Norton Internet Security 2003

Christer

OK. I now that you say you make a image and then install Norton sutff that makes senses.

But I do not base my replys on anyone using Ghosts. I myself do not even think that with Windows XP Ghost is even needed. Making you own Restore points work just as well.

Plus by using SR and if you should happen to be infected by a Virus all you gotta do is shut down SR and any RPs are gone.

Is it that easy with Ghost. You tell me as I do not know.

But I still feel that the better thing to do is get the Anti-Virus Software and the Firewall install ASAP affter the original install and let them build along with the system.

When I installed XP overtop of SE the FIRST thing I shut down was System restore. It would be of no use at all until I made sure all was working properly. Including drivers etc.

Without checking I could not say for 100% sure that SR even activated right now. I see no reason for it until I add something new or make other changes and then I make my own anyway regardless of what Windows does by itself. And then double check to make sure it did get made before going further.

If I hadn´t used Ghost and the the described strategy, then I agree that anti virus and firewall should go first because, if the applications are to be uninstalled the "normal" way, then it doesn´t matter which goes in first or last.

I do not agree. Over the years I have found the most reliable install of Norton to be ASAP after a clean install. And get it updated and settled down before adding anything else.

The only draw-back is that if I roll back to Image #2, either to install a new version of the Norton stuff or any other software, then I would have to redo all the Windows and other software updates. That why I said "(almost) intact" a few lines above.

That is exactly the reason that I unistall anything such as Norton and then make a new Restore Point. Saves a LOT of possible re-install that you refer to.

I guess all in all we wind up at the same end. Just different ways of getting there.

Just for the heck of it I checked and SR is activated on my C: drive. But it has not made a RP on its own for five ( 5 ) days. Now do you see why I do not, never have and never will put my FULL trust in Windows OS to do what it is supposed to do. I have been let down too many times.

A good many Windows OS problems are created by the user getting in a hurry and trying to install too much too fast. Every time something new is added it takes at least 2 or 3 Windows restarts for it to get re-adjusted and settled down

Another problem causing thing is a user not giving Windows time enough after booting before doing anything. Even though there may be no visible signs it takes Windows 2-3 minutes to completely load and settle down after booting and XP PRO is the WORST for this.

BillyBob

 

Christer

I said it before and I mean it. Leave Windows ME OUT of this. It was in a world all its own. That is why It only lasted 3 days on this machine. And getting rid of it is the ONLY time this HD needed reformating in years.

I fully understand that and regarding SR I can add to its reputation.This weekend I helped a friend installing XP pro and when I was done I checked SR. It claimed to have created four restore points during the installation but when I checked the SVI folder it contained 0 (zero) files and 0 (zero) bytes.
Explain that if You can!

I absolutely can not. And will not try. As I found the same thing to occur. Why do you think I make my own and then DOUBLE check to make sure.

XP is supposed to make a RP when installing software. HAHAHA !!! In 2 out of 3 of my first software installs after installing XP it DID NOT.

But again that kind of stuff that is supposed to happen ( according to the big bunch of BULL that MS hands us ) but does not happen is exactly an added reason that I do not trust Microsft Windows to do ANYTHING.

As to Ghost.

I am preparing a slave drive and have intenitons of having a go at Ghost.

Is it capable of being directed to put the Images on say the I: drive ? I ask this as I do not like to keep any type of backup on the same HD as the OS.

OOPS !!. Sorry. Never mind. I just reread you reply and the question is answered.

I use the BDs because that´s the way I learned it.

Are you saying that you depend on the Good old solid reliable DOS ?

I also find it better to do that type of stuff from DOS as if done within Windows there can be Windows files open that creat probelms.

I also boot to the DOS startup disks to re-install Windows. Or at least I did with SE. So far I have not had the experience of having to re-install/respair XP Pro. And unless I mess up badly I see no reason for finding out.

Yes Sir! Boot times can be considerably longer after a new installation, especially anti virus or firewall. When the boot time is "back to normal" things would have settled down though.

Not only does adding new software effect Boot up it also effects the shutdown time for a time or two at first.

I think that if more users would pay attention to this I believe it would help to cut down the problems.

Getting in a HURRY has caused me more than one problem.

Question.

Is it just me or are we kind of coming together on this ?

BillyBob

 

I just figure that if you could but the image on a CD it would only make sense that it could be put on another HD.

In this case, yes I am. It is kind of DOS but it can still write and read NTFS (don´t ask me how!).

I understand that.

I also understand what happens when it is run from Windows. But I have had occasions where the switching for one to the other did not go well.

Now this was in 95 or SE. I have not attempted such in XP yet. So far have had no reason to.

BTW. I believe I may be repeating myself but I am strongly condidering Ghost as a BACKUP for things that Windows is supposed to do but don't.

BillyBob

 

MY dear fellow Member Johanna

There are several Firewall programs that will do just as good as Symantec. And do it with much easier to install/uninstall software.

Also with much less system loading. Both Disk space and registry.

There are some that you do not need to get a new version everytime you upgrade Windows. And I believe KERIO is still free for home users. But even if not it is still cheaper than Symantec.

Couple that with AVG7 at $30 for TWO YEARS of updates, and you will have a system that is just as well protected . Also AVG7 has had updates several days in a row recently.

AVG7 has a feature that the free AVG6 does not. When you atart AVG7 it has a Quick test which checks the boot sector of the disk and many SYSTEM files. Then you cna run the full system test if desired.

If you want better incoming protection yet and take a tremendous load off of the Firewall just install a Router between the machine and the Modem.

Will a Router work on a Dial-up ? ( if you have that ) I do not know. But they sure do work well with a cable Modem.

Back to you christer

I have no intentions to fully trust SR either. I thougt I said ( or implied ) that.----

Never had the oppertuneity to mis-trust 98SE the way I do XP. If it did not make the RB00X.cab files it was a user messup not SE.

BillyBob

 

Hey Christer,

Comparing SR to something like Ghost is comparing apples and oranges. SR will fully protect Windows. It does not function to backup all your files, it just wasn't built to do so.

So if someone doesn't take the time to understand exactly what it does and does not backup, I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, MS makes it really hard to know, Ghost or something like it is the way to go.

The way I go is backing up user files on removable media on a regular basis.

Regards - Charles

 

HAHAHAHA !!!

ONLY when it WORKS.

SR is SUPPOSED to make a RP every day. That is also a big joke.

SR is SUPPOSED to make a RP when installing software. That is another big joke.

I just looked and the only TWO RP showing are one on the 17th that I made and one on the 20th that I made.

And I did install software inbetween.

OOPS !! I just went back and looked and there is a RP on the 20th that SR made before I installed a Microsoft Critical Update.

So the only conclusion that I can come to from that info is that System Restore does NOT do as it is supposed to. Therefore can not be trusted.

And I have uninatalled and installed software since.

Anyone that puts their full trust in Windows OS to do its job sooner or later may get burned.

BillyBob

 

Good question. Glad you mentioned it
.
I have no idea what backups it would refer to either.

I think it would be rather stupid to do that. But as you say it could.

It would seem to me to be the same as me making my own backup installing software and then deleting the backup before I even test out the software.

Now my question.

Has anybody ever noticed that the RP that are made when installing Windows updates seem to hang around while all others seem to disapear ?

I ask this as awhile back I saw several RP listed. I installed something and went back later and they were gone.

Also I know there were RP inbetween the 17th and the 20th a day or two ago, And by the one on the 17th ( which I made manually ) still being there says that I have not shut SR down at all.

There are way too many inconsistanceys is SR to ( at least for me ) to fully trust it.

BillyBob

 

BB and Christer,

Let me address some points:

Christer, about NAV and SR in ME - yes that's exactly what happens, so I learned when running ME to create a SR after a NAV update. BTW, that doesn't happen in XP.

BillyBob, the phrase ONLY when it WORKS can be applied to any software.

You're right, SR does not create a point after every windows patch. As far as I know, to use your phrase, "supposed to" create one after a non-windows software install, if that is what you mean, it does not do.

I make the SR points when I judge it to be appropriate. I like the fact that it doesn't do one automatically.

The bottom line is one of attitude. If you don't like SR, don't use it.

It workes fine for me.

Regards - Charles

 

Hi Christer,

OK, "preference" it is

"Norton Ghost provides a "total" solution which renders SR unnecessary "

And I think you're right. If one wants to spend the money and the system resources, great.

I, on the other hand, have learned to master SR over two years, through ME and now XP, and understand its uses and limitations, having invested in a manual and as many references on the Net as I could find, and SR is not all that hard to experiment with. Got me out of as many jams as I imagine Ghost got you out of yours.

Regards - Charles

 

charlesvar

MY reply was directed directly at a comment that you made.

Which was

It has been my experience that that is not true. But not your fault either. You are only stating what Microsoft wants us to believe.

If it seem to work for you and you trust it then that is up to you.

The bottom line is one of attitude. If you don't like SR, don't use it

Attutude has nothing to do with it.

I like it but at the same time I do not trust it. I have had it work properly and I have had it work not so properly.

But I had my own RP made that recovered very nicely from the messed up Auto created one

Unlike XP, Windows SE has NEVER given me one bit of a reason not to trust it. The main resaon being there not so much supposedly automatic **** in it. And if it did not get done then there was no choice of who was to blame.

I think strongly that XP was degigned to be installed, Use only Microsoft products, make no changes and it might be fine. But once we do make changes it is thrown way off balance.

Again I repeat. If I did not have XP already activated it would be LONG GONE. But if I did that then I might run into problems with newer hardware or software. So I am rather stuck with it in that respect.

So. I am going to leave it and work with it and I am gaining MY CONTROL OF IT.

But I will not get another copy to put on another machine. Too damned OVER PRICED and is not needed. And the two 98SE machines and this XP machine play very nicely together.

BTW. I believe there have been other threads in regards to SR not working properly. Not just this one.

As to the ME bit that you guys mentioned. SR did it to me for the few days I that had ME ( four at the most ) and is doing the same dam thing to me in XP. Works when it feels like it. And don't work when it feels like it.

BillyBob

 

BB,

I don't want to be placed in a position of defending MS or SR, they can do that quite nicely themselves.

"But not your fault either. You are only stating what Microsoft wants us to believe. "

You're comming awfully close to saying I'm stupid. So, from someone who has, what two- three months of experience with XP, that's a little much.

I just finished posting that I've run two versions of SR for two years, XP since Feb 2002. And I certainly do not depend on MS to tell me what to believe.

Regards - Charles

 

You're comming awfully close to saying I'm stupid. So, from someone who has, what two- three months of experience with XP, that's a little much.

You are quite correct. It could be taken that way.

I do apoligize for that.

But in those two-three months that I have had XP Pro I have learned a few things.

#1-- It is not worth the price or the disk space it takes up
#2--It does nothing anymore or better for me than Windows 98SE.
#3-- For no more than it does I wasted $199.

And it only took me 1 week to figure that out.

BillyBob

 

BB,

Ok, apology accepted and we will agree to disagree on XP and SR.

Regards - Charles

 

Thank you Charles.

But one thing that I just thought of that may or may not be involved with things being discussed. Because some things do depend very much on the original install.

I but XP in over top of 98SE. If that has any effect I do not know.

It is just a thought which I have no way to prove or disprove.

Well I gotta go get preps made for dinner so that it is ready when my Wife gets home from work.

Later
BillyBob