 
uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO | -yawn- Ehh, I never liked McAffee anyways.. Gimme Norton AV anytime.
--
Someone set up us the bomb! | |
|
 | Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: -yawn- Thank you! | |
|
| Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Norton AV is just as useless as McAffee. | |
|
| |
uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: -yawn- said by Foxbat121:
Norton AV is just as useless as McAffee.
They're more effective than McAffee... I like Norton.. plus I like F-Secure back when they were called F-Prot  Again, my WWiV BBS sysop roots show...
--
Someone set up us the bomb! | |
|
| | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: -yawn- I beg the diff. In the AV industry, NAV ranked bottom. The only thing Norton has is good marketing machine.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 16:41:35] | |
|
| | | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs: | Re: -yawn- ranking reference? supporting info?
I've been an avid user of Symantec products for many years now. I think their stuff is (largely) top-notch. If you're going to make such damning statements, please provide references.
KM | |
|
| | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Re: -yawn- How about worked in AV industry for years in the past and attened many AV conferences?
Foxbat | |
|
| | | | | | 
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| Re: -yawn- So you've worked in the industry for years... wonderful. Do you have data to back up your statements? I can say I've worked in the industry for years just like you, but that doesn't mean anything.
For what it's worth, I've seen first hand the difference between McAfee and NAV. I was getting tired of having to constantly repair issues caused by McAfee "updates". Numerous pc's no longer booting, GPFs, illegal operations, and numerous others. Not to mention the thousands of infected files that were found on machines where McAfee (with updates that lived) had been removed and NAV installed. McAfee just hasn't been able to keep up like they once were able to do. I've also noticed a growing number of OEMs that used to distribute McAfee as part of the software bundles but now offer NAV instead.
Face it, they just aren't what they used to be. | |
|
| | | | | | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: -yawn- If you read my other posts, I'm not interested using any of them. I'm not implicating McAfee is better than NAV.
And when I'm talking about the ranking, I'm not talking about free of bug or easy of use, I'm talking about how effective the product doing its job -- blocking the virus if you still remember what you need that in the first place.
It's the technology behind the product and how many viruses it can catch. As for the problem you encountered, read a few post down, someone had the similar issue with NAV as well.
If you like, I can sell you an 'anti-virus product' that so easy to use and deploy, never crash and update itself every day, except it never catch any real virus. But you don't really worry about that, right?
Foxbat | |
|
| | | redleaf
join:2000-09-12
| F-Prot ruled! Free and thorough.
As for Norton, they're good precisely because of their ease of use (I don't remember the last time I saw an ad for them.) Whenever someone asks about a good AV program the next question is usually is it easy to use. The AV program is useless if the user is scared to update it.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 18:32:11] | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Ever see the muck norton makes out of your registry? you have to format and reload to get that 'virus' out. I prefer AVP | |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | AV products live in the past They only protect you against what is old... | |
|
| Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: AV products live in the past Yeah, but Symantec comes up with a new signature file almost every other day.
--
Posting sig removed by system administrator. Sig cannot exceed 30GB in size. | |
|
| | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Re: AV products live in the past Guess how they created those files in the first place? Someone out there have to get infected first. Do you think the virus writers are so nice that they send Symantec a first copy when they releases the virus? | |
|
| | | 
soup du jour
I'm so bad... I should be in detention
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT
| Re: AV products live in the past said by Foxbat121:
Guess how they created those files in the first place? Someone out there have to get infected first.
really?
said by Foxbat121:
Do you think the virus writers are so nice that they send Symantec a first copy when they releases the virus?
yeah thats how it happens!
do you have a bug up your rear or did Symantec get smart and fire you? you sound like you have serious issues.
--
...inconceivable.... | |
|
the strokes$
join:2001-06-15
Louisville, KY | what do you suggest? So if neither NAV or mcafee are any good, what is?
NAV seems to work just fine for myself and my network... | |
|
| 
rangerlg9
join:2000-11-20
Houston, TX | Re: what do you suggest? I use InnoculateIT. It was just the right price and is not a resource hog like the big two. AVG is pretty good also. | |
|
| | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
| Re: what do you suggest? I agree 100%. Innoculate is top notch. Get some info on it. You'd be surprised as what it can do, especially since its so much smaller and runs so much better than NAV or Mcafee. Best part is that it does not kill your system resources like the others do. Especially Norton. That damd program practically is running in every crack of your PC.
Because of that problem I could not use Norton on my old PC. Thats when a friend told me about Innoculate. It also does not cost as much as either of those. I have been using Innoculate for 3 yrs now and am completely sold on it. I'd never recommend that any of my friends that have older PCs use the more popular brands. | |
|
| | | 
SeattleAD
join:2001-10-01
Maple Valley, WA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Innoculate Found this on the internet:
In June 2001, users of InoculateIT Personal Edition (IPE) received notification that the program was ending and being replaced with the eTrust EZ Antivirus subscription service through my-eTrust.com. At that time, Computer Associates also advised that support would be continued at no cost for existing users of IPE who chose not to migrate.
Since June, the level of virus activity on the Internet has increased to the point of making the older technology used in the IPE program obsolete. This adversely impacts our ability to maintain high quality support. Consequently, we have made the decision to end the InoculateIT Personal Edition program effective May 15th, 2002.
Between now and May 15th, users of InoculateIT Personal Edition will need to select a new Antivirus solution. We truly would like to keep you as a customer and in the spirit of the IPE program have established my-eTrust.com as the price leader among the leading Antivirus providers.
Antivirus Product
Price *
eTrust EZ Antivirus ($9.95 for IPE Users, limited time offer) $19.95
Trend PC-cillin $29.95
McAfee Virus Scan 6.02 $49.95
Norton AntiVirus 2002 $49.95 | |
|
| Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | I use common sense for over 10 years and never got infected by any virus. | |
|
| |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | Re: what do you suggest? yes I like that product as well. I also like an OS that doesnt try to run things to "help" you, unless you ask it to. | |
|
| | | quebecsurfer
join:2001-07-17
Ontario | Re: what do you suggest? agreed.
that is why i actually went back to win2k from winxp
It was too "in the face"
The os version of real player | |
|
| | |
| | 
husker59
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Cocoa, FL
clubs:
| Saying "I use common sense" implies that we are all dumb. I consider myself fairly computer literate and I was hit with a virus when I inadvertently shut down Zonealarm on my son's system.
A day later a Sub-seven trojan was loaded onto his system that opened several of his ports wide open to the internet and automatically reloaded at every reboot. This trojan even renamed itself base on your PCs name. So every PC it infected, it had a different name.
Instead of acting like "Mr. anti-virus know-it-all", why don't you try giving people useful advice. The "I use common sense" reasoning don't help anyone.
--
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face. - Deep Thoughts | |
|
| | | Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| Re: what do you suggest? Why don't you ask your son what he did to get the trojan in the computer in the first place. As far as I know, no trojan will ever enter into your system without some user intervention.
Common sense goes a long way. No software in the world can protect your from all the viruses and trojans. | |
|
| | | |
soup du jour
I'm so bad... I should be in detention
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Danbury, CT
| Re: what do you suggest? said by Foxbat121:
Common sense goes a long way.
or maybe we can go back to communicating with paper and pencils? or looking through the encyclopedia when we want to research something?
granted, most people don't know how viruses are spread and what they may look like, unless they are taught by some means, otherwise how would you explain how they spread as they do?
the only way to be 100% sure of not getting a virus is to leave your computers off, unplug your DSL, Cable or analog modem lines and go back to the prehistoric era.
--
...inconceivable.... | |
|
|
husker59
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Cocoa, FL
clubs:
| He wasn't on the PC in question at the time. It was sitting idle for two days without firewall protection. The weird32 trojan was loaded through an open port without any "user" intervention. I agree common sense can go a long way, but that won't cover everything.
So I take your answer to mean you use no anti-virus software?
P.S. No seat belt in the world can protect you in all crashes, but not using one at all would be foolish.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-10 22:23:11] | |
|
|
biscuitsjam
join:2000-09-03
Marietta, GA
| Norton Products We've been burned by Symantec 3 times in the past couple of years. We first got Norton Antivirus 2000 which constantly crashed and froze up the system. When the computers were upgraded to Windows 2000, we were told that it would no longer work and we would have to WAIT for their next version to be out and then PURCHASE it at full cost. The people on the phone were very rude and hostile. We escalated it all the way up to their VP at which point we were basically told to screw ourselves. After a letter to the Better Business Bureau, they gave us a full refund, though no apology.
We then went with Norton Antivirus 2001. It was a horrible memory hog and caused numerous crashes and freezes. It was patched, but the patch caused the live update feature to quit working. It became impossible to even uninstall the program. After reformatting the hard disk and then reinstalling Norton, the same symptoms persisted. Symantec wanted us to pay them money to get support, even if they were unable to resolve our problem
Most recently, we bought Norton Ghost 2002. The program doesn't have any crashing bugs, but the user interface is pretty poor. We also discovered that our regular backups of Windows 2000 were worthless when we swapped out the hard drives on one machine with newer, quieter, cooler drives. Apparently, Norton Ghost gets confused by hidden and protected files and does not back them up. Thus, of the 1.2 gigabyte Winnt directory, only 170 megabytes were backed up. It is possible to get around this problem, but you then end up backing up even the blank space (lots of time and CD's/hdd space wasted) and can not put the resulting image on a smaller hard drive (our newer drives were .4 gigabytes smaller). Symantec also provides no technical support for RAID drives, even though it does not state this anywhere in the documentation that comes in the box. If you are not using RAID drives, they will provide support, but only at a steep fee. Our conclusion: Norton Ghost does little other than lull you into a false sense of security.
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me. Screw me three times, I must be an idiot. Needless to say, I will not purchase another Symantec product and will strenuously attempt to convince others to do likewise.
-Biscuits
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 20:06:53] | |
|
| Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA | Re: Norton Products Like I said, Symantic has very good marketing machine but don't have any programmers. Anyone know where Peter Norton is now?
Same thing can be said for AOL.
Foxbat | |
|
| 
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth
| Personally I've always had nothing but ease when using Norton products. I too am an ex-McAfee user and found their products to be very unorganized. I bought Norton Systemworks, and the suite that has a Virus Checker and Firewall, and I couldn't be happier with it. I intend on buying both for my Macintosh soon as well.
btw, anyone hear about McAfee (Network Associates) working with the government? I heard they were in cahoots, but do not know/remember to what extent. This troubles me because Network Associates now runs PGP. | |
|
| |
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth
| Re: Norton Products Also, I seem to remember Network Associates contacting the government last year asking them to "shut down the internet". Funny stuff. It actually involved some poster on dslreports.com who was contacted by the FBI when he released the information publicly. Again, I don't know the specifics but I nearly lost it when I heard that Network Associates wanted the government to "shut down the internet". Basically what happened as I remember it was they had a virus problem they could not deal with timely, one that was causing a lot of chaos, and their only mode of thinking was to shut the entire internet down. Amazing. | |
|
| | | biscuitsjam
join:2000-09-03
Marietta, GA | Re: Norton Products Have any links to articles about it perchance?
-Biscuits | |
|
| | | |
MrTangent
join:2001-12-28
Earth | Re: Norton Products Actually the two links provided in the original article have info.  | |
|
| | | | |
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Re: Norton Products I remember what you are talking about. Happened sometime last year. But I don't recall them asking to have the net shut down. | |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| AV comparison I have used NAV at home for several years now. Started out with McAfee, but my personal thoughts on it are it sucks! Update feature really blows chunks! It caused many more hang ups in the few months I had it than NAV has in the 4 years of it at home. | |
|
fission2
join:2001-03-12
East Petersburg, PA
| NAI can royally screw a computer I'm glad to see this lawsuit come about. As a system administrator of hundreds of machines, I have worked with NAI products, and can only say I called NAI and cancelled our contracts with them for their total virus protection suite. Installation was trouble, so was uninstallation. The virus drivers didn't load right, the program would fail, then the uninstall wouldn't work. ...on and on...kept giving us trouble...
SO, I switched every computer to NAV CE, and it's running perfectly, no flaws! | |
|
|
the strokes$
join:2001-06-15
Louisville, KY | Re: NAI can royally screw a computer i'm in the same boat - 100 or so workstations, started with NAI products that were buggy at best and a royal pain in the ass at worst.
the corporate edition seems to be smooth as velvet. | |
|
| |
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX | Re: NAI can royally screw a computer I concur. I too have switched our machines to NAV CE and strangely enough, there seems to be much fewer problems with virus infections. Go figure.. | |
|
maedata
join:2000-10-06
Hilton Head Island, SC
| NAI and Norton Products are one our banned list We maintain a list of software that is banned on all the networks we manage, if a user installs anything on the list its a billable.
Both all NAI and Norton Products are on that list. NAI burned one of our customers on Netshield 2 year contract, and Norton causes to many problems and latency.
We use CAI InoculateIT across the board. No latency and WAN managabled. Its a corporate Level Product so you wont find it on the shelves anywhere. (unlike McAfee and Norton AV which are consumer products) | |
|
| 
flyeyes
@64.130.x.x
| Re: NAI and Norton Products are one our banned list Norton Anti-virus Corporate Edition is a corporate level product. Works great. I have hundreds of machines hooked to a parent server. Automatic client scans, automatic dat updates all working fine and require no enduser participation. All visible and administratable from a central console. | |
|
|
netviper13
@206.52.x.x
| NAV is much better The only computer in our house that has ever been infected with a virus was a computer running Mcaffee. It was a harmless virus that was just annoying, but I decided to load NAV to see if anything else was on there. Turns out that the system (my parents' computer) had some nasty trojans as well.
I kicked Mcafee like a bad habit and have used NAV ever since, and needless to say none of our computers have ever seen a virus again.
Also, Foxbat, sorry but common sense can't prevent everything. If you would have happened to have been running IIS 5.0 during the Nimda virus time and wouldn't have had it patched, you would have been infected with no intervention. | |
|
|
|
|
·
Not again...