Norton Internet Security 2007

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
John, have you tried NIS2008 yet? Any comment?

I got given a copy and am still debating if I should install it.
 
Honestly, the 2008 is a nice improvement over 2007, which was way ahead of
the 2005-2006 lowpoint. The install is much quicker and the program just
seems more responsive. I'm still not thrilled with Norton Protection Center
and the loss of some customization options from the 2003-2004 period, but
overall, I think Symantec is back on the right track.
 
This time last year I was most definitely a Norton Basher. My Dell had came
with NIS '04 which was hoggish and buggy. It made the P4 3.0GHz slower than
the P3 800MHz it replaced. I vowed then that a Norton product would never
be on any machine of mine ever again.

Earlier this year I got Vista and at the time the suite I was using with XP
(F-Secure) was not Vista compatible. After reading some high praises of NIS
'07 in a security forum, I decided to set my prejudice aside and try it out.
Man was I surprised! This is NOT the same Norton of old, '07 was lightyears
ahead of '04. It had the same system impact as KIS '07. I was so impressed
with it that I bought it 3 days into the trial. When '08 came out, I
updated and once again was surprised that it runs even lighter than '07. I
will definitely be renewing in March. As of last March my system has been
clean even after purposely surfing in the internet's "darkside". It has
been verified by various online scanners and a couple of AV's I had
installed waiting for NIS '08 to come out. My poor SuperAntiSpyware has had
nothing to do except clean a few cookies, lol.

Symantec has learned it's lesson (though it took a while) as stated in this
weblog (this is the first time I ever seen Symantec admit this):

http://www.symantec.com/norton/blog/detail.jsp?blogid=performance_impact&profileid=tom_powledge

Also NIS '07 earned an Advanced+ at AV Comparitives with 98.8% detection
(Eset was 97.6% and KAV was 98.46%.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html

If you are still calling Norton bloatware now, you are behind the times.
The Bloat Era is over.
 
Midway said:
This time last year I was most definitely a Norton Basher. My Dell
had came with NIS '04 which was hoggish and buggy. It made the P4
3.0GHz slower than the P3 800MHz it replaced. I vowed then that a
Norton product would never be on any machine of mine ever again.

Earlier this year I got Vista and at the time the suite I was using
with XP (F-Secure) was not Vista compatible. After reading some high
praises of NIS '07 in a security forum, I decided to set my prejudice
aside and try it out. Man was I surprised! This is NOT the same
Norton of old, '07 was lightyears ahead of '04. It had the same
system impact as KIS '07. I was so impressed with it that I bought it
3 days into the trial. When '08 came out, I updated and once again
was surprised that it runs even lighter than '07. I will definitely
be renewing in March. As of last March my system has been clean even
after purposely surfing in the internet's "darkside". It has been
verified by various online scanners and a couple of AV's I had
installed waiting for NIS '08 to come out. My poor SuperAntiSpyware
has had nothing to do except clean a few cookies, lol.

Symantec has learned it's lesson (though it took a while) as stated in
this weblog (this is the first time I ever seen Symantec admit this):

http://www.symantec.com/norton/blog/detail.jsp?blogid=performance_impact&profileid=tom_powledge


Also NIS '07 earned an Advanced+ at AV Comparitives with 98.8%
detection (Eset was 97.6% and KAV was 98.46%.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/comparatives.html

If you are still calling Norton bloatware now, you are behind the
times. The Bloat Era is over.
Click to expand...
i find NIS2007 works fine on Vista, despite all the clueless naysayers
here. :) they tried a norton product ages ago and can't get over the
fact that the newer versions are fine.
 
It is going to take more than a version or two to get me back.
For years Norton blew whatever reputation they had.
In the meantime I found cheaper and better.
There is no point in switching back since there are alternatives and
Norton has ruined their reputation.

I will continue to recommend other alternatives (most have proved
better over time).
Even if true a one year record is meaningless when counted against
their long history of damaging computer performance.

Perhaps in 5 or so years if they continually prove themselves.
Until then it is a one issue fluke and they still have to prove their
reliability in the long term.
 
Norton blew their own reputation and carefully did so for many years.
I removed the last Norton product off one of my computers about two
years ago and have not looked back.

There are proven equal or better at less prices and less drain on
computer resources.

"the newer versions are fine"
Perhaps it is a fluke.
Norton will have to prove that for several years before they can even
be considered.
Norton has proved for years to be excessively bloated and it will take
years for them to prove acceptable for my computers or any I have
influence.
 
While I cannot fault you on your rationale, I believe Symantec has learned
it's lesson (this is the first time I have ever seen Symantec admitting the
bloatness of it's past products):

http://www.symantec.com/norton/blog/detail.jsp?blogid=performance_impact&profileid=tom_powledge

They should have done this long ago. I used to be a Norton hater as well,
having a bad experience with NIS '04 but I decided to approach NIS '07 with
an open mind since I was actually reading some good things about it. I was
so taken back, I just could not condemn it from the experience I had. It
was 300% better than '04 was and I was so impressed with it I bought a
subscription 3 days into the trial. And '08 is even better.

If you told me one year ago that one day I would be singing the praises of
Norton, I would have told you that you were out of your blanking mind. At
least I rose above my own self-convictions and actually tried the new
products unlike others here.
 
I may again "be singing the praises", however that will take at least
a few years for them to earn that trust they so willingly threw out.
In the meantime, I am established with other products.

For Norton...To Little, To Late, at least for a few years.
They worked hard to earn this suspicion.

I doubt you, or anyone for that matter can give sufficient reason to
change back when what I use now is efficient.
 
Jupiter said:
Norton blew their own reputation and carefully did so for many years.
I removed the last Norton product off one of my computers about two
years ago and have not looked back.

There are proven equal or better at less prices and less drain on
computer resources.

"the newer versions are fine"
Perhaps it is a fluke.
Norton will have to prove that for several years before they can even
be considered.
Norton has proved for years to be excessively bloated and it will take
years for them to prove acceptable for my computers or any I have
influence.
Click to expand...
stop living in the past. Your complaints are norton are so out of touch
with reality.
 
David;
"complaints"?
They are observations on how Norton treats the computers of their
customers.

"...so out of touch with reality."
Really?
The "reality" is that this is the reputation Norton worked hard for
years to earn.
They can not shed it in one.
They need to prove over time before I will consider Norton again.
You have yet to give me a single reason why I should switch or suggest
anyone else move to Norton.
 
Jupiter said:
You have yet to give me a single reason why I should switch or suggest
anyone else move to Norton.
Click to expand...
i wont make a dime off the sale if u buy it, so why should i bother
wasting my time? I've already mentioned several times on this NG that
it works fine on Vista despite those who have an unnatural aversion to it.
 
"why should i bother wasting my time?"
Good choice since you are simply incapable of it at this time.

I do not have an unnatural aversion to it.
Perhaps you were referring to others?

I tend to avoid products that have proved themselves poor for a long
time, many years in this case.
I am unsure what you see as unnatural for avoiding a product that has
proven itself dangerous to computer performance for several years.
Especially when there are other products that do the job at far less
the cost.
Norton has a long way to go if they really want to prove themselves.
One good year and an article that may be half hearted and written by
their marketing deartment is simply not enough.
 
Jupiter said:
"why should i bother wasting my time?"
Good choice since you are simply incapable of it at this time.

I do not have an unnatural aversion to it.
Perhaps you were referring to others?

I tend to avoid products that have proved themselves poor for a long
time, many years in this case.
I am unsure what you see as unnatural for avoiding a product that has
proven itself dangerous to computer performance for several years.
Especially when there are other products that do the job at far less
the cost.
Norton has a long way to go if they really want to prove themselves.
One good year and an article that may be half hearted and written by
their marketing deartment is simply not enough.
Click to expand...
Norton has ALREADY proved themselves with their last 2 releases. Your
naysaying doesn't change the facts that NIS works well on Vista. Better
than Vista itself, which hardly has proved itself. IF it wasnt for
vista being rammed down everyone's throat with new pc sales, Vista sales
would be less than tepid. Vista is an OS that should never been
released, once they stripped out numerous promised features.

Dave
 
"Vista is an OS that should never been"
Your opinion, nothing more.
Fortunately the rest of us have the choice that would deny since you
feel "should never been released"
Windows Vista works very well for me on two older computers and
countless others as well.
But then you are attempting to change the topic of this thread.

"...their last 2 releases."
Reports from users I have seen disagree.
Perhaps only the last year is OK, but to soon to tell.
In either case, 2 years after so many ignoring the needs of my
computers is vastly insufficient to prove themselves worthy for my
needs or anyone I influence.
Symantec worked hard to earn this and they will have to work hard to
earn otherwise.
Symantec has done to little to dispute that, other than that article
written more from a marketing perspective and less from technical.
 
Jupiter said:
"Vista is an OS that should never been"
Your opinion, nothing more.
Fortunately the rest of us have the choice that would deny since you
feel "should never been released"
Windows Vista works very well for me on two older computers and
countless others as well.
But then you are attempting to change the topic of this thread.

"...their last 2 releases."
Reports from users I have seen disagree.
Perhaps only the last year is OK, but to soon to tell.
In either case, 2 years after so many ignoring the needs of my
computers is vastly insufficient to prove themselves worthy for my
needs or anyone I influence.
Symantec worked hard to earn this and they will have to work hard to
earn otherwise.
Symantec has done to little to dispute that, other than that article
written more from a marketing perspective and less from technical.
Click to expand...
BS,as usual. the so called "users" that you cite are most likely just
like you--ie they tried a norton product years ago and now go on sites
to warn people away from the current version. give it a rest. you are
a BS artist of grand proportions. your whole life seems wrapped up in
trying to force your BS onto unsuspecting newbies. give it a rest for a
few weeks, eh? you post way too often. take a vacation.

Dave
 
Your false assumptions go the route of many assumptions WRONG.

I used Norton for several years on multiple computers, various Norton
products.
Not "a norton product" as you are so quick to ASSUME, but several.
I removed the last of Norton about two years ago.
In every case, switching from Norton resulted in better performance.
You are unable to dispute that FACT.

"BS,as usual"
Suggests your own inability to accept a differing opinion.
I am also aware of many others that share similar experiences and they
have wide ranges of computing experience.
So another assumption of yours "likely just like you" is also FALSE.

"force your BS onto unsuspecting newbies."
Not at all, that is real world long term experience.
"unsuspecting newbies" like everyone else are free to do what they
determine best with the information available.
I certainly do NOT "force" anything on anyone.
Only you know why you think anyone is forced to anything.

"you post way too often. take a vacation"
Irrelevant and NOT for you to say.
If you are unable to handle an opinion that differs from yours,
perhaps you need to heed your own advice.
 
LOL! your post brings to mind the age old saying that has something to
do with kettles and pots.
 
On a Mac, it definitely has been nothing but trouble and should be banned.
Which goes back a very long time, when it went from being Peter Norton to
Symantec probably.

However, the only time I had trouble with it and Vista was actually
uninstalling - that was impossible it seemed!

But... even AVG Suite can be a hog, too.

So just for fun, I'm putting Norton NIS2008 on the drive running Business
x64, and leave AVG as is on Home Premium x64, and then see. Both are very
similarly configured (I use Business to test a program on and as backup, and
Home Premium for daily use) then see if or how NIS2008 works - at least for
me.

The system is about a year old, Xeon 5130s, 4 x 500GB drives and 6GB RAM.
 
Back
Top