General SecurityPost any general questions related to security, viruses or spyware here.
Mission Statement
WindowsBBS is an online community dedicated to easily accessible technical support for those using Microsoft operating systems and other Windows software.
Our goal is to become the leading resource for computer users that require assistance with their day-to-day computer usage, including full support for networking PC's, virus & malware removal, system upgrades and general support questions.
Ahhhhh, but I intend to install it into my testing drive. Just to play with it. Once I'm bald from pulling out my hair I'll just throw the base image back on it.
Hmm ...... ...... is there a difference between "Symantec Internet Security" and "Norton Internet Security"?
Could You list a few points to explain how come the most widely used Anti Virus and Internet Security software is so bad!
This issue pops up every now and then but Symantec is still alive and kicking. If the claims were true, the world would have reacted by not purchasing the software, right?
Excuse me for saying but as it stands, this thread is just a completely useless piece of whining ...... ...... I'd appreciate a more sensible review, though ...... ...... !
I have not used Norton products for quite some time. But what I did fine was that Symantec/Norton products are no different than any other software. And not EVERY machine will handle it.
How well it behaves can relate to both the MACHINE & USER
Good grief. I think the above statement brings us right back to another of my favorites words. That word being COMBINATION
If not installed or setup properly on the proper hardware ANY software STINKS. That is a lesson I learned year ago with not only Norton but other software. And that lesson still applies.
I would be willing to bet that If I bought the newer Norton it would only work ( properly ) on one machine. That being this newer XP Pro. 10 to 1 that it would not work on my almost 10 year old Machine. So why should I buy something that may well only work on one machine ?
I also screen my E-Mail with Mailwasher. And if do not recognize where it came from or prewiew it and still do not like what I see it goes BYE-BYE with the delete. key. ( I just deleted TEN this AM. )
Now. If anybody thinks that I am out of my mind for writing this note they may well be right. I do have to go next Monday for MRIs of my head.
I am not supposed to be even be on this PC as much as I am. But I CAN NOT stay away because I enjoy it to much. Especially posts like this one.
Excuse me for saying but as it stands, this thread is just a completely useless piece of whining ...... ...... I'd appreciate a more sensible review, though
While I use and have had no problem with Norton AV 2005 I would not seriously consider useing one of the Internet Security packages as a whole.
Main reasons:
1) Extremely resource hungry. My CPU temp ran 2 degrees C higher at an idle with 2006 Internet Security installed.
2) An everyday user just plain can not uninstall it. It embeds itsself so deeply that it pretty much takes over the system. In itsself, for what it's supposed to do, isn't all bad. But it's uninstall dosen't uninstall it. It leaves 100s of registry entries that adversly affect the machine after an uninstall.
3) On a slower machine, say under 900MHz. it will seriously slow down the system. (this relates to reason 1)
On number 2 I won't say that this isn't true of many pieces of software. However, something that takes so much control of the system needs to actually uninstall.
I shy away from suites as well for the reasons you've outlined + a suite is only as strong as it's weakest part. In the case of Symantec, the firewall from what I've read is mediocre and if something goes wrong with Symantec's LU which is a common enough problem, you're SOL.
I want to emphasize that I think any suite is prone to this sort of problem: McAfee as well.
Unfortunately, suites are "in" and in the future are go to be hard to avoid.
For the record: I use NAV2005 on one XP installation.
The firewall IS another problem. Say a user has XP and dosen't even realise there is a firewall in XP(many don't)...
The 2006 or 2005 suites will not detect that a firewall is running and give notice to warn. It will just go ahead and install it's firewall and wreck havoc with the system. Have your restore point ready!
I like your last post. It sort of supports my thinking and FINDINGS.
I had problems with 2004. It just plain overloaded things. Higher temps and slower speeds. It took me three (3) days and A LOT of VERY CAREFUL reg cleaning.
And you can be that I had A LOT of Restore Points along the way. And a couple got used. And when I was all done and found that all was going to be OK after a day or two SR was shut down and restarted.
Symantec no longer supports 9X with this new version.
Seing that makes me think/wonder.
This XP machine has a Harddrive that is a COPY of the 98SE machine then upgraded to XP Pro. So therefore it does contain quite a bit of Software that goes back to at least 98B.
Would it even make sense for me to even THINK about installing something like NS 2006 ?
Hi again, jaylach,
thanks for the additional points of view!
Quote:
1) Extremely resource hungry. My CPU temp ran 2 degrees C higher at an idle with 2006 Internet Security installed.
3) On a slower machine, say under 900MHz. it will seriously slow down the system. (this relates to reason 1)
I have worked mainly with 2003 and 2004. They do cripple a system with specs as low as a 500MHz processor but my own system with a 1GHz processor runs fine with NIS 2003 and NSW 2003 (only the AV and FW are started at system start, everything else is disabled and is run manually). I have not checked the temperatures with and without the AV/FW running but I will do so (when time permits).
Quote:
2) An everyday user just plain can not uninstall it. It embeds itsself so deeply that it pretty much takes over the system. In itsself, for what it's supposed to do, isn't all bad. But it's uninstall dosen't uninstall it. It leaves 100s of registry entries that adversly affect the machine after an uninstall.
On number 2 I won't say that this isn't true of many pieces of software. However, something that takes so much control of the system needs to actually uninstall.
Agreed! I actually install all "for keeps" programs and applications prior to anything Norton and I create a Ghost Image (from Ghost Boot Disks in DOS) prior to installing anything Norton. This way, I can roll back to before installing Norton. Having to reinstall a few more programs and applications that were lost in the roll-back is a small price to pay. However, I am under the impression that Symantec's uninstall tools are getting better, right?
As You point out, Symantec products are not the only stubborn ones. Completely removing Adobe Acrobat, the way it integrates itself with other programs like Microsoft Office, is not the easiest task.
Quote:
The firewall IS another problem. Say a user has XP and dosen't even realise there is a firewall in XP(many don't)...
The 2006 or 2005 suites will not detect that a firewall is running and give notice to warn. It will just go ahead and install it's firewall and wreck havoc with the system.
I have not experienced any such problems with 2003 and 2004. After installing an update to WMI (or whichever it is) Windows detects the AV/FW and Norton detects the Windows FW. Norton suggests to disable Windows Notification but both FireWalls can be run in parallel. (I don't do it myself and never set up a system to do it but that's the word on the WindowsBBS.)
I believe that BillyBob is right when he says:
Quote:
But what I did fine was that Symantec/Norton products are no different than any other software.
How well it behaves can relate to both the MACHINE & USER
If not installed or setup properly on the proper hardware ANY software STINKS.
If a user sticks with the version of applications that is contemporary with his/her hardware, then most systems run nicely. If the user is slapping applications designed for 2-3 GHz systems on a 500 MHz system, then he/she won't regard it as an upgrade because the system can't handle it very well.
My own system (1GHz CPU and originally 256MB RAM) was built and installed with WinME. When I migrated to WinXP, I had to add another stick of 256MB RAM to get it running nicely but after the RAM upgrade, it really was an upgrade. Doing the same with a 500MHz system will never be an upgrade, no matter how much RAM is added.
Agreed! I actually install all "for keeps" programs and applications prior to anything Norton and I create a Ghost Image (from Ghost Boot Disks in DOS) prior to installing anything Norton. This way, I can roll back to before installing Norton. Having to reinstall a few more programs and applications that were lost in the roll-back is a small price to pay. However, I am under the impression that Symantec's uninstall tools are getting better, right?
On the uninstalls getting better I can't comment about the final release but it sure wasn't on the betas.
On the rest I can't argue with your method. It's good. I'm more concerned about the average user though. The one that opens the box, plugs it in, and trusts all the hype of advertiseing because they don't have the knowledge to know any better. Would that person even understand what the above quote is saying?
Would that person even understand what the above quote is saying?
Probably not but that's why places like the Windows BBS are so good ...... ...... with people willing to help!
Most users plug in and get going and when the going grinds to a halt, they get the number to an expensive techie, find out that it will cost more than a new computer and off they go to a shopping center.
...... is there a difference between "Symantec Internet Security" and "Norton Internet Security"?
...... I'd appreciate a more sensible review, though ...... 
...... !
