I hate Norton!!!

[ArchAngel777]

I absolutely abhor that program as an admin of several sites. Actaully, the anti-virus part isn't that bad, but their Internet Security is horrid. Just a rant, that is all... I know there are better resources, but sadly, I don't have completely control of the companies, so they buy this crap and I have to make it work. I used to hold Norton in high regard, but over the last 4-5 years it has left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, just my rant... If you hate Norton too, feel free to chime in.

 

[aceO07]

Internet Security used to screw up the computer's networking when we bought new dells. It worked fine after we disabled it.

 

[Guild]

You need to uninstall Norton 2004/5/6 home products. Here is how.

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/200503310816209

 

[ForumMaster]

i completly agree with u. i use ZoneAlarm Security Suite and it is load better then Norton. my gramp had norton and it was just unimgainable how much slower it made the computer. it also didn't detect several viruses that freeware (such as AVG or Anti-Vir) detected. (note: i did update the virus defenitions and he did have a subscription). i use ZoneAlarm and have never looked back. i have never had spyware ot viruses infect my system since i reinstalled Windows last year i do practice safe internet, but so should everybody. NORTON SUCKS! Never use it! they sometime take up to three days to update thier definitions even when a new vulnerability has been discovered! [/rant]

 

[sillious]

The Suskiest proggy in the world == Norton (products)
that is bound to massup your computer.

Fire it now, I mean now!

Having said those, I feel good now

I use Kaspersky for AV, ZoneAlarm for firewall, BlackIce to block unwanted port access, Adware SE (it's actually becomming worthless, can't block adware much anymore), scan with BPS Spyware Remover and scan with Trojan Remover ance a while.

No one should rely on only one method of protection nowadays. Have multiple tools.

Die Norton!

 

[JackMDS]

Interestingly my experience is the exact opposite.

I deem the AntiVirus part as inflicting unnecessary load and destabilizing on the system.

I own Version 2003, 2004, and 2005, I use only the Firewall of Version 2003. The 2003 version has more manual control over how it works and thus can be fine-tuned. I do not see the trend toward ?Blind? automatic configuration (as it slowly advanced with 2004, 2005, 2006) as an advantage.

Why I use Norton? The basic core of most Brands Firewalls is using the same concept. There is Not big differences in basic protection as a Firewalls between most decent software Firewalls, the differences are mainly along the line of the Ad-ons and the capacity to control the application. I like Norton?s Ad-ons, especially the ones that stayed from the Old At-Guard (yes Norton Firewall is based on the old At-Guard v3.22).

To supplement the Firewall I use AntiVir v7, and Microsoft Windows Defender. These are used on few systems that are intensively on the Internet, and it works very well.

:sun:

 

[sillious]

Okay, after reading a thread here, it reminded me that only Norton product that helped me is Norton Ghost. Everything else about Norton sucks.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: sillious

Okay, after reading a thread here, it reminded me that only Norton product that helped me is Norton Ghost. Everything else about Norton sucks.

Can you explain what "Sucks" means in technical terms?

:sun:

 

[sillious]

Hi JackMDS, thanks for asking. By all means, if you have good luck using Norton, please do so. I do not like Norton because all the hard times I had.

I used to be a loyal user of Norton for years and they were #1 on my mind. But over the years, this proggy got complicated. Have you ever used AOL in the 90s? That time, you could install AOL but you could never get rid of it, unless you rofmat.

Norton install files and take over your computer. It masses up your other software configuration and there are always unnecessary services running on the background. I should be in charge of what service I should allow to run. A software should be simple, like most other AV (other than McAfee). But when you turn on your computer and a major resource is undertaken by one software, that is not good.

I used to have headache when I was a user of Norton. But now with Kaspersky and ZoneAlarmPro, all I have to do is update virus def. daily (I chose manual over automated) and upgrade once in a while.

PowerQuest's PartitionMagic was a magic utility and worked 100% all the time. Now that Norton has intigrated it with it's SystemWorks, it is also dead as recently I went to use it for simple partition related work and it messed up my partition (as usual).

 

[Genx87]

I found the Symantec Corp edition clients to be rather clean. The only time they can hog resources is when they are doing scans.

The server software seems a bit kludged at times. I have been having a recurring issue where when I try to log into the System Center console it will tell me it is unable to contact the AV server. It requires me to shut the service down and rediscover the server. Half the time the fix doesnt work and I ended up trying over and over until it magically decides it wants to work again.

But the client side has been good.

 

[Carazariah]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I found the Symantec Corp edition clients to be rather clean. The only time they can hog resources is when they are doing scans.

. . .
But the client side has been good.

I agree we use Corporate 8.1 at my workplace and have had really good luck with it. We notice the slowdown during scans too, but that's to be expected. We run the Anti-Virus server on a nearly dedicated server on our network, I definitely like the way it works. Of course it has no Internet Security nor firewall features. I've had to setup several wireless networks for home users, and if they had Norton Internet Security I almost always had to disable it. I don't care for their home products at all.

Never had a problem connecting to the System Control Panel? but I never try to do that remotely, just directly at the server. . .

C

 

[JackMDS]

sillious

Thank you for your post.

I can go on and argue about some of the issues that you mentioned, but it is Not really important.

People are entitled to their own preferences, and you and I are entitled to ours.

My main point is that using terms such as, Rulez, Sucks, Crap, etc., without an explanation does not help any one. I would never stop using something because some else calling it a ?Crap?.

However (as an example), if someone do not want to use an Application that needs effort to be removed, you are right, Norton NIS is not his or her ?cup of tea?, and your detailed explanations might help in this matter.

:sun:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Carazariah

Originally posted by: Genx87
I found the Symantec Corp edition clients to be rather clean. The only time they can hog resources is when they are doing scans.

. . .
But the client side has been good.

I agree we use Corporate 8.1 at my workplace and have had really good luck with it. We notice the slowdown during scans too, but that's to be expected. We run the Anti-Virus server on a nearly dedicated server on our network, I definitely like the way it works. Of course it has no Internet Security nor firewall features. I've had to setup several wireless networks for home users, and if they had Norton Internet Security I almost always had to disable it. I don't care for their home products at all.

Never had a problem connecting to the System Control Panel? but I never try to do that remotely, just directly at the server. . .

C

We had 8.1 but our license ran out so I did an upgrade to v10. v8 I never had an issue but v10 has had some issues with the control panel. I find if I leave the system center open on another machine it seems to screw it up. My guess is some kind of timing issue?
I really dont know but since I stopped leaving it open on another server the issue has seemed to go away.

 

[sillious]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
sillious

Thank you for your post.

I can go on and argue about some of the issues that you mentioned, but it is Not really important.

People are entitled to their own preferences, and you and I are entitled to ours.

My main point is that using terms such as, Rulez, Sucks, Crap, etc., without an explanation does not help any one. I would never stop using something because some else calling it a ?Crap?.

However (as an example), if someone do not want to use an Application that needs effort to be removed, you are right, Norton NIS is not his or her ?cup of tea?, and your detailed explanations might help in this matter.

:sun:

You are right, no matter what I shouldn't use such language. But when your system gets messed-up real bad by a source, you not only not trust that source anymore but you loose your cool also. Anyway, I listen to what others has to say about a product. I pay attention to the bad reviews before making a decision for a purchase, but the final decision is mine. My decision is never based on what others has to say, I just read them to get educated, so in case I run into the same problem, I can isolate it easily.

 

[Phantronius]

For free, AVG can't be beat. Wanna try Nod32 though. Symantecs Corporate client is pretty decent and light, but not real cheap.