Norton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I know that quite a few people do not like Norton. I was wondering why. I've
been using Norton for quite a while and no problems. (Yet)
Thanks.
 
In general the suite tends to be a resource hog(for some folks) and when
things start to go sour, it can be rather difficult to remove the
pieces. And their tech support/forums are a bit on the sparse side. When
it works properly, all is fine.
 
Thanks guys. I appreciate the responses.
Those a better than the usual "Norton sucks" answers that I get elsewhere.
 
It's a great program for the average home user, though not so much for
the power user. Of course, for the user that needs a more advanced and
less bloated product, they sell their corporate version...which I must
say is a very nice app.

As for the recent buffer overflow issue, see Symantec's bulletin on the
issue:
http://symantec.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.12.21b.html

*Apparently they released a definition file that will detect any RAR
files that try to take advantage of the vulnerability, and an update
should be released soon.
 
=?Utf-8?B?bWpiMTA2Ng==?= said:
I know that quite a few people do not like Norton. I was wondering why. I've
been using Norton for quite a while and no problems. (Yet)
Click to expand...

Cool. If it works, then all is fine. If it dont work or wont install,
then it's best to use another util.
 
mjb1066 said:
I know that quite a few people do not like Norton. I was wondering why.
I've
been using Norton for quite a while and no problems. (Yet)
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Most of the Norton nay-sayers fall into one of two categories:

1. Insufficient computer (Intel celeron, etc).
2. Insufficient intellect to understand that their problems are not caused
by Norton products.

Bobby
 
I offer you the same challenge that I make to all individuals who make the
same claim you have:
Simply prove that Norton takes any more system resources than any other
reputable Suite or Program.

I am certain that you, like all who went before you, will not respond
because you have no proof for your claim that Norton is a resource hog.

Bobby
 
Perhaps you should prove it doesn't.

I know, I know......you'll say the original poster made the assertion, so
the proof is on the original poster, but I would beg to differ. You are
making an assertion that the original poster is incorrect, so the proof
could just as well be on you to prove that the original poster is wrong.

So, where is your proof that the original poster is wrong?

And PLEASE tell me you've got more than just hearsay to back up your
assertion that the original poster is wrong - like empirical evidence that
the original poster is wrong. After all, isn't empirical evidence what you
are asking of the original poster of the assertion?
 
That's right....call the users stupid if they are displeased with the
product's performance.

I fired people like you for a living, before I started my own company and
refused to hire them in the first place.

If the user doesn't understand the application, it is the fault of the
designers of the application. A half-assed programmer can write a program
that works, but it takes a great programmer to write a program with a UI
that the "average user" can understand and use without feeling stupid or
calling tech support.

The whole idea of a UI is to hide the complexities of the application from
the users. If your users don't understand your app, your instructions, user
interface or both suck and you should got back to the drawing board and get
it right.

If they understand your instructions and UI and still aren't happy, your
product sucks.
 
You're all wrong ! Norton is lovely !!!!

....admittedly not so lovely as it was before Symantec took over the Norton
name.

When Norton is stuffed into a machine, it more often than not can cope with
the often HIDEOUSLY messy Windows platform it finds itself stuffed into !!
LOL
It's this that sets it apart from much other software. Those very machines
(percentage wise) where it can't cope with the software environment into
which it's bunged, often means that that machine would be better off being
reinstalled from scratch anyway !! (my grammar gets worse - for those of
you wondering!)

So there you are ! ,you've got millions and millions and millions of happy
users out there, (who do not shout about that), and a VERY vocal minority
that shout their heads off because they're a*******s and they're hardware is
probably just as untidy as their software !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

regards, Richard
 
BRAVO !!! ...well said !!!

regards, Richard


NoNoBadDog! said:
Most of the Norton nay-sayers fall into one of two categories:

1. Insufficient computer (Intel celeron, etc).
2. Insufficient intellect to understand that their problems are not
caused by Norton products.

Bobby
Click to expand...
 
""If the user doesn't understand the application, it is the fault of the
designers of the application. A half-assed programmer can write a program
that works, but it takes a great programmer to write a program with a UI
that the "average user" can understand and use without feeling stupid or
calling tech support.""

RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !!

I deal with people all the time who have never grasped, or even attempted to
grasp numerous micro-computing basics. They don't know where their app.
generated files end up half the time, because they've never bothered, (and
are often reluctant, often to the point of outright defiance), to "grasp"
msdos/windows file storage concepts. Myriad appplications that by default
store files in "default" directories/locations to make things "easy" for the
user often cause more problems than anything else ! However clever the
software writer, he or she can't compensate for total lack of understanding
of various basic PC concepts !!

regards, Richard
 
Bobby: I have been a Norton user for years, and have for the most part,
been very satisified with their AV programs.

As a test, I totally uninstalled Norton this week and installed AVG (Free).
I have seen an immediate difference in resource usage, and will most likely
keep the AVG on my home machine.

We use the SAV Corporate version at work, and will continue doing so.
Doesn't seem to have the resource issues as Norton's home products.


Tom

|I offer you the same challenge that I make to all individuals who make the
| same claim you have:
| Simply prove that Norton takes any more system resources than any other
| reputable Suite or Program.
|
| I am certain that you, like all who went before you, will not respond
| because you have no proof for your claim that Norton is a resource hog.
|
| Bobby
|
| | > In general the suite tends to be a resource hog(for some folks) and when
| > things start to go sour, it can be rather difficult to remove the
pieces.
| > And their tech support/forums are a bit on the sparse side. When it
works
| > properly, all is fine.
| >
| > mjb1066 wrote:
| >
| >> I know that quite a few people do not like Norton. I was wondering why.
| >> I've been using Norton for quite a while and no problems. (Yet)
| >> Thanks.
| >
|
|
 
And my claim was? That some folks find it to be more than they will
tolerate? I don't have to "prove" anything. I can challenge you to prove
that it uses LESS resources than any other "reputable Suite or Program".
So there you have it.
 
RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !! RUBBISH !!

I deal with people all the time who have never grasped, or even attempted
to grasp numerous micro-computing basics. They don't know where their
app. generated files end up half the time, because they've never
bothered, (and are often reluctant, often to the point of outright
defiance), to "grasp" msdos/windows file storage concepts.
Click to expand...

So, you think that they need to understand the file methodology of the
various Windows OSs to find their files? Interesting.

It is interesting that you not seem to think that the developer of the UI
should have given them a "YOUR FILES ARE RIGHT HERE!" button that opens
Windows Explorer (or an internal custom explorer - which would be better)?

While many developers think as you do, they would also not make the cut for
my team.
Myriad appplications that by default store files in "default"
directories/locations to make things "easy" for the user often cause more
problems than anything else ! However clever the software writer, he or
she can't compensate for total lack of understanding of various basic PC
concepts !!
Click to expand...

But, you know thier limitations ahead of time. You have stated a huge one
right there!

Knowing their limitations, it is emcumbant upon YOU as the developer to
simplify the UI and application to a point that your users can use it
effectively. You should also provide training (whether in the form of
wizards in the application or hands-on-training or instructional booklets of
even - GASP - screen videos that walk the user through using the software).

It isn't easy writing easy-to-use software......that's why there's not much
really easy-to-use software. And *that* is why there aren't that many
software company success stories any longer.

There used to be more people making money in software. Ironically, that was
also the time of application wizards. They were commonplace and went hand
in hand. As the applications with wizards fade out....so does the number of
succesful software companies.

All of this really doesn't matter though......the market will weed out those
that feel as you do, unless you limit your market to those versed in the
things you do not wish to make simple for your clients.

Best of luck to you.....

Jim
 
ummmm .....agreed :-)

regards, Richard


Jim said:
So, you think that they need to understand the file methodology of the
various Windows OSs to find their files? Interesting.

It is interesting that you not seem to think that the developer of the UI
should have given them a "YOUR FILES ARE RIGHT HERE!" button that opens
Windows Explorer (or an internal custom explorer - which would be better)?

While many developers think as you do, they would also not make the cut
for my team.


But, you know thier limitations ahead of time. You have stated a huge one
right there!

Knowing their limitations, it is emcumbant upon YOU as the developer to
simplify the UI and application to a point that your users can use it
effectively. You should also provide training (whether in the form of
wizards in the application or hands-on-training or instructional booklets
of even - GASP - screen videos that walk the user through using the
software).

It isn't easy writing easy-to-use software......that's why there's not
much really easy-to-use software. And *that* is why there aren't that
many software company success stories any longer.

There used to be more people making money in software. Ironically, that
was also the time of application wizards. They were commonplace and went
hand in hand. As the applications with wizards fade out....so does the
number of succesful software companies.

All of this really doesn't matter though......the market will weed out
those that feel as you do, unless you limit your market to those versed in
the things you do not wish to make simple for your clients.

Best of luck to you.....

Jim
Click to expand...
 
I'm not good at following threads, but norton apps may add 5 meg to the
registry and add 1000+ entries. Many free anti-virus apps add only 5 -30
entries to the registry. And some free anti-virus apps add ZERO entries
to the registry as they run on their own in their own folder, and dont
require an install at all.
 
I don't believe those numbers are accurate. I uninstalled Norton the other
day, and never found such things.

Tom
| Ummmm, you wouldn't be exaggerating those numbers, would you?
|
|
| | >
| > I'm not good at following threads, but norton apps may add 5 meg to the
| > registry and add 1000+ entries. Many free anti-virus apps add only 5 -30
| > entries to the registry. And some free anti-virus apps add ZERO entries
| > to the registry as they run on their own in their own folder, and dont
| > require an install at all.
| >
|
|
 
Back
Top