Thread: Re: What is a good free antivirus protection program? Is AVG a good free program?

In article <eAl3bqaDGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:qxfsf.244121$tD4.174492@tornado.ohiordc.rr.co m...
> > In article <ebv$jXwCGHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> > pvandermeeren0522xyz@yrogers.com says...
> >> I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down. I am
> >> an
> >> average internet user.
> >> Phil
> >
> > Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
> > machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
>
>
> Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down...

I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
was no noticeable performance difference.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Another urban myth goes down.

Phil Weldon

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:I3mtf.258763$tD4.41778@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com ...
| In article <eAl3bqaDGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
| says...
| >
| > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
| > news:qxfsf.244121$tD4.174492@tornado.ohiordc.rr.co m...
| > > In article <ebv$jXwCGHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
| > > pvandermeeren0522xyz@yrogers.com says...
| > >> I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down.
I am
| > >> an
| > >> average internet user.
| > >> Phil
| > >
| > > Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
| > > machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
| >
| >
| > Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down...
|
| I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
| 2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
| was no noticeable performance difference.
|
| --
|
| spam999free@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me

Phil:

Once I got rid of Norton AV 2005, my paging file usage went down
dramatically.

I find a noticable difference in overall performance of my computer.

Tom
"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
news:LZmtf.2484$M%4.2444@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
| Another urban myth goes down.
|
| Phil Weldon
|
| "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
| news:I3mtf.258763$tD4.41778@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com ...
|| In article <eAl3bqaDGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
|| says...
|| >
|| > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
|| > news:qxfsf.244121$tD4.174492@tornado.ohiordc.rr.co m...
|| > > In article <ebv$jXwCGHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
|| > > pvandermeeren0522xyz@yrogers.com says...
|| > >> I had AVG(free version) for a couple of years. It never let me down.
| I am
|| > >> an
|| > >> average internet user.
|| > >> Phil
|| > >
|| > > Some of the Sorority users were compromised by a AOL IM worm, Norton
|| > > machines were not infected, AVG machines were.
|| >
|| >
|| > Hehe, OTOH with Norton you don;t need a virus to slow you down...
||
|| I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
|| 2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
|| was no noticeable performance difference.
||
|| --
||
|| spam999free@rrohio.com
|| remove 999 in order to email me
|
|

In article <eqAlMMgDGHA.336@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
tompepper@mvps.invalid says...
> Once I got rid of Norton AV 2005, my paging file usage went down
> dramatically.
>
> I find a noticable difference in overall performance of my computer.

Then you don't have enough memory in your computer for basic operation
of it and the normal applications that one would use.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Sorry, you are wrong. I have plenty of memory.

Stop second guessing people. I'm not inexperienced when it comes to
computers.


Tom
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:2Sxtf.9471$Pi.8339@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| In article <eqAlMMgDGHA.336@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
| tompepper@mvps.invalid says...
| > Once I got rid of Norton AV 2005, my paging file usage went down
| > dramatically.
| >
| > I find a noticable difference in overall performance of my computer.
|
| Then you don't have enough memory in your computer for basic operation
| of it and the normal applications that one would use.
|
| --
|
| spam999free@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me

In article <#jykTkiDGHA.3920@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
tompepper@mvps.invalid says...
> Sorry, you are wrong. I have plenty of memory.
>
> Stop second guessing people. I'm not inexperienced when it comes to
> computers.

If you were experienced enough you would have provided more information
then.

To say that your swap file use increases significantly is a sign that
you don't have enough RAM. As you've not indicated how much RAM you
have, it was a good call that you don't have enough RAM.

I've installed NAT 2004, 2005, 2006 on several machines in the last few
years, when properly setup (the computers) there was no noticeable
impact on performance that users could detect. Most of those machines
were running Windows XP with 256MB RAM, which I consider the minimum for
XP in most settings, 512MB seems to be the middle ground for
performance.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"

>Another urban myth goes down.

Nope - not until we know:

1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
3) What the system spec was

It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.

>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

>| I just tested the same PC before and after installation of Norton AV
>| 2006. In open documents, speed tests on the net, playing games, there
>| was no noticeable performance difference.


>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>
> >Another urban myth goes down.
>
> Nope - not until we know:
>
> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"

Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.

> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were

Several Systems as follows:

All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.

Platforms:

Windows 2000 Prof SP4
Windows XP Prof SP2

> 3) What the system spec was

P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM

> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.

Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:c0Xtf.95058$lh.37545@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
> cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>>
>> >Another urban myth goes down.
>>
>> Nope - not until we know:
>>
>> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
>
> Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
> Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
> Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.
>
>> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
>
> Several Systems as follows:
>
> All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
> Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.
>
> Platforms:
>
> Windows 2000 Prof SP4
> Windows XP Prof SP2
>
>> 3) What the system spec was
>
> P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
> P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
>
>> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
>> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.
>
> Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
> one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
> the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
> systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.


That's a clean install, wait until Norton has "Found and Corrected" a few
things

In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:c0Xtf.95058$lh.37545@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> > In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
> > cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
> >>
> >> >Another urban myth goes down.
> >>
> >> Nope - not until we know:
> >>
> >> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
> >
> > Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
> > Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
> > Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.
> >
> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
> >
> > Several Systems as follows:
> >
> > All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
> > Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.
> >
> > Platforms:
> >
> > Windows 2000 Prof SP4
> > Windows XP Prof SP2
> >
> >> 3) What the system spec was
> >
> > P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
> > P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
> >
> >> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
> >> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.
> >
> > Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
> > one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
> > the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
> > systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
>
>
> That's a clean install, wait until Norton has "Found and Corrected" a few
> things

I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.

As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a reason
to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:33:12 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"

>> >Another urban myth goes down.

>> Nope - not until we know:

>> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"

>Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
>Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
>Home/Consumer version - which it was

OK

>> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were

>Several Systems as follows:

>All systems were formatted/installed from scratch,
>Windows 2000 Prof SP4
>Windows XP Prof SP2

No, I meant the NAV settings...

>> 3) What the system spec was

>P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
>P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM

Any of the P3 running XP? That would be a good test.

>Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
>one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
>the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
>systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.

Did starting up take longer?
Did you try switching between OE user identities?

The second was a point of pain with NAV 2005. It could be they've
clued up and optimized NAV, much as Adobe (Acrobat) Reader claimed to
have done from 6.xx to 7.xx; nice work if so.

I'd still avoid NAV, in view of post-"uninstall" remnants and DRM.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

In article <kjpgr1tpnhd76h30a6htf64ushci2j070s@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:33:12 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>
> >> >Another urban myth goes down.
>
> >> Nope - not until we know:
>
> >> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
>
> >Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
> >Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
> >Home/Consumer version - which it was
>
> OK
>
> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
>
> >Several Systems as follows:
>
> >All systems were formatted/installed from scratch,
> >Windows 2000 Prof SP4
> >Windows XP Prof SP2
>
> No, I meant the NAV settings...

Default, only the AUTOMATIC Startup Scan was removed if added by the
default install.

>
> >> 3) What the system spec was
>
> >P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
> >P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
>
> Any of the P3 running XP? That would be a good test.

Yes, both systems were running XP and 2000.

> >Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
> >one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
> >the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
> >systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
>
> Did starting up take longer?

Yes, and I fully expected it too - when you add something that inserts
itself into the load it's going to take longer.

> Did you try switching between OE user identities?

We don't use Outlook Express, only Outlook 2000/2003 or Thunderbird, so
switching was simple.

> The second was a point of pain with NAV 2005. It could be they've
> clued up and optimized NAV, much as Adobe (Acrobat) Reader claimed to
> have done from 6.xx to 7.xx; nice work if so.

LOL, I don't think that Adobe Acrobat 7 is faster than 5 was, in fact,
it's had a lot of problems. I also don't think that NAV 2006 is faster
than NAV 2003 was, but it also does a LOT more than 2003 did.

It was interesting to see that I could VNC from machine to machine from
the LAN, but when I tried a remote (from outside the lan) VNC to any
machine, NAV 2006 blocked it until I selected to PERMIT it. Nice
addition, but I would have rather controlled that in the Firewall - I
was unaware that NAV2006 included that level of protection.

> I'd still avoid NAV, in view of post-"uninstall" remnants and DRM.

To each his own

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:cbZtf.95090$lh.67108@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
> says...
> I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
> NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
> not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
> with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
> performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
> I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.
>
> As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
> apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
> against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
> out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a reason
> to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
> reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.

BullSh*t

--


spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

In article <utyq9IzDGHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, ilovepcbutts1
@withapassion.com says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:cbZtf.95090$lh.67108@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> > In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
> > says...
> > I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
> > NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
> > not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
> > with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
> > performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
> > I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.
> >
> > As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
> > apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
> > against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
> > out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a reason
> > to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
> > reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.
>
> BullSh*t

NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-69-237-53-123.dsl.bkfd14.pacbell.net
69.237.53.123

Please note that PCBUTTS1 is the poster of the above message (the BS
part) using my NickName "Leythos". He posts from the above host, which
you can validate in the Usenet headers, since Microsoft deletes his
posts from their servers due to his lack of ethics, his theft of others
code, and his violations of their Usenet standards.

PCBUTTS1 does not post help unless he can cut/paste it or pilfer it from
another person.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:cbZtf.95090$lh.67108@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
> says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:c0Xtf.95058$lh.37545@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
>> > In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
>> > cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>> >>
>> >> >Another urban myth goes down.
>> >>
>> >> Nope - not until we know:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
>> >
>> > Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
>> > Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
>> > Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.
>> >
>> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
>> >
>> > Several Systems as follows:
>> >
>> > All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
>> > Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.
>> >
>> > Platforms:
>> >
>> > Windows 2000 Prof SP4
>> > Windows XP Prof SP2
>> >
>> >> 3) What the system spec was
>> >
>> > P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
>> > P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
>> >
>> >> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
>> >> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.
>> >
>> > Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning
>> > that
>> > one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete
>> > loading
>> > the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
>> > systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
>>
>>
>> That's a clean install, wait until Norton has "Found and Corrected" a few
>> things
>
> I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
> NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
> not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
> with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
> performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
> I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.
>
> As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
> apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
> against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
> out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a reason
> to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
> reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.


Exactly my point. You have already detailed the lengths you go to to carry
out regular maintenance, you don't rely on Norton software to mess about
with disk drives, the registry or other systems stuff and in fact you keep
the machines relatively clean even without it. I suspect you also address
"Squeaky wheels" before the actually drop off. You also don't have Norton
"Optimizing" one way and some other stuff "Optimizing" a different way. In
short you use Norton, you don't have it using you. Most home users that come
unstuck probably do so from relying on Norton's snake oil protection. From
my limited experience with the corporate edition I agree, it is a totally
different animal, but it is none the less deplorable that the same company's
conduct toward other paying users is so poor.

Charlie

In article <u9SX4e0DGHA.3004@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:cbZtf.95090$lh.67108@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> > In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> >> news:c0Xtf.95058$lh.37545@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> >> > In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
> >> > cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
> >> >>
> >> >> >Another urban myth goes down.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope - not until we know:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
> >> >
> >> > Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
> >> > Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
> >> > Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.
> >> >
> >> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
> >> >
> >> > Several Systems as follows:
> >> >
> >> > All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
> >> > Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.
> >> >
> >> > Platforms:
> >> >
> >> > Windows 2000 Prof SP4
> >> > Windows XP Prof SP2
> >> >
> >> >> 3) What the system spec was
> >> >
> >> > P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
> >> > P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
> >> >
> >> >> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you have
> >> >> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap" etc.
> >> >
> >> > Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning
> >> > that
> >> > one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete
> >> > loading
> >> > the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
> >> > systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's a clean install, wait until Norton has "Found and Corrected" a few
> >> things
> >
> > I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
> > NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
> > not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
> > with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
> > performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
> > I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.
> >
> > As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
> > apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
> > against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
> > out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a reason
> > to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
> > reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.
>
>
> Exactly my point. You have already detailed the lengths you go to to carry
> out regular maintenance, you don't rely on Norton software to mess about
> with disk drives, the registry or other systems stuff and in fact you keep
> the machines relatively clean even without it. I suspect you also address
> "Squeaky wheels" before the actually drop off. You also don't have Norton
> "Optimizing" one way and some other stuff "Optimizing" a different way. In
> short you use Norton, you don't have it using you. Most home users that come
> unstuck probably do so from relying on Norton's snake oil protection. From
> my limited experience with the corporate edition I agree, it is a totally
> different animal, but it is none the less deplorable that the same company's
> conduct toward other paying users is so poor.

But the point is that Norton AV works fine when running on a system that
is maintained, that is somewhat maintained. Any application that works
at the level of an AV product is bound (and most do) to have problems
once a system is screwed-up by bad drivers, bad updates, bad software,
not to mention viruses and other malware.

I've not found where Norton AV running on my Mothers and Mother in-law's
computers have caused them any problems - and they've been running
Windows XP for more than a year without me doing anything to their
systems.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:qJ0uf.95200$lh.17357@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
> In article <u9SX4e0DGHA.3004@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
> says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:cbZtf.95090$lh.67108@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
>> > In article <evf4srxDGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> >> news:c0Xtf.95058$lh.37545@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
>> >> > In article <tncgr1pq64lsjd6iehsva03od4grkfkk3d@4ax.com>,
>> >> > cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> >> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Another urban myth goes down.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope - not until we know:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) Whether this is corporate or consumer "Norton"
>> >> >
>> >> > Since the "Norton" version is the Home/Consumer version, and the
>> >> > Symantec is the Corporate, when I stated Norton AV 2006, it implies
>> >> > Home/Consumer version - which it was - the 5 pack to be specific.
>> >> >
>> >> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
>> >> >
>> >> > Several Systems as follows:
>> >> >
>> >> > All systems were formatted/installed from scratch, MS Office 2003
>> >> > Professional Installed. All updates from Windows Update.
>> >> >
>> >> > Platforms:
>> >> >
>> >> > Windows 2000 Prof SP4
>> >> > Windows XP Prof SP2
>> >> >
>> >> >> 3) What the system spec was
>> >> >
>> >> > P3/966mhz/256MB RAM
>> >> > P4/3.2ghz/512MB RAM
>> >> >
>> >> >> It may be a case of "Norton AV won't slow you down as long as you
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> an extra 512M RAM lying around to support the load; RAM is cheap"
>> >> >> etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning
>> >> > that
>> >> > one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete
>> >> > loading
>> >> > the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
>> >> > systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's a clean install, wait until Norton has "Found and Corrected" a
>> >> few
>> >> things
>> >
>> > I hate to tell you this, but we've got clients (small offices) that run
>> > NAV (not Symantec) on their machines, 2006 to be the latest, and have
>> > not experienced ANY problems with Performance or Viruses. I personally,
>> > with all the clients I manage and their network, have never found a
>> > performance hit with Norton or Symantec AV products - please remember,
>> > I'm ONLY talking about AV, not NIS, NPFW, or their suites.
>> >
>> > As a provider of IT solutions, we test and keep copies of the top 10
>> > apps in our testing center, and we run them once every couple months
>> > against what we consider a basic set of tests, or as new versions come
>> > out and clients question the products. So far, I've never found a
>> > reason
>> > to not use Symantec Corporate AV software, and not found any real
>> > reasons to switch from Norton on the low end side.
>>
>>
>> Exactly my point. You have already detailed the lengths you go to to
>> carry
>> out regular maintenance, you don't rely on Norton software to mess about
>> with disk drives, the registry or other systems stuff and in fact you
>> keep
>> the machines relatively clean even without it. I suspect you also address
>> "Squeaky wheels" before the actually drop off. You also don't have Norton
>> "Optimizing" one way and some other stuff "Optimizing" a different way.
>> In
>> short you use Norton, you don't have it using you. Most home users that
>> come
>> unstuck probably do so from relying on Norton's snake oil protection.
>> From
>> my limited experience with the corporate edition I agree, it is a totally
>> different animal, but it is none the less deplorable that the same
>> company's
>> conduct toward other paying users is so poor.
>
> But the point is that Norton AV works fine when running on a system that
> is maintained, that is somewhat maintained. Any application that works
> at the level of an AV product is bound (and most do) to have problems
> once a system is screwed-up by bad drivers, bad updates, bad software,
> not to mention viruses and other malware.
>
> I've not found where Norton AV running on my Mothers and Mother in-law's
> computers have caused them any problems - and they've been running
> Windows XP for more than a year without me doing anything to their
> systems.


Same goes for my wife with W2000, but she doesn't meddle with a lot and
would not use the "Tools" Norton supplies if they were there. The problem
seems to be that it's really fragile if it actually gets used. Installed as
Eye Candy I'm sure it's fine.

Charlie

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 23:57:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:33:12 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
>> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"

>> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
>> >Several Systems as follows:
>> No, I meant the NAV settings...

>Default, only the AUTOMATIC Startup Scan was removed if added by the
>default install.

OK. Does it scan all file types, or just ones it expects to be risky?

>> >Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
>> >one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
>> >the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
>> >systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.

>> Did starting up take longer?

>Yes, and I fully expected it too - when you add something that inserts
>itself into the load it's going to take longer.

Well, that's one of the "bloat" factors; let's not gloss over that.
Is the adverse impact of NAV 2006 greater thabn other av?

Another bloat factor is memory useage, in the pure sense, rather than
how well it works with recommended amounts of memory. Testing on XP
with 128M RAM would be a good metric there. That's not only relevant
to such systems, but a better predictor for systems with "enough" RAM
that have other underfootware or foreground-app bloat factors.

>> Did you try switching between OE user identities?
>
>We don't use Outlook Express, only Outlook 2000/2003 or Thunderbird, so
>switching was simple.

Cool. I and mine generally use Eudora rather than OE etc. and the way
this stores attachments obviates the need for mail scanning heroics.
The issue with changing identities in OE was so severe that the user
elected to abandon the NAV they paid for and use AVG instead.

>LOL, I don't think that Adobe Acrobat 7 is faster than 5 was, in fact,
>it's had a lot of problems. I also don't think that NAV 2006 is faster
>than NAV 2003 was, but it also does a LOT more than 2003 did.

OK. Sometimesa reputation for bloatedness can persist after the
bloating trend is stopped, allowing better performance as hardware
catches up. I found this to be the case with MS Office, with Office
2000 as the last "yuk" waypoint. There was a time that MS Office
raised the hardware bar significantly higher than the OS of the time;
I think that is less the case these days.

Acrobat Reader 6.xx was a pig, after 5.xx; I don't expect 7.xx to be
as light as 5.xx but if it's better than than 6.xx, that's good. My
mileage suggests that it is so, even with the sneaky "run the bloaty
stuff at OS startup" feature ripped out.

Also, Adobe finally got there act together on point-version
distribution. With the 7.0.1-3 updates (mandated by exploitable
defects), you had to first download 7.0.0 and then serially apply the
updates. When 7.0.5 came out, it was; install 7.0.0 then 7.0.5, you
can skip the .1-3 at least. Right now, you can download 7.0.5 as the
complete package as nature intended, plus (from ActiveX-killing
Firefox) you can download the whole thing without passing through some
ghastly "live-install" stub or proprietary downloader.

So it seems that dumb-ass vendors *can* learn old tricks (i.e. the
same tricks everyone else got right from the time the earth cooled).

>> I'd still avoid NAV, in view of post-"uninstall" remnants and DRM.

>To each his own

Well, let's discuss each of these in turn.


It's well-known that Norton uninstallation is a PITA; in fact it can
be very difficult to getr your installation back clean after it's been
"Nortoned". I logged one such case; first I did the "front door"
uninstallation methods (Add/Remove etc.) and it woulldn't uninstall
unless I waved the CD at it. Then it left a ton of junk, so I
downloaded and ran the post-uninstall cleanup tool from their web
site. This still left a ton of junk in the registry, in fact I had to
manually search and kill more stuff than the tool had cleared.

I've heard folks seriously suggest a need to "just" wipe and rebuild
to get rid of Norton. Now I know there are folks that suggest "just"
wipe and rebuild whenever a gnat farts in the vicinity; these aren't
the usual gang of idiots, but folks who I respect at the tech level.

Now the loss of an installation is something I see as a Grade-A
disaster; basically the outcome that maintenance tools such as av are
there to prevent. Any software that precipitates this crisis is unfit
for use, and certainly not worth paying for.

So when it comes to (re-)evaluating core software, this issue needs to
be tested. Can its uninstaller wipe its own butt at last?


DRM concerns are two-fold. First, a vandor who is prepared to damage
your interests on the assumption that you may be damaging theirs - and
to automate this, as well - is not a vandor I want to depend on, much
less support through any sort of payment. The trust isn't there.

Second, and especially with an antivirus, there are specific practical
considerations. Malware is software that adds unwanted functionality
by stealth, and it's ironic to choose an anti-malware product that
does exactly this. There are two practicalities:

1) Increased (exploitable?) fragility

Once there is a poison-pill payload built into the product, this can
be triggered by malware - just smash up something that triggers the
DRM logic to assume the license terms are being broken.

2) Complicated manual malware management

You may have to go after something "by hand", either because it's too
new for the av to detect, or the av doesn't consider it malware, as is
the case for much commercial malware and many bots.

When you do, you will have to ask; is this unexpected intrusion into
the system's integration or file set a part of the malware I'm after,
or the av's DRM? If I leave this, will I leave the malware in place?
If I kill this, will I find my av has died?


Finally, we come to whether the putative better efficacy is worth the
hassles and/or extra cost.

I saw a study of commercial malware (cm) scanners that indicated the
difference between using a compitent free product and the best fee
product was smaller than using a compitent free product and two
compitent free products. IOW, better results were obtained using two
free scanners vs. one best-of-breed feeware scanner.

This has long been the case with AdAware and Spybot; just about any PC
infected with multiple cm will have some that are detected by one and
not the other, and vice versa. Adding MSAS Beta as a backstop often
brings to light a few more that both missed - but I'd never assume
MSAS would catch everything that AdAware and Spybot caught.

When it comes to interventional (clean-up) scanning, I'm finding the
same applies to av. AntiVir 6 detects the most stuff, especially bots
and droppers, but I would not assume that it finds everything that
F-Prot, McAfee, SysClean andeven Stinger would find.

So rather than chase the prefect av, I'd reduce dependence on av as
far as possible, then corral all incoming material through a subtree
that can be manually scanned via additional on-demand av, such as
BitDefender, AntiVir in manual mode, SysClean, etc.

The other drawback of feeware av is that it dies once a year. All the
extra malware the feeware scanner may have caught in the last 12
months, may be outweighed by the amount of stuff that can walk in
between the time the av refuses to update, and management gets their
act together to renew or replace the expired product.

In my market, the only value I'd find compelling enough to pay for,
would be a vendor-supported formal scanning and cleaning facility,
such as encapsulated as Avast for Bart. Many av had "rescue" scanners
that ran from off-HD DOS boot, but this isn't enough in an age of NTFS
and HDs over 137G in capacity.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

In article <6inhr11907o7fj5k2riq0sn0nde4ijr5mm@4ax.com>,
cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 23:57:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> >> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:33:12 GMT, Leythos wrote:
> >> >cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org says...
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:32:59 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>
> >> >> 2) Whether the settings were as default, and what they were
> >> >Several Systems as follows:
> >> No, I meant the NAV settings...
>
> >Default, only the AUTOMATIC Startup Scan was removed if added by the
> >default install.
>
> OK. Does it scan all file types, or just ones it expects to be risky?

The default IS ALL FILES, in the OLD DAYS it was defaulted to specific
files, they learned their lesson many years ago and the default is ALL
FILES.

>
> >> >Both systems responded the same after the initial startup - meaning that
> >> >one the system was booted, loggeded in, and had time to complete loading
> >> >the background apps, there was no detectable difference between the
> >> >systems running with/without Norton 2006 AV.
>
> >> Did starting up take longer?
>
> >Yes, and I fully expected it too - when you add something that inserts
> >itself into the load it's going to take longer.
>
> Well, that's one of the "bloat" factors; let's not gloss over that.
> Is the adverse impact of NAV 2006 greater thabn other av?

You could say that about many things, the more you load at startup the
longer startup takes - since this is true with EVERY application like
it, NAV is no better/worse, non-issue.

> Another bloat factor is memory useage, in the pure sense, rather than
> how well it works with recommended amounts of memory. Testing on XP
> with 128M RAM would be a good metric there. That's not only relevant
> to such systems, but a better predictor for systems with "enough" RAM
> that have other underfootware or foreground-app bloat factors.

Wrong, Windows XP needs 128 just for itself, anyone using Windows XP
with 128MB of RAM is not doing anything with the computer or just
doesn't really care that the machine is SLOW. 192MB is the real Minimum,
256MB if you don't want to hit the swap file on boot, and 512MB if you
leave all the eye-candy enabled and want to do anything with MS Office
2003.

So, anyone testing on 128MB of RAM will find that ALL AV real-time
scanners that provide quality protection will be a problem.

> >> Did you try switching between OE user identities?
> >
> >We don't use Outlook Express, only Outlook 2000/2003 or Thunderbird, so
> >switching was simple.
>
> Cool. I and mine generally use Eudora rather than OE etc. and the way
> this stores attachments obviates the need for mail scanning heroics.
> The issue with changing identities in OE was so severe that the user
> elected to abandon the NAV they paid for and use AVG instead.

I've never seen NAV (or any other) cause a problem with OE or Outlook
while doing real-time email scanning. I know that it's caused problems
for people (based on Usenet reports), but I've never seen it.

> >LOL, I don't think that Adobe Acrobat 7 is faster than 5 was, in fact,
> >it's had a lot of problems. I also don't think that NAV 2006 is faster
> >than NAV 2003 was, but it also does a LOT more than 2003 did.
>
> OK. Sometimesa reputation for bloatedness can persist after the
> bloating trend is stopped, allowing better performance as hardware
> catches up. I found this to be the case with MS Office, with Office
> 2000 as the last "yuk" waypoint. There was a time that MS Office
> raised the hardware bar significantly higher than the OS of the time;
> I think that is less the case these days.
>
> Acrobat Reader 6.xx was a pig, after 5.xx; I don't expect 7.xx to be
> as light as 5.xx but if it's better than than 6.xx, that's good. My
> mileage suggests that it is so, even with the sneaky "run the bloaty
> stuff at OS startup" feature ripped out.
>
> Also, Adobe finally got there act together on point-version
> distribution. With the 7.0.1-3 updates (mandated by exploitable
> defects), you had to first download 7.0.0 and then serially apply the
> updates. When 7.0.5 came out, it was; install 7.0.0 then 7.0.5, you
> can skip the .1-3 at least. Right now, you can download 7.0.5 as the
> complete package as nature intended, plus (from ActiveX-killing
> Firefox) you can download the whole thing without passing through some
> ghastly "live-install" stub or proprietary downloader.
>
> So it seems that dumb-ass vendors *can* learn old tricks (i.e. the
> same tricks everyone else got right from the time the earth cooled).
>
> >> I'd still avoid NAV, in view of post-"uninstall" remnants and DRM.
>
> >To each his own
>
> Well, let's discuss each of these in turn.
>
>
> It's well-known that Norton uninstallation is a PITA; in fact it can
> be very difficult to getr your installation back clean after it's been
> "Nortoned". I logged one such case; first I did the "front door"
> uninstallation methods (Add/Remove etc.) and it woulldn't uninstall
> unless I waved the CD at it. Then it left a ton of junk, so I
> downloaded and ran the post-uninstall cleanup tool from their web
> site. This still left a ton of junk in the registry, in fact I had to
> manually search and kill more stuff than the tool had cleared.

Sorry, while I've seen the reports myself, I've not experienced it in
the 28+ years I've been using computers (yea, norton was not around back
then). Norton has always uninstalled on every system without a problem,
same for Symantec - talking ONLY of AV products.

> I've heard folks seriously suggest a need to "just" wipe and rebuild
> to get rid of Norton. Now I know there are folks that suggest "just"
> wipe and rebuild whenever a gnat farts in the vicinity; these aren't
> the usual gang of idiots, but folks who I respect at the tech level.
>
> Now the loss of an installation is something I see as a Grade-A
> disaster; basically the outcome that maintenance tools such as av are
> there to prevent. Any software that precipitates this crisis is unfit
> for use, and certainly not worth paying for.

I've not had this experience, and we've got 1500+ systems running
Symantec Corp or NAV (2003+) on them.

> So when it comes to (re-)evaluating core software, this issue needs to
> be tested. Can its uninstaller wipe its own butt at last?

Norton AV and Symantec AV seem to remove the application just fine for
us. While I don't really care if they leave traces in the Registry, I
have not found any uninstall to fail yet.

> DRM concerns are two-fold. First, a vandor who is prepared to damage
> your interests on the assumption that you may be damaging theirs - and
> to automate this, as well - is not a vandor I want to depend on, much
> less support through any sort of payment. The trust isn't there.

Sorry, Symantec/Norton have not caused any problems with the kiddies
that use P2P apps, not caused any other problems with their AV products
that I know of, so I don't see the DRM issue at all.

If you want to worry about DRM, check the new laws that are specific to
HDTV Signal Retransmission.

> Second, and especially with an antivirus, there are specific practical
> considerations. Malware is software that adds unwanted functionality
> by stealth, and it's ironic to choose an anti-malware product that
> does exactly this. There are two practicalities:

Well, I've not seen Symantec / Norton Add anything unwanted to my
systems, please be specific about what you have that you didn't want.

> 1) Increased (exploitable?) fragility
>
> Once there is a poison-pill payload built into the product, this can
> be triggered by malware - just smash up something that triggers the
> DRM logic to assume the license terms are being broken.
>
> 2) Complicated manual malware management
>
> You may have to go after something "by hand", either because it's too
> new for the av to detect, or the av doesn't consider it malware, as is
> the case for much commercial malware and many bots.
>
> When you do, you will have to ask; is this unexpected intrusion into
> the system's integration or file set a part of the malware I'm after,
> or the av's DRM? If I leave this, will I leave the malware in place?
> If I kill this, will I find my av has died?
>
>
> Finally, we come to whether the putative better efficacy is worth the
> hassles and/or extra cost.
>
> I saw a study of commercial malware (cm) scanners that indicated the
> difference between using a compitent free product and the best fee
> product was smaller than using a compitent free product and two
> compitent free products. IOW, better results were obtained using two
> free scanners vs. one best-of-breed feeware scanner.
>
> This has long been the case with AdAware and Spybot; just about any PC
> infected with multiple cm will have some that are detected by one and
> not the other, and vice versa. Adding MSAS Beta as a backstop often
> brings to light a few more that both missed - but I'd never assume
> MSAS would catch everything that AdAware and Spybot caught.
>
> When it comes to interventional (clean-up) scanning, I'm finding the
> same applies to av. AntiVir 6 detects the most stuff, especially bots
> and droppers, but I would not assume that it finds everything that
> F-Prot, McAfee, SysClean andeven Stinger would find.
>
> So rather than chase the prefect av, I'd reduce dependence on av as
> far as possible, then corral all incoming material through a subtree
> that can be manually scanned via additional on-demand av, such as
> BitDefender, AntiVir in manual mode, SysClean, etc.
>
> The other drawback of feeware av is that it dies once a year. All the
> extra malware the feeware scanner may have caught in the last 12
> months, may be outweighed by the amount of stuff that can walk in
> between the time the av refuses to update, and management gets their
> act together to renew or replace the expired product.
>
> In my market, the only value I'd find compelling enough to pay for,
> would be a vendor-supported formal scanning and cleaning facility,
> such as encapsulated as Avast for Bart. Many av had "rescue" scanners
> that ran from off-HD DOS boot, but this isn't enough in an age of NTFS
> and HDs over 137G in capacity.

While I understand your concerns, I don't see how this applies to Norton
AV, it works on a marginally maintained system, works well, and is as
good as any of the others, better in most all cases, and is easy to
understand and use.

I can make this statement - I've never had a system running a Updated
version of Norton AV or Symantec AV that was compromised. I can not make
that statement about McAfee or AVG as I've had machines compromised
while running those products with updated definitions.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me