H
Howard Kaikow
Does Norton Auntie Virus 2006 work with Vista?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
W
William
NO!
Does Norton Auntie Virus 2006 work with Vista?
Does Norton Auntie Virus 2006 work with Vista?
C
Chad Harris
Given all the excellent choices out there, given One Care's attrributes
well documented on this group, compared with Norton's bloated, buggy cpu
gobbling, ability to screw up on install percentage wise, screw up on
removall percentage wise, has never delivered seamless autoupdates the way
so many others do, why in the world would you want it?
Additionally Norton Internet Security (NIS) has a known significant
interference with Outlook Send/Receive and OE Send/Receive caused by it's
spam checking when OE and OL do an adequate spam filtering job in 03 and an
even better one in 07 on their own. It's solved by unchecking the Norton
box for this in the Norton gui.
CH
well documented on this group, compared with Norton's bloated, buggy cpu
gobbling, ability to screw up on install percentage wise, screw up on
removall percentage wise, has never delivered seamless autoupdates the way
so many others do, why in the world would you want it?
Additionally Norton Internet Security (NIS) has a known significant
interference with Outlook Send/Receive and OE Send/Receive caused by it's
spam checking when OE and OL do an adequate spam filtering job in 03 and an
even better one in 07 on their own. It's solved by unchecking the Norton
box for this in the Norton gui.
CH
H
Howard Kaikow
Chad Harris said:Given all the excellent choices out there, given One Care's attrributes
well documented on this group, compared with Norton's bloated, buggy cpu
gobbling, ability to screw up on install percentage wise, screw up on
removall percentage wise, has never delivered seamless autoupdates the way
so many others do, why in the world would you want it?
Additionally Norton Internet Security (NIS) has a known significant
interference with Outlook Send/Receive and OE Send/Receive caused by it's
spam checking when OE and OL do an adequate spam filtering job in 03 and an
even better one in 07 on their own. It's solved by unchecking the Norton
box for this in the Norton gui.
Does not respond to my question.
C
Chad Harris
You already were told No. I was contexting. Now you have two nos. And to
cement it Norton drags its butt in every respect towards a Windows update in
a way that is eggregious, and reprehensible without excuses. There behavior
toward XP SP2 was exactly the same. They tried to manipulate people into
buying more yellow boxes not updating anything until the week SP2
released,and then only updated its detectiiion by the Windows Security
Center which no one needed to know if their AV program is on.
CH
cement it Norton drags its butt in every respect towards a Windows update in
a way that is eggregious, and reprehensible without excuses. There behavior
toward XP SP2 was exactly the same. They tried to manipulate people into
buying more yellow boxes not updating anything until the week SP2
released,and then only updated its detectiiion by the Windows Security
Center which no one needed to know if their AV program is on.
CH
R
Rick Rogers
Hi Howard,
No, it doesn't. Symantec is currently developing a version of their 2007
product line to be compatible with Vista. I somehow doubt, given their
history of forced upgrades, that they will patch the 2006 version.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
No, it doesn't. Symantec is currently developing a version of their 2007
product line to be compatible with Vista. I somehow doubt, given their
history of forced upgrades, that they will patch the 2006 version.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
R
Robert Moir
Howard said:Does Norton Auntie Virus 2006 work with Vista?
I think its debatable whether or not it works well with _any_ version of
Windows. I've seen actual viruses that cause less havoc. Yes I am being
serious.
X
xfile
Hi,
Currently 2007 version is not compatible for many reasons, and one reason is
reported here:
http://news.com.com/Symantec+Microsoft+wont+give+us+key+Vista+tech/2100-7355_3-6120219.html
PS: I'm not associated with Symantec, just like to learn from various
sources to have a more balanced view, and this is just for reference which
might not be the full reason.
I've learned that they are working on it and have obtained some information,
and for 2007 version, it will provide an update when the OS is being
released.
My suggestion is to check with their technical support (kind of slow though)
or web site for more information about Vista.
Hope this helps.
Currently 2007 version is not compatible for many reasons, and one reason is
reported here:
http://news.com.com/Symantec+Microsoft+wont+give+us+key+Vista+tech/2100-7355_3-6120219.html
PS: I'm not associated with Symantec, just like to learn from various
sources to have a more balanced view, and this is just for reference which
might not be the full reason.
I've learned that they are working on it and have obtained some information,
and for 2007 version, it will provide an update when the OS is being
released.
My suggestion is to check with their technical support (kind of slow though)
or web site for more information about Vista.
Hope this helps.
X
xfile
given their history of forced upgrades,
Something like when the new version is released and you can't buy the old
version?
Something like when the new version is released and you can't buy the old
version?
E
Eric Furness
More like when they no longer provide updates to the virus databaseSomething like when the new version is released and you can't buy the old
version?
for earlier version.
R
Robert Moir
xfile said:Hi,
Currently 2007 version is not compatible for many reasons, and one
reason is reported here:
http://news.com.com/Symantec+Microsoft+wont+give+us+key+Vista+tech/2100-7355_3-6120219.html
PS: I'm not associated with Symantec, just like to learn from various
sources to have a more balanced view, and this is just for reference
which might not be the full reason.
If we're talking about balanced views, someone might ask Symantec if they
can explain how other antivirus companies, even smaller ones like AVAST,
have somehow managed to produce working AV very quickly for the various beta
versions of Vista without this supposedly vital and absolutely required
level of access.
Symantec were equally slow and useless about supporting Windows XP at this
stage in XP's development, too, by the way. It's funny how Symantec always
has problems like this and it is always someone else's fault.
X
xfile
Well, again.
As I already mentioned, it may not be the full story.
But I wonder how do you know if the company is equally supporting other
partners?
Do you have any inside story as the some kind of evidence at least I could
provide?
I use NIS and reckon it has many problems but no more than most complimented
Zone Alarm for which I purchased and used for a week and then returned.
I also have full version of MacAfee installed on an older laptop free from
paid MSN premium, and it's even worse.
But I do reckon each has its strengths and weaknesses. And my real
experiences only limited to these three.
Here are some comparisons based on my real experience for NIS 2007 and NA
Internet Suit 6.5 for which I shared with other posts:
(1) NIS 2007 tells me what applications might have compatibility problem
(but
turned out to be ok) before installation actually began and let me to choose
to keep it or not. It won't let me spend hours on guessing what might be
the problems as ZA did to the Live Messenger.
(2) It won't keep asking me the same permission question for the same
services and the same applications over and over again.
(3) I couldn't turn off so-called "private header" alert in the ZA (I turned
it off but it still showed), so almost every Web page I visited always had
this private header alert.
(4) NIS has a better database for commonly used applications for which it
can automatically create firewall rules (if user allows it), while Zone
Alarm claimed it also has one, but it's probably an empty database for it
couldn't even recognize many Windows services. I had been so busy on
clicking Allow and reading the private-header alert for most of the time
that I couldn't even do my works.
(5) Refund: If you ever wish to return and get a refund, Symantec let you
complete the entire process with email and through their web site. It does
not require your to fill out a form to fax or mail to it as ZA.
(6) Spam Integration: For earlier version of NIS (guess 2005), I had
problems for not being able to disable it once it is enabled. For ZA, I had
the reverse problem for once it is being disabled, I couldn't re-enable it.
NIS surly is not best program but it does a fine job for me.
Do you have any recent experience on using the software that you discredited
or it's just your assumption?
As I already mentioned, it may not be the full story.
But I wonder how do you know if the company is equally supporting other
partners?
Do you have any inside story as the some kind of evidence at least I could
provide?
I use NIS and reckon it has many problems but no more than most complimented
Zone Alarm for which I purchased and used for a week and then returned.
I also have full version of MacAfee installed on an older laptop free from
paid MSN premium, and it's even worse.
But I do reckon each has its strengths and weaknesses. And my real
experiences only limited to these three.
Here are some comparisons based on my real experience for NIS 2007 and NA
Internet Suit 6.5 for which I shared with other posts:
(1) NIS 2007 tells me what applications might have compatibility problem
(but
turned out to be ok) before installation actually began and let me to choose
to keep it or not. It won't let me spend hours on guessing what might be
the problems as ZA did to the Live Messenger.
(2) It won't keep asking me the same permission question for the same
services and the same applications over and over again.
(3) I couldn't turn off so-called "private header" alert in the ZA (I turned
it off but it still showed), so almost every Web page I visited always had
this private header alert.
(4) NIS has a better database for commonly used applications for which it
can automatically create firewall rules (if user allows it), while Zone
Alarm claimed it also has one, but it's probably an empty database for it
couldn't even recognize many Windows services. I had been so busy on
clicking Allow and reading the private-header alert for most of the time
that I couldn't even do my works.
(5) Refund: If you ever wish to return and get a refund, Symantec let you
complete the entire process with email and through their web site. It does
not require your to fill out a form to fax or mail to it as ZA.
(6) Spam Integration: For earlier version of NIS (guess 2005), I had
problems for not being able to disable it once it is enabled. For ZA, I had
the reverse problem for once it is being disabled, I couldn't re-enable it.
NIS surly is not best program but it does a fine job for me.
Do you have any recent experience on using the software that you discredited
or it's just your assumption?
D
David Wilkinson
Eric said:More like when they no longer provide updates to the virus database
for earlier version.
You don't think different versions of NAV (2003,2004, ..) use the same
database?
In the past I always followed the path of least resistance and renewed
the subscription to my NAV 2003 (despite threats that it was not
supported). But this no longer seems possible, so I'm gone.
David Wilkinson
C
Chad Harris
Yes indeed Mr. Moir--well said and what others have said politely is that
Norton manipulates people into buying another yellow box--and what I would
urge you to understand is, like many of you having helped people do manual
uninstalls of it using it's tools and the steps I know all too well in the
reg and with it's ectopically metastatically scattered files it's not worth
it.
Many of us have Beta tested One Care from the start. While a common
complaint is that it's tune up takes a while, many of us also realize you
don't have to do the tune up if you have something like Perfect Disk or
Diskeeper to do the defrag and you can spell the tune up on your own many
different ways easily. It has a nice backup--not as much functionality as
Vista, but look at the price. It sure makes it easy for what the WOC team
has estimated through surveys for that 70% or so who do nothing to back up
many of us end up helping to repair windows so they can recover.
One Care uses less real estate
One Care uses less CPU
One Care updates daily seamlessly /Norton has required manual updating from
a shortcut to Intelligent Updater
One Care does not get buggy a few months down the line mandating a manual
uninstall sometimes in conjunction with a removall tool
One Care doesn't have a byzaantine, circumferential KB that is often way out
of date with multiple versions of a KB for some 3 year old version like the
Symantec KB
Searching on www.norton.com/search aks www.symantec.com/search is as erratic
and incomplete as searching on the king of erratic incomplete search
sites--the one called www.microsoft.com which in contrast to Vista's much
improved search has always been terrible and I think www.microsoft.com comes
from the land of Redmondsoft and an increasingly outsourcing company of jobs
in the US called MSFT. I'm checking on my last statement but hope to get it
confirmed by the year's end.
Interesting that MSFT hired Dr. Gary Flake from Yahoo and gave him the
salary and designated title rare on the Redmond Campus of "Distinguished
Scientist" and with all Gary's projects at MFST Research he has not done a
thing with the search on www.microsoft.com Many many softies I know use
google to search their own site.
CH
Norton manipulates people into buying another yellow box--and what I would
urge you to understand is, like many of you having helped people do manual
uninstalls of it using it's tools and the steps I know all too well in the
reg and with it's ectopically metastatically scattered files it's not worth
it.
Many of us have Beta tested One Care from the start. While a common
complaint is that it's tune up takes a while, many of us also realize you
don't have to do the tune up if you have something like Perfect Disk or
Diskeeper to do the defrag and you can spell the tune up on your own many
different ways easily. It has a nice backup--not as much functionality as
Vista, but look at the price. It sure makes it easy for what the WOC team
has estimated through surveys for that 70% or so who do nothing to back up
many of us end up helping to repair windows so they can recover.
One Care uses less real estate
One Care uses less CPU
One Care updates daily seamlessly /Norton has required manual updating from
a shortcut to Intelligent Updater
One Care does not get buggy a few months down the line mandating a manual
uninstall sometimes in conjunction with a removall tool
One Care doesn't have a byzaantine, circumferential KB that is often way out
of date with multiple versions of a KB for some 3 year old version like the
Symantec KB
Searching on www.norton.com/search aks www.symantec.com/search is as erratic
and incomplete as searching on the king of erratic incomplete search
sites--the one called www.microsoft.com which in contrast to Vista's much
improved search has always been terrible and I think www.microsoft.com comes
from the land of Redmondsoft and an increasingly outsourcing company of jobs
in the US called MSFT. I'm checking on my last statement but hope to get it
confirmed by the year's end.
Interesting that MSFT hired Dr. Gary Flake from Yahoo and gave him the
salary and designated title rare on the Redmond Campus of "Distinguished
Scientist" and with all Gary's projects at MFST Research he has not done a
thing with the search on www.microsoft.com Many many softies I know use
google to search their own site.
CH
R
Robert Moir
Chad Harris wrote:
[major snippage]
Isn't that a bit of a Career Limiting Move these days since MS have been
pushing Live?
But yeah, Google has been the only reliable way to find anything on msft's
site for a very long time. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to
find documentation on Microsoft.com that you know *full well* is there and
not being able to tease its existence out of the site itself.
I'd be very embarrassed indeed if I were in charge of such a state of
affairs.
rob
[major snippage]
Many many softies I know use google to search their own site.
Isn't that a bit of a Career Limiting Move these days since MS have been
pushing Live?
But yeah, Google has been the only reliable way to find anything on msft's
site for a very long time. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to
find documentation on Microsoft.com that you know *full well* is there and
not being able to tease its existence out of the site itself.
I'd be very embarrassed indeed if I were in charge of such a state of
affairs.
rob
R
Rick Rogers
More like "we no longer support the old version, and the old version won't
work in the new OS so you'll have to purchase the full package of the new
version, not the cheaper upgrade to the old version".
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
work in the new OS so you'll have to purchase the full package of the new
version, not the cheaper upgrade to the old version".
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
X
xfile
And I forgot to mention - at least I can see their improvements.
Just one example: For NIS 2006, its "'protection center" on systray will
show a red cross (x) alert if Windows Automatic Update is turned off. It's
very annoying since one probably doesn't like to see this type red alert all
the time.
I complained to their tech support (guess many others did the same) that
it's none of their business for displaying such critical warning should a
user decided to turn it off and choose the manual updates.
It doesn't display the same alert on NIS 2007 when one configured it not to
monitor the status of Windows Automatic Update.
Again, this is based on my limited experience, and by no means, I consider
it is the best solution. Currently, and as time goes by, I'm sure there are
and will be even better solutions, and I have no problems for switching to
the better ones for my own benefits.
But I don't think it's a trash as many would have suggested.
Just one example: For NIS 2006, its "'protection center" on systray will
show a red cross (x) alert if Windows Automatic Update is turned off. It's
very annoying since one probably doesn't like to see this type red alert all
the time.
I complained to their tech support (guess many others did the same) that
it's none of their business for displaying such critical warning should a
user decided to turn it off and choose the manual updates.
It doesn't display the same alert on NIS 2007 when one configured it not to
monitor the status of Windows Automatic Update.
Again, this is based on my limited experience, and by no means, I consider
it is the best solution. Currently, and as time goes by, I'm sure there are
and will be even better solutions, and I have no problems for switching to
the better ones for my own benefits.
But I don't think it's a trash as many would have suggested.
H
Howard Kaikow
NO!
Thanx.
You are the only one who properly responded to my question.
A newsgroup is not useful if folkes do not stick to topic most of the time.
Thanx.
You are the only one who properly responded to my question.
A newsgroup is not useful if folkes do not stick to topic most of the time.
X
xfile
Hi,
A simple search for "Vista" on Symantec's site could give you at least this:
Products purchased under our service plans, such as Norton Antivirus 2006
and Norton Antivirus 2007, are eligible for Microsoft® Windows Vista™
compatibility update subject to production release of the Windows Vista
operating system within the service period. Users will be informed via
LiveUpdate and within the website if compatibility updates are available.
The answer that you're looking for could be Yes or Not Yet.
Why not run LiveUpdate and/or check tech support for yourself since sources
of more reliable information are given?
A person never gained true knowledge if only replies on easy answers.
A simple search for "Vista" on Symantec's site could give you at least this:
Products purchased under our service plans, such as Norton Antivirus 2006
and Norton Antivirus 2007, are eligible for Microsoft® Windows Vista™
compatibility update subject to production release of the Windows Vista
operating system within the service period. Users will be informed via
LiveUpdate and within the website if compatibility updates are available.
The answer that you're looking for could be Yes or Not Yet.
Why not run LiveUpdate and/or check tech support for yourself since sources
of more reliable information are given?
A person never gained true knowledge if only replies on easy answers.
R
Robert Moir
xfile said:Well, again.
As I already mentioned, it may not be the full story.
But I wonder how do you know if the company is equally supporting
other partners?
Do you have any inside story as the some kind of evidence at least I
could provide?
You don't need "inside stories". The information is available quite
publically. Sophos (another fairly major player in the AV market, though one
you might not have heard of as they deal with commercial / business products
more than home) have made public statements that essentially confirms the
version of the story I outlined.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sophos_on_Symantecs_Vista_Complaints/1159472882
The fact that other compaines clearly HAVE managed to produce software that
runs on Vista is fairly self evident in and of itself. It's also odd that
the companies that appear most concerned about this issue are the ones who
have the biggest slices of the home market and hence the most to lose if
products like OneCare take off.
I use NIS and reckon it has many problems but no more than most
complimented Zone Alarm for which I purchased and used for a week and
then returned.
I'm no fan of ZA either.
[snip]
NIS surly is not best program but it does a fine job for me.
If it works for you, thats all that matters. I've always advised people to
find a solution that makes them feel happy.
Do you have any recent experience on using the software that you
discredited or it's just your assumption?
I've had a lot of experience with a lot of antivirus products over the
years, both the home versions of products and the 'enterprise' versions for
large business. Including Norton AV. Including McAfee. Including lots of
others. And yes, recent experience.