How many of you think that norton utilities 2002 screws up your system?

[slicksilver]

I've been wanting to buy this for a long time but most of my friends discourage me saying that all it does it crap up your system and lead to instability. Does anybody else have similiar experiences? Should I go ahead with this purchase or should I use a bunch of freeware utilities?

Raj

 

[duragezic]

Don't install all that system doctor garbage. I don't have NU2002, but if it's like previous versions, if you install all the watchers it just slows down your comp. I install Disk Doctor, Windoctor (think it kinda works), Speed Disk, and then of course the required files. I run them once every couple weeks and that's it.

 

[ojai00]

I used to have a previous version installed and I think that it really slows down your computer if you have it running in the background. I have Norton SystemWorks 2002 on my system now, but I just run it when I need to. Change the settings to not have it start up when Windows starts and you should be good to go. Hope this helps.

 

[DiseasedDonkey]

I must agree.

I have been using this product on and off for many many years. I really think that NU really really screws things up more than it fixes stuff. I think I forget that fact every two years or so and pay for it dearly. I ran WIN XP without any problems after NU "fixes" things it is more unstable than before. THanks a lot.

I must agree with eagle on this one. Do what he says. I think the only things you need for Mr. Norton is the disk doctor (works) speed disk and virus stuff.

nuff' said.

 

[dunkster]

I have Norton 2002 Pro and I think it's a great suite of utilities - but I don't run ANYTHING in background, not even the AV program.

One exception to above - I set Norton Disk Doctor to replace ScanDisk for all HD monitor/repair functions.

Otherwise, it's a great set of useful utilities to run when I choose to run them.

Just my preferences.

 

[bsobel]

> but I don't run ANYTHING in background, not even the AV program

Admitiddly the previous NAV versions used too many resources when AP was running, but the 2002 version GREATLY reduces the load. It's actually no longer a big deal to run in the background (my 2 cents, disclaimer I work for Symantec and worked on the suites for sometime)

Bill

 

[randypj]

I've used NU since DOS days. I'm presently running SW2002 on W2K. No problems. My observations, from years of experience:

1. NU 3.** was crap.....I don't think they even got it fixed after almost a dozen patches. Symantec received lotsa grief on their ng on that iteration. Trashed lotsa installs.
2. SW2002. Just install NAV, NU, and CleanSweep. Only run NAV in the background. Run the rest when you want. CleanSweep hasn't even mucked anything up for me.
3. Yeah, Symantec got lotsa crape for the monitoring stuff eating up resources years ago.....rightly so. As bsobel said, NAV doesn't even eat up much on my W2K system......no biggie if I forget to shut it down during gaming or not.....least with W2K. W98SE was affected more with the older versions.
4. As dunkster said, definitely let Disk Dr. replace Scan Disk. And, Speed Disk was so much faster on W9x than defrag.
5. They no longer include Crashmoreguard......which is a good thing.
6. My main complaint is that with each version, it seems to get less intuitive, and a prettier, clunkier interface. Kinda like XP, eh?
--Randy