F
Fruit2O
Norton Internet Suite is getting great reviews. Comments on what YOU
think is best are welcome.
think is best are welcome.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Fruit2O said:
0. Question is asked several times a week. Did you check recent posts?
1. Norton/McAfee are bloated, expensive pigs.
2. Use Avira, Avast, or AVG - all free.
2a. No anti- program is going to catch everything.
3. Use a router and firewall.
4. Use common sense - don't blindly click on everything.
5. Consider another operating system.
E
El.Plates
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Very well put - but I bet by Wednesday (at the outside) someone else will
ask the very same question ;-)
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
El.Plates said:
...and about as brief and concise as Fruit's post. said:
<clouseau>But of course.</clouseau>
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Wolf said:
I think it is still bloated.
Why a deal-breaker? For most n00bs, that's the best way.
Oh no, don't do that. Just ONE anti-virus program, but several other
scanning anti-*malware* apps are needed as well - for those n00bs.
1
1PW
Wolf said:
Unfortunately, those who would rate Norton "good" are not those who I
might depend upon for an opinion to professionally protect an entire
company, corporation, or arm of a major governmental super power.
Try checking out what some of the professional research organizations
have to report about Norton:
<http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary>
<http://www.av-comparatives.org/>
I'm fairly certain you know this; A Norton product should not be
considered a Symantec product - and a Symantec product should not be
considered a Norton product. So that is for the benefit others...
So does Avira. If real-time protection is your goal (hopefully),
that's a trade-off. It's one most of us are willing to make. Perhaps
AVG still has the largest foot print of all these though.
Sometimes yes. But several of the very best /do/ work and play well
with others.
I'm sure BTS means a NAT router here.
Regards,
Pete
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
1PW said:
Of course. The extra word(s) didn't fit in with the conciseness of my
post. <g>
I wonder if Fruit will be back to the thread...
1
1PW
Beauregard said:
We all new that...
Yes we did...Compared to other threads we see, this is a fairly intelligent
discussion. Sometimes only one poster at a time gets enlightened.
Other times many are brought on-board.
Fruit2O is a Rhode Islander and probably sitting down to Sunday dinner
now.
Pete
F
Fruit2O
We all new that...
Compared to other threads we see, this is a fairly intelligent
discussion. Sometimes only one poster at a time gets enlightened.
Other times many are brought on-board.
Fruit2O is a Rhode Islander and probably sitting down to Sunday dinner
now.
Pete
You're clairvoyant!!! I'm also reading the thread and learning
something. Thanks...........
F
Fruit2O
How did you know I was a Rhode Islander?We all new that...
Compared to other threads we see, this is a fairly intelligent
discussion. Sometimes only one poster at a time gets enlightened.
Other times many are brought on-board.
Fruit2O is a Rhode Islander and probably sitting down to Sunday dinner
now.
Pete
1
1PW
nobody said:
I don't disagree that it hasn't been improved. However, folks in
these antimalware NGs have never recommended a Norton antimalware
product in my memory. I recently read (somewhere) that providers had
to lower the price of Norton AntiVirus 2009 to less than $20USD to
help sales.
We still pity those who install Norton stuff on systems with
challenged resources. We would much rather see a n00be install Avira
for their AV needs. Perhaps Microsoft Security Essentials will show
promise.
My bad. I did that intensionally to make a point.
That was sort of a ploy to show that Norton products haven't been
rated professionally.
Yes. Certainly. If you're new to the malware fight, you soon find
this out in short order. Some of us may still remember Peter Norton
Utilities a few decade ago.
A Norton product has no relationship to a corporate Symantec product.
As I, and others have oft said in these NGs, with a few embarrassing
instances, Symantec corporate products hold a much higher level of
respect when compared to Norton antimalware offerings.
None of us truly wants this.
Respectfully,
Pete
1
1PW
Fruit2O wrote:
Snip, snip...
Though you /are/ running the latest Forte Agent, your newsreader and
security practices are quite generous with /your/ information.
Not to worry. We have relatively few stalkers in this newsgroup...
Regards,
Pete
Snip, snip...
Though you /are/ running the latest Forte Agent, your newsreader and
security practices are quite generous with /your/ information.
Not to worry. We have relatively few stalkers in this newsgroup...
Regards,
Pete
V
Virus Guy
1PW said:
Wrong.
Fruit20's news reader and his "security practices" had nothing to do
with id'ing him as being in Rhode Island.
1PW knows that Fruit20 is in Rhode Island because of this line in the
header of Fruit20's posts:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.1.163.181
A reverse lookup on that IP address returns this:
ip68-1-163-181.ri.ri.cox.net
Whois information also indicates that the likely geolocation of that IP
is RI - Rhode Island.
The presence of the NNTP-Posting-Host line in Fruit20's posts is not
caused by his news reader or his "security practices". That line is
created by the NNTP server or service he uses to read and post to
usenet, which is COX, or perhaps more correctly, a highwinds-media.com
server used by COX customers.
I wonder what caused 1PW to make such a false claim.
R
rmo555
I wonder why anyone would bother to look up the source of a posting?
J
James Egan
That's shut him up but only on this thread it appears.
Jim.