Norton

  • Thread starter Thread starter KillingJoke
  • Start date Start date
K

KillingJoke

Can someone with proof, please tell me why Norton AV and NIS are such bad
products. How they fail over others etc., etc and why the consensus is it's
better to use KAV or NOD32, not mentioning s/w firewalls btw.

Thanks
 
I've used Norton products (NU, NSW, NAV, but not NIS) for about 15 years,
maybe 20, on multiple computers--and I've not only never had a virus
infection but never experienced any major trouble with the programs. I have
not used 2004 or 2005 products, as 2003 works fine here and I won't fix what
ain't broke, and I have never used AutoProtect or CrashGuard (now defunct).
PC Magazine compared AV progs recently and NAV scored very high, along with
Trend Micro's product.

Frankly, there are always going to be sour grapes from people who genuinely
have had trouble, had issues with Norton tech support, or whatever, that
cause them to never forget and rightly or wrongly reflect their opinions in
public. They likely no longer use the products and may have little direct
input on new products, upgrades, etc. IOW, some have had problems, ceased
using the product, and a few now fairly or unfairly denegrate it. If
Symantec generally made bad products I'll wager they would lose customers by
that fact alone, get bad reviews, and soon go out of business.

Just my 2¢.
 
In simple terms, I think NAV 2004/2005 have gotten too bloated and
slow. The programs try to do too much, and in doing so, often foul up. NAV
2003 was the last good version, IMO. I prefer AVG Free Edition because it
is leaner and less of a resource hog.
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

KillingJoke regaled us with the following:
Can someone with proof, please tell me why Norton AV and NIS are such bad
products. How they fail over others etc., etc and why the consensus is
it's better to use KAV or NOD32, not mentioning s/w firewalls btw.

Thanks
Click to expand...

All I can say is: it's a good job there is substantive choice in AV, FW, and
content filtering software.

I've come across many folks having problems with Norton and many folks
having no problems at all with Norton. Those that have no problems, love
it. Those that have problems, hate it. Understandably on both sides...

To a lesser degree in my experience, other such products have difficulties
also. Norton/Symantec products suffer the same fate as any long-lived
product that tries to include overmuch functionality into one package. For
that reason alone, I prefer to steer folks away from Norton when possible.

Personally, I don't use it and never will.

On the other hand, I just made a couple hundred today solving a Norton
problem for a customer that insists on using Norton. So, I guess it's good
for me either way...

- --
Skorpion [skorpion at suespammers dot org]
"Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBZGzLcTBCVvf50kkRAh0dAJ9TDjRoIae/vjpWV3xPjFMUyFLurgCg3FuD
NffLiZBBtA79z/zzgNMNZl4=
=KtiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
KillingJoke said:
Can someone with proof, please tell me why Norton AV and NIS are such
bad products. How they fail over others etc., etc and why the
consensus is it's better to use KAV or NOD32, not mentioning s/w
firewalls btw.

Thanks
Click to expand...

KillingJoke:

I ran NAV 2002 for about 2 years and I was very pleased with it, having
gotten only 1 virus in that time.

I updated to NAV 2004 and I am very disappointed with NAV 2004 due to it
being a major resource hog. I am running a 2.52 GHz P4 and 512 MB of RAM.
With NAV 2002, I could run a scan and work on my PC at the same time. With
NAV 2004 when running a virus scan, I cannot run other other apps (Outlook
Express, Mozilla, IrfanView) without them hanging.

Before NAV, I used Computer Associated Inoculate for about 2 years and it
was very easy on resouces and again in that time, I only got 1 virus. Any
comments on what people think of the CA replacement product eTrust EZ
Antivirus 2005 (ver 6.2)? Any comments on it's new email screening feature?

I am seriously thinking about dumping NAV 2004 and going back to CA.

Thank,

Steve
 
Steve said:
KillingJoke:

I ran NAV 2002 for about 2 years and I was very pleased with it,
having gotten only 1 virus in that time.

I updated to NAV 2004 and I am very disappointed with NAV 2004 due to
it being a major resource hog. I am running a 2.52 GHz P4 and 512 MB
of RAM. With NAV 2002, I could run a scan and work on my PC at the
same time. With NAV 2004 when running a virus scan, I cannot run
other other apps (Outlook Express, Mozilla, IrfanView) without them
hanging.
Before NAV, I used Computer Associated Inoculate for about 2 years
and it was very easy on resouces and again in that time, I only got 1
virus. Any comments on what people think of the CA replacement
product eTrust EZ Antivirus 2005 (ver 6.2)? Any comments on it's new
email screening feature?
I am seriously thinking about dumping NAV 2004 and going back to CA.

Thank,

Steve
Click to expand...

You can get eTrust for free (which probably means you get 1 year's worth
of subscriptions). See:

http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/index.cfm

I've never used it so I cannot comment on its effectiveness. According
to http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?etrust.xml,
eTrust has failed 10 times in the last 28 times tested, or a failure
rate of 35.7% (or, alternatively, it passed only 64.3% of the time). I
know some folks will recommend AVG but that only passed 25% of the time
(see http://www.virusbulletin.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml).
Norton AntiVirus fared better at a pass rate of 80.6%. This figures
don't represent how well the products currently catch viruses. It
measures how well they have historically shown to catch the viruses.
 
| Can someone with proof, please tell me why Norton AV and NIS are such bad
| products. How they fail over others etc., etc and why the consensus is
it's
| better to use KAV or NOD32, not mentioning s/w firewalls btw.
|
| Thanks
|

Thanks for all your replies guys - something constructive rather it's just
'crap'.
 
KillingJoke said:
Can someone with proof, please tell me why Norton AV and NIS are such bad
products. How they fail over others etc., etc and why the consensus is it's
better to use KAV or NOD32, not mentioning s/w firewalls btw.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I used to swear by Norton, I've used Nortons 2000-2004. I started
getting viruses more and more often, and system performance dropped,
especially with 2004. More often than not, whatever virus I got would
not be detected by Norton and I would have to run an online virus scan
to get rid of it. Most of the time, Norton was unable to clean,
quarantine or delete the viruses I got.

Crunch time came about 6 months ago, I installed McAfee Virus Scan
Enterprise, and it picked up about 20 viruses and Trojans that Norton
didn't alert me to. So that was that.

I then heard about NOD32, and I've used it for a while now - 6 of my
mates have changed from Norton or McAfee to NOD32, because it has the
highest in the wild on access detection rate of any AV out there, and is
low on system resource usage.
 
Quoth the raven Wattsville Blues:
I used to swear by Norton, I've used Nortons 2000-2004. I started
getting viruses more and more often, and system performance dropped,
especially with 2004. More often than not, whatever virus I got would
not be detected by Norton and I would have to run an online virus scan
to get rid of it. Most of the time, Norton was unable to clean,
quarantine or delete the viruses I got.
Click to expand...

Do you mean you started getting *infected* with viruses more and more
often... not just receiving them in emails?

If so the burning question here is: why do you continue to infect
yourself? Obviously, by now you know what they are and how they arrive.

"Once Bitten, Twice Shy." ?
Crunch time came about 6 months ago, I installed McAfee Virus Scan
Enterprise, and it picked up about 20 viruses and Trojans that Norton
didn't alert me to. So that was that.
Click to expand...

Ah. You need to change your habits.

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

I don't bother to run an active virus program, as I seem to be able to
recognize a virus laden email quite readily. If I get an attachment I
wasn't expecting, I delete it without executing it. If I /was/
expecting it, I save it to my "suspect" folder and scan it.
 
Beauregard said:
Quoth the raven Wattsville Blues:



Do you mean you started getting *infected* with viruses more and more
often... not just receiving them in emails?

If so the burning question here is: why do you continue to infect
yourself? Obviously, by now you know what they are and how they arrive.

"Once Bitten, Twice Shy." ?
Click to expand...

Not through emails, those ones are a piece of piss to avoid. One case
I'm thinking of came from a site you can download smileys from,
obviously not on top of my watch out list. Most of the viruses I've got
have come through Internet Explorer.
 
Quoth the raven Wattsville Blues:
Not through emails, those ones are a piece of piss to avoid.
Click to expand...

Ok said:
One case I'm thinking of came from a site you can download smileys
from, obviously not on top of my watch out list.
Click to expand...

Smiley Central? From FunWebProducts? or something similar.
Most of the viruses I've got have come through Internet Explorer.
Click to expand...

Most /spyware/ arrives via Internet Explorer.

Now I have a new question: since FunWebProducts and the like are
spyware / malware / adware / junkware, are you lumping all these
things together and calling them "viruses"? 'Cos this is a different
subject. Just making sure...

Have you dumped IE yet in favor of a modern, secure, unhijackable browser?
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,1619762,00.asp
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/tips.html
 
Beauregard said:
Ok, so you are one who engages Common Sense Before Clicking. <g>
Click to expand...

Mr Common Sense 2003 here.
Smiley Central? From FunWebProducts? or something similar.
Click to expand...

I think that's the one I had in mind.
Most /spyware/ arrives via Internet Explorer.

Now I have a new question: since FunWebProducts and the like are spyware
/ malware / adware / junkware, are you lumping all these things together
and calling them "viruses"? 'Cos this is a different subject. Just
making sure...
Click to expand...

The Smiley Central site attempted to download a Trojan of some type, I
know that's not explicitly a virus, but they're nasty pieces of software
anyway.
Have you dumped IE yet in favor of a modern, secure, unhijackable browser?
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,1619762,00.asp
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/tips.html
Click to expand...

Firefox. Can't stand IE these days.
 
Back
Top