracious heart. Godspeed!!

: Rick Chauvin wrote:
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: > CPU utilization.).
: ===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.
:
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: > included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
: > millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
: > extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
: > idea.
: ===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
: boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
: develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
: in, ...
:
:
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: > properly with WXP. [...]
: ===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
: heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
: track of who might be getting in who's way.
:
: Pop
: --
: -----
: How long did the 100 Year War Last?
:
:

 

[Ad]

AVG all the way! :>

Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Dan]

I previously stated how I did not like how Avast scans all the time. It
takes up too many system resources in my opinion. However, you do have a
good point and I will give you that. Personally, I think CA E-Trust
Antivirus is best although you do have to pay for it. As it is said "you
(usually) get what you pay for" I added the (usually) because I know it is
not always the case. :>

: Dan wrote:
: > AVG all the way! :>
: >
: Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
: supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.
:
:
: ---
: avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
: Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
: Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
: avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
: http://www.avast.com
:
:
:

 

[Charles C. Drew]

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more problems than they fixed.


I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.

 

[Dan]

As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on unistalling
Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few
games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether.
These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I
do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned
off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of
the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none
of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes
Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not
got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update
tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The
"innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
problems than they fixed.


I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for
my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which
is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.

 

[Charles C. Drew]

When or if I can no longer renew my virus list update subscription, I will simply uninstall NAV and install something else. I do have the expertise to remove the associated registry entries, and have done so in the past with this version to assist other's with problems they encountered.

I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the moment.
As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on unistalling
Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few
games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether.
These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I
do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned
off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of
the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none
of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes
Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not
got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update
tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The
"innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
problems than they fixed.


I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for
my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which
is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.

 

[R. McCarty]

Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules.
It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation &
maintenance Apps/Services.
eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as
opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule"
changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a
user's incorrect rule decisions.

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
back
and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
when
it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003,
2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is
much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later
versions.

I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it
has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
remember
why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
you
gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.

Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there.
I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my
computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my
firewalls
trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain
rude!
Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is
constantly
prompting for online connections for this or that.
To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
..no thanks, notta.
..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
8Mb
cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any
PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
bin,
etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag
floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
floppies
or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
and
none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
failing
to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
more problems than they fixed.


I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
for
my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
which
is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:

: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
: > low CPU utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: > all the extra running processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
properly
: > with WXP

 

[Dan]

I remember Gary Terhune saying he liked NA 2000 and later versions had
trouble. Perhaps he will reply. I think you must give firewalls some trust
but just for the heck of it. I have ZA PRO. always notify me in 98SE and in
XP PRO. CA EZARMOR is always notifying me as well. It is a price I pay for
peace of mind. Sure you may have more services running in EZARMOR but it
completely removes itself when you unistall it and it also removes the
associated registry keys. Symantec (Norton) products do not remove the
associated registry keys. In the 98(98SE) newsgroup people are constantly
having problems and a majority of them can be tracked to using Symantec
(Norton) SystemWorks, RealPlayer, Quicktime, and AOL.

: : > I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
: >
: > 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
: > Center\SymWSC.exe
: > 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
: > 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
:
: Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
back
: and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
when
: it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003,
: 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is
: much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later versions.
:
: I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it
: has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
remember
: why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
you
: gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
:
: Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there.
: I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my
: computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
: ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my firewalls
: trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
: whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain rude!
: Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is constantly
: prompting for online connections for this or that.
: To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
: ..no thanks, notta.
: ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
:
:
:
:
: > With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
: > above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
: > program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
: > of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
: > running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
: > my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
8Mb
: > cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
: >
: > Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
: > altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any
: > PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
: > automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
bin,
: > etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag
: > floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
floppies
: > or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
: > which I tried).
: >
: > Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
: > not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
and
: > none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
: > Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
failing
: > to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
: > perfect.
: >
: > Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
: > The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
: > features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
: > 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
: > System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
: > more problems than they fixed.
: >
: >
: > : > I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
: > of
: > its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
it
: > is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
: > (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
for
: > my
: > 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
: > recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
: > enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
which
: > is
: > in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
: > protection
: > of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
Also,
: > with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
: > safe
: > as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
: > keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
: > day
: > I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
number
: > PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
time
: > is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
: > brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
: > give
: > all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
another
: > day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
: >
: > : >: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: >: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: >: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: >: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: >: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: >: saying about newer versions now.
: >:
: >: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: >: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: >: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
: >:
: >: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: >: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: >: they come preinstalled.
: >:
: >: --
: >: Gary S. Terhune
: >: MS MVP Shell/User
: >: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: >: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
: >:
: : : : >
: : > : : >
: : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: : >
: : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
: : > low CPU utilization.).
: : >
: : > [...]
: : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: : > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: : > all the extra running processes.
: : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: : >
: : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly
: : > with WXP
:
:
:

 

[Dan]

Exactly, R. McCarty, on my dual-boot 98SE and XP PRO. ZoneAlarm PRO. has the
box checked by default to allow the user not to ask again and I always am
unchecking this box. It gets kind of tiring after a while. Also, ZoneAlarm
Pro. later versions are being written in a sloppy manner because it allows 2
tvdumpflags=10 in the autoexec.bat. This seems like sloppy programming to me
and I have edited the autoexec.bat to remove one of the tvdumpflags=10 in the
past and the software firewall works fine. I recently upgraded ZA PRO. to
the latest version and voila I now have 2 tvdumpflags=10. I do not know why
ZoneAlarm has these isssues but I am a member of the ZoneAlarm newsgroup and
so I am tempted to write about it to complain. Have a nice day. I am
considering switching 98SE to complete EZARMOR with antivirus and fireawall
and dump ZA Pro. after my subscription runs out and also dump the free
AntiVir program which is good but sometimes gives false positives. It gave a
false positive in regards to CWShredder 2.x by Intermute and I wrote to the
FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to complain and it turned out to be a false
positive. Have a great day!

: Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
: the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules.
: It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation &
: maintenance Apps/Services.
: eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as
: opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule"
: changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a
: user's incorrect rule decisions.
:
: : > : >> I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
: >>
: >> 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
: >> Center\SymWSC.exe
: >> 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
: >> 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
: >
: > Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
: > back
: > and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
: > when
: > it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV
2003,
: > 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001
is
: > much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later
: > versions.
: >
: > I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise
it
: > has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
: > remember
: > why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
: > you
: > gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
: >
: > Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends
there.
: > I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see
my
: > computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
: > ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my
: > firewalls
: > trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
: > whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain
: > rude!
: > Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is
: > constantly
: > prompting for online connections for this or that.
: > To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
: > ..no thanks, notta.
: > ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >> With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
: >> above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
: >> program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
: >> of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
: >> running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
: >> my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
: >> 8Mb
: >> cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
: >>
: >> Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
: >> altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making
any
: >> PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
: >> automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
: >> bin,
: >> etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to
defrag
: >> floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
: >> floppies
: >> or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
: >> which I tried).
: >>
: >> Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
: >> not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
: >> and
: >> none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
: >> Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
: >> failing
: >> to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
: >> perfect.
: >>
: >> Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
: >> The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
: >> features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
: >> 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
: >> System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
: >> more problems than they fixed.
: >>
: >>
: >> : >> I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast!
because
: >> of
: >> its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
: >> it
: >> is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on
Norton
: >> (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
: >> for
: >> my
: >> 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and
only
: >> recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
: >> enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
: >> which
: >> is
: >> in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
: >> protection
: >> of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
: >> Also,
: >> with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
: >> safe
: >> as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
: >> keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
: >> day
: >> I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
: >> number
: >> PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
: >> time
: >> is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of
my
: >> brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
: >> give
: >> all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
: >> another
: >> day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
: >>
: >> : >>: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: >>: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
has
: >>: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: >>: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same
things
: >>: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: >>: saying about newer versions now.
: >>:
: >>: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
became
: >>: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: >>: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
: >>:
: >>: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: >>: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: >>: they come preinstalled.
: >>:
: >>: --
: >>: Gary S. Terhune
: >>: MS MVP Shell/User
: >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
: >>:
: > : : > : >
: > : > : > : >
: > : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: > : >
: > : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: > : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
: > : > low CPU utilization.).
: > : >
: > : > [...]
: > : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: > : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: > : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: > : > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: > : > all the extra running processes.
: > : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: > : >
: > : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: > : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: > properly
: > : > with WXP
: >
: >
: >
:
:

 

[Dan]

"I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on
sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the
moment." Well I don't have a problem with that and I hope your system
continues running well. Have a nice day!

When or if I can no longer renew my virus list update subscription, I will
simply uninstall NAV and install something else. I do have the expertise to
remove the associated registry entries, and have done so in the past with
this version to assist other's with problems they encountered.

I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on
sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the
moment.
As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on
unistalling
Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a
few
games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
altogether.
These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish.
I
do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is
turned
off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few
of
the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards
(none
of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that
includes
Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
not
got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus
update
tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
The
"innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
problems than they fixed.


I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
for
my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
which
is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same
things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: : >
: > : >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.