Slow PC After Running Norton

[pmoore11]

This has been bugging me every since I first started using Norton Anti-Virus
to scan my computer for problems:

Why does my computer seem to go into Never Never Land immediatley after
Norton has completed (or, I Cancel because I'm busy) a scan of my computer
for virus' (viruses, virii, whatever they are called)..??? I've never timed
how long it actually takes to "get my computer back" - but, it's several
minutes... I usually try to Reboot - but, it won't even give me my
Start/Turn Off Computer/Restart options right away... (however, that is
still quicker than waiting for "whatever is going on" to go away by
itself...

Any advice??

Palmer

 

[Doug Kanter]

This has been bugging me every since I first started using Norton
Anti-Virus
to scan my computer for problems:

Why does my computer seem to go into Never Never Land immediatley after
Norton has completed (or, I Cancel because I'm busy) a scan of my computer
for virus' (viruses, virii, whatever they are called)..??? I've never
timed
how long it actually takes to "get my computer back" - but, it's several
minutes... I usually try to Reboot - but, it won't even give me my
Start/Turn Off Computer/Restart options right away... (however, that is
still quicker than waiting for "whatever is going on" to go away by
itself...

Any advice??

Palmer

Norton tends to use quite a bit of resources while scanning, and it's
especially noticeable on machines which don't have a lot of memory and/or
free disk space. How about running the scans at a time when you're not
working on the computer?

 

[longman]

Norton is the problem. It is a resource hog, has too many false
positives and harder to remove than a virus. go to www.grisoft.com for
avg anti-virus, it works better than norton and uses far less
resources. They also update their signatures much more frequently.
There are 2 versions free and pro. Follow the links on their site for
both versions. The cost for a 2 year update package is $38.95US.
www.f-prot.com has a good av as well.

 

[Dave]

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts but don't agree with them.
I've used Norton for years and have rarely had a false positive. I can't
remember the last time. Can you give some facts to back it up or have you
been listening to rumors? Also, in 2006, Norton updates their definitions
daily. Do the ones you refer to really update theirs "more frequently" than
that? I suspect you're stretching the truth pretty bad here in the interest
of bashing Nortons and promoting your favorites.

..

 

[R. McCarty]

Effectiveness of NAV isn't an issue in my opinion. It does however cause
a noticeable reduction in the PC's performance. I wouldn't universally go
to AVG. It's adequate, but can "Miss" infectors from time to time. Most
long-time Norton users do not realize the impact on their machine, as over
time they've gotten used to it. Load up NIS and you're immediately taking
40+ Megabytes of constant memory to run it. That compares with a PC
using eTrust AV & Zone Alarm (Free) at just under 20 Megabytes. And
this is not a Symantec Bash - but an opinion based on well over 100 PC's
I've worked on that had Symantec/Norton issue(s) that required several
hours of work to ->
1.) Get it Run
2.) Get it Updated to the latest $39.99 flavor
3.) Get it Uninstalled
4.) Get a yearly subscription to activate
** Any program/application that requires that much human involvement
needs some serious re-work

 

[Dave]

I don't question any of the stats you mentioned. That's your experience and
choice. You're intitled to your opinion. Personally I've run Nortons for
years and currently have it on my desktop and laptop as well as my daughters
PC. I'm perfectly happy with it and haven't lost enough resources to worry
about it. I'm perfectly happy with my computer's performance running
Nortons. I haven't had any problems with the issues you listed.

What I really have a problem with are those that have made their personal
decision about Norton and feel some overwhelming need to go around
converting people who are still using it. When people unknowingly post a
message here about a Norton issue they're dealing with, the bashers come out
of the woodwork. And like this guy, who probably hasn't ever used Norton,
starts making statements that are flat false. I don't have a problem with
a post that is about what to use in place of Norton, they can go ahead and
give their opinions, recommendations etc. But instead they wait to pounce
on some unsuspecting Norton user and start their bashing. Frankly, I think
some of them need to get some counseling and maybe that chip on their
shoulder can be surgically removed. Can you tell I have no use for them?

 

[Doug Kanter]

Be sure not to compare NIS to anyone else's simple antivirus suite. NIS is,
indeed, a resource pig, but I'm running NAV 2004 it's unnoticeable, unless
someone thinks it's a problem that it adds maybe 4 seconds to a reboot. I
run ZoneAlarm alongside it. It's fine. And, I'm picky.

 

[R. McCarty]

Sorry, a direct comparison using NAV to "Suites" is not valid. Don't get
me wrong, I used to use Norton for a long time. It's just like the old
saying
"Whip a mule long enough and he starts liking the Whip". Trust me, if you
use Norton and like it - go for it. However, if you do computer work and
have to untangle Symantec's mess after a while you start recognizing some
serious issues and patterns. Here's one gripe with them. They have every
kind of "Suite/Package", But why is there no PQMagic/Ghost Combo ?

 

[Doug Kanter]

Right. The two can't be compared. Focus on NAV alone: What sorts of problems
have you had to fix? I've been using it for years without problems. When it
became obvious that it was trouble-free, I arranged to make it the standard
at our remote offices which are staffed by people who are utterly helpless
if their screens get dusty, not to mention when they have software problems.
There have been no issues with 3 incarnations of NAV on their machines.

I keep hearing about these problems, but we've never seen them.

 

[R. McCarty]

Around 2004, ( When Symantec implemented Product Activation) I
starting finding lot's of failed installs or "Over-the-Top" upgrades that
did
not work. This seemed to escalate during 2005. The issues where all
over the place and didn't seem to fall in a specific area. Subscription
issues started showing up during 05 as well. Because Norton products
do not "Uninstall" cleanly or at a high %, it's a real issue to try and use
the Universal "Uninstall-then-Reinstall" fix. Most all of the service calls
that involved Symantec/Norton took 2-3 hours of hands-on work to fix.
I've tested each years iterations to try and see if Symantec actually does
make changes/improvements. They tend to "Tack-On" new features and
never really recode the basic functions. During my tenure as a corporate
IT Drone we supported McAfee - so I shy away from any McAfee
product either.

Just a generalization - but most Professional IT folks I know seem to all
consider Norton & McAfee as poor choices. But that opinion has to be
tempered by the fact IT people aren't average "End Users" but the people\
who have to get it/keep it running.

 

[Doug Kanter]

I suspect that part of that problem comes from their business practices.
When I re-subscribed back in November, the web page made it very obvious
that they wanted upgrades, not renewed subscriptions. If that's what most
users end up doing, it's creating mountains of problems. But, my renewal
went smoothly. We don't allow users to install anything new, unless they
understand that if they bust their machines and need to take them to a local
geek shop, it's on their dime. As I explain to them, ALL new software is
experimental, no matter who it's from.

 

[Plato]

This has been bugging me every since I first started using Norton Anti-Virus
to scan my computer for problems:

Use a free anti-virus for best results. Several are available.

 

[Doug Kanter]

Use a free anti-virus for best results. Several are available.

You might be right. Got any links to results of rigorous tests of various AV
products?

 

[Plato]

You might be right. Got any links to results of rigorous tests of various AV
products?

Testing sites are no matter or use. Just keep 2 anti-virus apps on your
pc. Run one 24/7 if you are into that. Use the other as a second opinion
every now and then.

 

[Doug Kanter]

Testing sites are no matter or use. Just keep 2 anti-virus apps on your
pc. Run one 24/7 if you are into that. Use the other as a second opinion
every now and then.

That's anecdotal evidence. But, oh well.