Why should I dump Norton AV?

[coolchinchilla]

I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?
Any links?

Thanks in advance.
coolchinchilla

 

[Tx2]

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?

Norton isn't bad, as such, it scored up amongst the best of them (NOD32)
in some of the latest tests - AVG did absolutely awful, and anyone still
using it needs their head testing, BTW ... IMHO

The problem with Norton, is that it seems to integrate itself so deeply
into the OS as to become part of it. This in turn, seems to slow your OS
down, and in some cases I've seen where a comparison to something like
NOD32 was available, this slowdown was quite significant.

Norton is bloatware. Norton is slow.

Just my 'less than expensive' input.

 

[Hill-billy]

Why is it bad? Any

links?

coolchinchilla

Many feel it is 1)a resource hog that slows up one's PC. Some don't like
2)the yearly subscription fees. It is also 3)difficult to delete and
service is 4)pricey and/or 5)poor. I've used Symantec for years without
complaint and I'm now using NIS 2003 and Systemworks 2002. My needs are
simple. I surf, email, read and post to newsgroups and occasionally
download or print stuff, BUT one reason I haven't changed is because of
3). HTH.

 

[Juan C. Reyes]

Norton works...it just slows your system down noticeably. It's a major
resource hog. Uninstalling (if you ever choose to) is painful; it
integrates so tightly with the OS that you never really get rid of it.
After many years of being a loyal subscriber, I reformatted my HDD to remove
NIS2005 completely. Went with a different product; my system is now running
like it did pre-NIS.

Good luck.
| I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
| custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
| tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.
|
| I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
| about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?
| Any links?
|
| Thanks in advance.
| coolchinchilla

 

[Chaos Master]

This is coolchinchilla for forever:

I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?
Any links?

Norton requires lots of memory, and I found it to be slower than other
AV's.

That was found with Norton 2001 on Windows 98 SE, on a 233MHz Pentium
with 128MB RAM.

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

"People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
-- Amy Lee

(My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)

 

[Julian]

I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad? Any
links?

Thanks in advance.
coolchinchilla

I agree with the others who say it is a resource hog. The other reason
is when something goes wrong, it can be a pig to fix, and there is no
meaningful support from Symantec. Take a tour of their knowledgebase and
look at some of the articles relating to installation problems,
uninstallation problems, live update problems and other weird error
messages. If that doesn't put you off, nothing will.

 

[Dave Budd]

I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?
Any links?

My personal experience is that about once a week, a student
comes into our computer centre for help cleaning a virus off a
machine, even though said machine is running properly
configured and updated Norton.
OK, all scanners have timelags between a virus going into the
wild and their detection for it being rolled out, but this
seems to happen much more with Norton than the other scanners
we deal with.

--
If you don't want a basket on your head, don't put it on your
head.
Don't put the basket back on your head and then complain about
it, you'll get no sympathy.
No, really, the basket does not fit on your head.

 

[Oh God It's Him Again]

What were these tests out of interest?

 

[Vanguard]

What were these tests out of interest?

http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

 

[Tx2]

What were these tests out of interest?

Do you mean those I referred to? Your lack of quote makes it difficult
to gauge to whom you were responding.

 

[Melissa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi coolchinchilla,

I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad?

Considering my opinion of Norton AV, which happens to coincide with
comments others have already made about all too common problems with
resource usage, installation/uninstallation, live updates, and other
assorted errors, the only reason I can see that so much time is spent
even discussing Norton is because Norton, like McAfee, has been
amongst the most successful advertisers. These "major" products are
often bundled with the operating systems by OEM computer
manufacturers, and again, this is only because the companies that
push their products spend so much on advertising/placement. Perhaps
if they spent more of their resources on improving the products,
rather than on promotion, the story would be different.

I've been using nod32 for almost four years now, and I've *not once*
had to request any sort of technical/customer support from Eset,
because the program simply works as expected.

- --
Melissa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCC632KgHVMc6ouYMRAhJAAKDF/0AxSfIeDoWd54Gty9cXCQnCsACeMaEa
/imLej9JdDh36uxGa6KBpEs=
=2L2n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Clive]

I am running Norton Antivirus 2003. (Windows XP Home) I just got a new
custom built computer and since my original Norton was still valid, the
tech was able to extend my subscription until January 2006.

I've seen discussions about which freeware AV is good so I'm not asking
about that. I've seen people say that Norton is bad. Why is it bad? Any
links?

Thanks in advance.
coolchinchilla

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/symantec_uberbug/

 

[Chaos Master]

This is Julian for forever:

I agree with the others who say it is a resource hog. The other reason
is when something goes wrong, it can be a pig to fix, and there is no
meaningful support from Symantec. Take a tour of their knowledgebase and
look at some of the articles relating to installation problems,
uninstallation problems, live update problems and other weird error
messages. If that doesn't put you off, nothing will.

I also had the problem that Norton created too many stuffs in the hard
drive, and even when uninstalled some stuffs would remain.

(for some reason, I don't like programs that leave "ashes" or
traces behind)

I had to reinstall Windows to clean out all traces of Norton.

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

"People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
-- Amy Lee

(My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)

 

[Oh God It's Him Again]

Sorry, just got back here, and just learning about newsgroups - I thought
that if I replied to your message it would be clear that that was what I was
doing. Will do some NG study.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Sorry, just got back here, and just learning about newsgroups - I thought
that if I replied to your message it would be clear that that was what I was
doing. Will do some NG study.

The context was easily obtained by me 'cause my reader is set to "group
messages by conversation" - this is my preferred setting. Tx2 could have
seen in your header the "References: " line but prefers some text be
quoted to leave bread crumbs. Just a little quoted material will avoid
the reader having to investigate which conversation you are involved in
when you post.

 

[Tx2]

[...]

Tx2 could have seen in your header the "References: "
line

You'd like me to 'plough' through :

References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

.... just to see to whom he was replying?

but prefers some text be quoted to leave bread crumbs.
Just a little quoted material will avoid the reader having
to investigate which conversation you are involved in
when you post.

Absolutely right. It's how I've always 'worked' Usenet, and my
experience spanning more than 10 years suggests I'm in the majority.

 

[Roger Wilco]

[...]

Tx2 could have seen in your header the "References: "
line

You'd like me to 'plough' through :

References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

... just to see to whom he was replying?

No, I'm saying why should he make you when it is so much easier to leave
bread crumbs.

[...]

 

[* * Chas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi coolchinchilla,



Considering my opinion of Norton AV, which happens to coincide with
comments others have already made about all too common problems with
resource usage, installation/uninstallation, live updates, and other
assorted errors, the only reason I can see that so much time is spent
even discussing Norton is because Norton, like McAfee, has been
amongst the most successful advertisers. These "major" products are
often bundled with the operating systems by OEM computer
manufacturers, and again, this is only because the companies that
push their products spend so much on advertising/placement. Perhaps
if they spent more of their resources on improving the products,
rather than on promotion, the story would be different.

I've been using nod32 for almost four years now, and I've *not once*
had to request any sort of technical/customer support from Eset,
because the program simply works as expected.

- --
Melissa

I'd used Norton AV in one form or another since 1995. I ran Dr.
Solomons as my primary AV from 1996 until they were bought out then
and reverted back to Norton.

Tried many others and had migrated over to F-Prot for all but my
E-mail system. F-Prot has released a few buggy versions - which are
usually quickly corrected.

When my final Norton subscription ran out last fall and the renewal
and updates essentially turned NAV 2002 into NAV 2003/2004, I switched
to NOD32.

I've been very pleased with NOD32. On a par or even a little better
than Dr. Solomons used to be.

I've purchased several copies of F-Prot and I like that I can run it
on multiple personal PCs with the same license plus the price is right
at $29.00 USD.

NOD32 at $39.00 USD a copy is a little spendy. When My F-Prot
subscriptions expire, I'm going to get a NOD32 5 Pack for $129.00USD.

 

[Tx2]

No, I'm saying why should he make you when it is so much easier to leave
bread crumbs.

Good to know