richdelbGo Hawks Go Premium Member join:2003-01-22 Algonquin, IL |
richdelb
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 8:52 am
OH NO !!This is HORRIBLE. I absolutely HATE Norton. The fact that Comcast offered McAfee for free all this time was a HUGH benefit to me. This REALLY diminishes the overall value of Comcast to me.
I have never had anything but problem after problem with Norton in the past. This really sucks. = ( | |
|
| trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
1 recommendation |
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 8:57 am
Re: OH NO !!Yeah, that is the past, as in years ago.
The Norton of today isn't the Norton of years ago. It isn't bloated, it doesn't require its own CPU, it doesn't require half a GB of RAM to run, it doesn't slow the machine down, it uninstalls cleanly, it installed in under a minute, etc. All around a hell of a lot better than Norton of years ago.
I can't say that about McCrappy. You practically have to format your machine to remove McCrappy. You may as well call it a virus with how it latches onto your system and won't let go. | |
|
| | richdelbGo Hawks Go Premium Member join:2003-01-22 Algonquin, IL |
richdelb
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 9:01 am
Re: OH NO !!said by trparky:I can't say that about McCrappy. You practically have to format your machine to remove McCrappy. You may as well call it a virus with how it latches onto your system and won't let go. Yea, that's my next problem: Getting a clean uninstall of McAfee.... It wasn't an issue until now, at least for me, because it was working. | |
|
| | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
1 recommendation |
jester121
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 11:58 am
Re: OH NO !!Statements in the referenced thread indicate that the Norton 360 installer is very adept at removing McAfee cleanly during its own installation process. | |
|
| | | |
to richdelb
Before you uninstall McAfee, download Revo Uninstaller from Download.com. (Dont get pro, its a trial version) Then uninstall with that program.....it gets rid of EVERYTHING for every application. Cleans out old registry items and everything when you're done uninstalling specific programs. Does wonders, and is better than the typical Add/Remove Programs in your Control Panel. Good luck.
Casey | |
|
| | Vadork join:2005-09-01 Winnebago, IL |
to trparky
I wouldn't know exactly what you're doing, but my experience using Norton 360 on four machines were all bad. Prolonged boot and shut down, on top of sluggish UI. After removing them after a year, I could see a noticeable difference in performance. One laptop used that was two years old boots in two minutes than five. :/ | |
|
| | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH
2 recommendations |
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 10:15 am
Re: OH NO !!I'm using Norton Internet Security 2010 on all my machines and have no issues. | |
|
| | | | JeffConnoisseur of leisurely things Premium Member join:2002-12-24 GMT -5
1 recommendation |
Jeff
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 10:36 am
Re: OH NO !!said by trparky:I'm using Norton Internet Security 2010 on all my machines and have no issues. I see this is as great news for Comcast users. With Norton's 2009 product, it is completely unlike their products of the past. Around 2002, I swore I'd never run another piece of Norton software ever again. Now, Norton Internet Security is my favorite commercial suite. I too have no issues at all with NIS on many personal, family and friend's machines. | |
|
| | | | Vadork join:2005-09-01 Winnebago, IL |
to trparky
Ah, not the whole package of which I went with. Just the firewall and anti-virus suite with that I persume? | |
|
| | | |
BCSman to Vadork
Anon
2010-Jan-21 2:35 pm
to Vadork
Gotta Agree- I "tried out" Norton 360" from my ISP Earthlink and it brought my system to its knees( A Windows7 64 Bit with 4 GB memory and an 4 core phenom II 940 ATI4870 video) with its overhead slow response and intrusions into the operations of my system. Yanked that sucker, I did. I did a recovery from my Windows Home server rather than trust the Norton Clean un-install-never seems to work and leaves folders and registry entries after uninstall. I gave up on Norton after many years due to its overhead and questionable usefulness continuing to grow and diminish. Too bad because Norton was once a pretty decent suite! | |
|
| | | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
1 recommendation |
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 2:46 pm
Re: OH NO !!Yes, but there are three versions of Norton 360.
Version 1.0 - Based on really old, badly written 2008 code. Version 2.0 - Based upon Norton 2009 code. Version 3.0 - Based upon Norton 2010 code.
Version 3.0 is what you want, that's the streamlined, lean version. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: OH NO !!said by trparky:Version 1.0 - Based on really old, badly written 2008 code. Version 2.0 - Based upon Norton 2009 code. Version 3.0 - Based upon Norton 2010 code. I'm sorry, bad code is bad code. You can say well "Hey now Norton sucks 90% less!" but still, its that 10% that still sucks. They really have gone from bad to worse, McAfee was crap, we know this. Norton is far worse in many cases. Explain this, WHY is there a "Norton Uninstall Tool'' if the software works so well at uninstalling itself? AHA! That's because it DOESN'T. It leaves behind so much junk they have to create a separate tool just to help aid in removing leftovers. Great software there huh? | |
|
| | | | | | kevm5 Premium Member join:2007-03-05 1 edit |
kevm5
Premium Member
2010-Jan-23 11:09 am
Re: OH NO !!Norton is not far worse. Its far better then McAfee (IMO) since the 2009 version arrived. The forums are good and the support through the forums is excellent. Symantec is paying attention now. There is an uninstall tool because they have always had one. The normal uninstall uses the standard windows uninstaller. This has nothing to do with Norton. While its true that it could clean up better after itself, the same fact is true of many complex programs.
For years I would not use AV from either company, settling with AVG pro a few years back. However, Norton has made me a believer again with the 2009 - 2010 versions of NIS. | |
|
| | | | | | ShootToThrilTell The Truth Premium Member join:2004-06-07 Sherman Oaks, CA |
to biohazard326
Considering that i hated Norton all these years and didn't think i would ever say this, but stop talking out of your A@@ and go do some reading on Norton products for 2010, they have the best performance and virus removal workings that surpass NOD32 and Kapprapsky Source: » www.av-comparatives.org/ ··· 2009.pdf | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to trparky
I agree. I've been using Norton Internet Security 2009 (and currently on 2010) and I never had any major issues. This is both on Windows XP, Vista and 7 machines that I installed it on. It's much much faster and snappier than ever before. I wouldn't touch any Norton product before, but Symantec has really turned things around with its latest versions.
I'm not sure about McAfee though as I haven't touched it since VirusScan version 6. | |
|
| | |
NortonJunk to trparky
Anon
2010-Jan-21 1:07 pm
to trparky
Yeah right...
Its junk and does not uninstall cleanly...
I still have to run the Norton Removal Tool to correct issues with wireless after properly uninstalling pre-installed versions of Norton. No Thanks!
Comcast Internet CSRs are going to have their hands full unless Symantec has setup their own support line. How about keeping those calls to 8 min or less now? OMG cost per support call are out of control. | |
|
| | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH 1 edit
1 recommendation |
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 1:21 pm
Re: OH NO !!Please, take your false information and go find another bridge to hide under. | |
|
| | | | HangmnDon't Fight It...It's Inevitable Premium Member join:2000-04-08 Philadelphia, PA |
Hangmn
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 9:29 pm
Re: OH NO !!said by trparky:Please, take your false information and go find another bridge to hide under. WUT? Norton and McAfee are INFAMOUS for dirty uninstalls...and the constant upsell nags in their 'security centers'...give me a break..they are both viruses. I swear they both maintain 2 labs..one to MAKE the viruses they supposedly protect you from and the other to figure out bolder ways to embed their garbage on PCs | |
|
| | | | |
NortonJunk to trparky
Anon
2010-Jan-22 9:46 am
to trparky
Its not false information.
I don't think you really work out in the field supporting end users like I do on a daily basis.
Norton has a long reputation of being a bad product. If Symantec wants us to start using the newer versions, I have not seen their PR people trying very hard to make me want to switch back.
Do a road show... come to my town and show me. MS and lots of other vendors are always putting on tech events where they demo their new stuff.
I'm not going to put below average software on a client machine, only for them to get ticked off that they got infected. I don't keep customers that way. | |
|
| | | | | ShootToThrilTell The Truth Premium Member join:2004-06-07 Sherman Oaks, CA |
Re: OH NO !! | |
|
| | fldiver Premium Member join:1999-12-27 Jacksonville, FL |
to trparky
LOL, if you think that, you must be running the Norton of "yesterday" on a current PC; the footprint for Norton is ridiculous. On the corporate level SEP 11 is just about as bad. The problem with either of these vendors is their kitchen sink approach to security. On a retail level they both are pretty abysmal; but McAfee for one can be trimmed down to provide basic services without killing the entire PC's performance; I would expect the same of Symantec products; though I have never been impressed with their AV tools. | |
|
| | |
to trparky
I have used Norton Utilities back when it came out on a floppy disk set back when windows came out on 13 floppy disks. I have watched the Norton and his gang slowly evolve their program into a severe dictatorship of all sensible speed and functions of man's PC. Back a few years ago you just about had to throw out your computer to get rid of it totally, even with the "removal software". It was truly a nightmare!!!! (Politely said for those sensitive ears) I am putting the effort into this comment because I read all the bad reviews and was so worried that I even asked Comcast if I could still have McAfee. They said no. I installed Norton 2010 and have been using it for some time now. For what it is worth, I am telling all of you now that Norton finally got his tune together and I am impressed and very satisfied with the installation and the utilities that come with the Security Suite. I have fried many mother boards, toasted dozens of laptops, and have many built super PCs. This suite keeps my Vista Desktop and Sony Vio in top running shape and is very user friendly. I don't notice it's presence at all. It does a great job behind the scenes and only pops up occasionally to let you know what's going on. | |
|
| intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
to richdelb
Actually the version of Mcaffee I get from Cox is a much smaller footprint than the commercial off the shelf product and I like it. With that said, Comcast should have booked a deal with AVG or Avira....both are better than Norton and Mcafee. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: OH NO !!Last I checked AVG's detection rates weren't that great.
Also, Norton has the lowest resource footprint of anyone and is a well-respected name.
I'm thrilled they picked Norton. Now no Comcast customer has any reason to be unprotected. | |
|
| | | intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
Re: OH NO !!said by iansltx:Last I checked AVG's detection rates weren't that great. Also, Norton has the lowest resource footprint of anyone and is a well-respected name. I'm thrilled they picked Norton. Now no Comcast customer has any reason to be unprotected. what version? Norton 2010 here has a HUGE footprint. | |
|
| | | | trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2010-Jan-22 11:42 am
Re: OH NO !! Symantec Background Process 1 | Symantec Background Process 2 |
Here's the stats from Process Explorer. | |
|
| bdh join:2007-08-21 Little Elm, TX |
to richdelb
said by richdelb:This is HORRIBLE. I absolutely HATE Norton. The fact that Comcast offered McAfee for free all this time was a HUGH benefit to me. This REALLY diminishes the overall value of Comcast to me. I have never had anything but problem after problem with Norton in the past. This really sucks. = ( are you saying its make-or-break... basing your opinion of your ISP on what "free" services they provide? go to VZ, they now offer mcafee | |
|
| | richdelbGo Hawks Go Premium Member join:2003-01-22 Algonquin, IL |
richdelb
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 9:32 am
Re: OH NO !!No, of course not. Don't be silly.
The antivirus protections that ISP's offer is, 1: Not Free (you pay for the service, as the ISP's have included thiat as a "value added feature", and 2: Would not even be "free" at all if it was not in an ISP's best interest to try to keep the "bot nets" of unprotected machines off it's network.
If it wasn't offered as a "feature" of my account with Comcast (I.E. NOT FREE) I would, personally, be either buying protection (via McAfee, or whomever) or using one of the many free products that are out there. | |
|
| | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
fiberguy2
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 12:16 pm
Re: OH NO !!said by richdelb:The antivirus protections that ISP's offer is, 1: Not Free (you pay for the service, as the ISP's have included thiat as a "value added feature" When they added "Free" A/V, did they raise your bill? Then it's free. Value added service is a marketing term.. you know better. You're not paying for the A/V.. but yes... it's yours to use FREE so long as you are a customer.. well, even that's not true.. down load the A/V today.. cancel your service today, and you get to continue to use it for a year.. The way I see it, you get about $60 worth of software for free. | |
|
| | | | richdelbGo Hawks Go Premium Member join:2003-01-22 Algonquin, IL |
richdelb
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 4:06 pm
Re: OH NO !!Ok. You have a valid point. | |
|
| | | | fldiver Premium Member join:1999-12-27 Jacksonville, FL |
to fiberguy2
Uhmm..last I check Comcast raises my bill every year...I think they more and make up for their costs for McAfee; and that product is not $120.00; no one in their right mind would pay $120; heck not even the vendor charges that much for it. The real cost, when you get down to cost per node (given the number of Comcast nodes) is likely $10-15 | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: OH NO !!said by fldiver:Uhmm..last I check Comcast raises my bill every year...I think they more and make up for their costs for McAfee; and that product is not $120.00; no one in their right mind would pay $120; heck not even the vendor charges that much for it. The real cost, when you get down to cost per node (given the number of Comcast nodes) is likely $10-15 Hmmm.. funny.. First, I said it was $60 retail, not $120.. you seeing double? Second, last time I checked, Comcast hasn't raised the rates on HSI "every year" as you claim.. that's a pretty verifiable piece of information floating out there. HSI rates have stayed pretty sturdy for many years until just recently where modem rental fees, which are not 'required' went up a buck AND yes, there have been some systems that have increased the fee by about a buck or two... The many annual rate increases focused on the VIDEO portion of your bill. Oh... and retail, you get it for about $60 in stores... that's once license.. Comcast lets you install it on up to 5 computers at no additional charge.. I still see that as one hell of an incredible deal.. especially when there are still many players, dsl and cable, that don't provide any free security software. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to richdelb
said by richdelb:The antivirus protections that ISP's offer is, 1: Not Free (you pay for the service, as the ISP's have included thiat as a "value added feature", its not kaspersky but norton is better than mc afee. i wish cox would do that. | |
|
| | | | |
| |
to richdelb
I wish they struck a deal with Avira. A lot better anti-virus applications plus runs almost stealth on your system. Not a huge resource hog like Norton Anti-virus. Also Norton is a huge pain to uninstall and find the hidden registry entries. | |
|
| | •••••• |
| |
EricM to richdelb
Anon
2010-Feb-10 2:17 pm
to richdelb
I hate to see people who most likely know nothing of what they comment on say stupid stuff like this person.
Norton has changed. McAfee has always been crap. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD 1 edit |
pnh102
Premium Member
2010-Jan-21 8:59 am
LameToo bad there isn't an option to get a discount for people who are not interested in having Comcast provide them with anti-virus software. | |
|
| ••••••••• |
1 recommendation |
Norton > McAfeeIt's nice they have switched but seriously when will these ISPs stop trying to deny the fact that they are in reality just a pipe? I can't think of a single ISP "service" that I utilize. | |
|
| |
Re: Norton > McAfeeValue-added services make the customer "sticky" to a certain provider. E-mail used to be enough to keep stickiness in the dialup days. Now it's personal web space, included security suites, online backup, etc. If having AV included in their plans allows Comcast to raise rates by more than the cost per moth without losing any customers, or allows Comcast to keep customers that they would have lost to someone else, they've made a good business decision. | |
|
| | |
Re: Norton > McAfeeI understand what these services are *supposed* to accomplish. Does anyone actually stay with a particular ISP *because* of any of these services? | |
|
|
Comcast changing Anti-virus applications a bad move! Selecting an anti-virus application is like going down to your local home improvement store and deciding which bag of Manure is best. I stopped paying anti-virus extortion and installed Microsoft Security Essentials after uninstalling whatever crap the computer manufacture had already installed on my new laptop. Comcasts change will cause chaos for those customers with limited computer skills. Replacing an anti-virus application is no trivial process. McAfee and Norton are like two peas in a pod, both occasionally missing a new virus exploit and/or screwing up windows activation files. Why pay when I can get an adequate anti-virus application that is more integrated with the operating system then the big two's bologna. Furthermore there will be no finger pointing when an anti-virus update screws up windows activation and causes my operating system to be declared pirated. I think this will be a great opportunity for many customers to bail out of ISP provided anti-virus applications for Microsoft Security Essentials. Read catastrophe for Norton and McAfees customer base. | |
|
mobbo join:2005-04-13 Denton, TX |
mobbo
Member
2010-Jan-21 9:22 am
They both suck-Is your computer running slow and bogged down? Check! -Are there annoying popups and notifications? Check! -Do some programs not work? Check! -Does your computer take 3 minutes to boot? Check! -Are you unable to connect to multiplayer games? Check!
Nope, not a virus... you've got Norton. | |
|
| ••••••• |
1 recommendation |
Norton OnlineFamilyThe switch was good for me because it brought to my attention this nifty little free app called Norton OnlineFamily. My brother in law purchased the new version of Norton a couple of months ago and asked me to install it,I gave him a lot of free options but he wanted a name he could "trust" and he is the type of person who feels price = quality..anyway I installed it on is 3 computers and was very surprised it ran well and didnt seem to slow anything down,nothing like the Norton products I remember. | |
|
|
McAfee and Norton always caused problems for meJust use AVG, Avira or the Micro$oft thing. All are free. I never had issues with AVG. Using Avira now, seems ok. Never used the M$ thing. | |
|
| ••••• |
RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2010-Jan-21 12:56 pm
They Support their Macintosh UsersFirst the Disclaimer: I am NOT a Comcast User. I am a CableVision user (who may be switching to FIOS) and I am a Macintosh User. As someone who is not affected by Comcast's move but who is being offered "Free" Virus software by my current (and possible future) provider with the caveat that I must be running some variant of Windows (Mac users not being offered the Mac Version of the Anti-Virus package), I applaud Comcast for not treating their Macintosh Users as 2nd class customers. They make a special mention in their announcement that Mac users are being offered the same free downloads as the Windows users (just the Mac version of the Norton Software). | |
|
| ••• |
|
Both suck equallyIn my opinion both suck equally so it doesn't matter. Why? Norton is owned by Symantec, which I have had personal experience with and it is a CPU resource hog. McAfee - don't have any personal experience with...but if you can tell me what software I should purchase that would be great: » home.mcafee.com/Store/De ··· id=11344Their "store" is worse than wireless provider packages. Comcast users, do yourself a favor and download something that is free and that people have actually rated as good and trust: » www.downloadsquad.com/20 ··· windows/Personally, I recommend AVG. Actually I don't recommend an AV at all, but for those who need a security blanket for their own, or other user's, ignorance - use AVG. If you are really paranoid, and I mean PARANOID - get core force: » force.coresecurity.com/You will need to do a lot of configuring. | |
|
|
Weekends of extra beer money for meCan't wait to start seeing people bring me their PC's just to uninstall one stinkbug to put on another stinkbug /Should have gave them Avast Pro or MSE | |
|
|
PhillyMeeks
Anon
2010-Jan-21 3:21 pm
Chalk another one up for MSEI really dislike both McAfee and Norton. I tried Avira and Avast! but neither are truly free. Microsoft Security Essentials, as others have mentioned, is completely free, has great detection rates, and is not a resource hog. Try it out before you install one of these other software packages. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: Chalk another one up for MSEAs a Comcast customer who used to use McAfee (and beta-tests Symantec products, and Norton in particular), why did I switch to (and recommend) Microsoft Security Essentials as opposed to either?
1. It actually has fewer false-positives than either Symantec or McAfee A/V products. (Not just their retail products, but their enterprise products as well.)
2. Microsoft Security Essentials is completely free. Run Windows XP or better (even in a VM)? Then you're good. (It's also one of the few A/V programs that supports 64-bit Windows and Windows VMs.)
3. Microsoft Security Essentials is actually enterprise-grade software for the masses. Microsoft Security Essentials is the same as Microsoft's Forefront Client Security package for enterprises (down to the definition files). Like Forefront Client Security (and unlike Symantec Endpoint Security or Norton 360), it has one of the smallest footprints of any A/V product. However, it will pick up virii (and clean them as well) that other A/V software (notably Avira or Norton/Symantec) will either be unable to clean or misses entirely.
Symantec is getting better about resource usage; however, right now, MSE is still kicking its butt in both detection and footprint. The fact that it's free has them worried (and they should be). | |
|
1 recommendation |
Best News I've Heard All DayI routinely steer people away from McAfee, but it's so hard when it's free (even if not the complete package). I've been using Microsoft Security instead of the free McAfee.
This will be a huge benefit for Comcast customers. Thanks, Comcast, for getting something right! | |
|
|
wthWow....talk about adding insult to injury there. Like it wasnt bad enough that the McAfee software totally borks up your system, now they definitely want to kill your computer.....Norton....really? Come on... | |
|
lordfly join:2000-10-12 Homestead, FL |
Symantec, greatNorton is Symantec and Symantec sucks. It gives false positives on many useful IT tools and sucks memory when scanning. Of course if the Norton version is just the consumer version, maybe it does run better.
Personally I prefer Avast! | |
|
|
Smtck Sucks
Anon
2010-Jan-21 11:21 pm
Say it ain't so!I swore I'd never install another Symantec product in my life just last year! Contacting sales in India was HELL! That's right not support but they moved sales to India! Had a hell of a time getting the codes even after purchase. Symantec Mail Security for Exchange was the product, damn thing never worked right and just hogged the processor. Never again.
-System Admin for 15+ years, believe me, Symantec is crap. Back in the day, Peter Norton knew what he was doing, but he's long gone from this crap. | |
|
|
DsvidJ
Anon
2010-Jan-22 1:35 am
Norton Vs. McafeeI was who hated Norton too. Norton users became unsatisfied with Norton with its performance issue and diminished protection over the years. But most of what I heard was Norton is slow and it a resource hog over the years . All of this may have been true in the past but this new ver3-2010 version seems much faster and performs a whole lot better than previous editions. For starters Norton has fewer false positives than Mcafee. Next if you check your computer's LAN adapter config, after the "Client for Microsoft Networks" module is one called "Symantec Network Intermediate Filter Driver". I never saw a Mcafee driver in my Network setup. If you have issues with the "Symantec Network Intermediate Filter Driver" please don't disable it. You open a backdoor when you do. Norton beats all the free ones hands down. I am not a Norton fan, I prefer Kaspersky. But in these tough times Value Added stuff can help easy the pain in my and your wallet while providing above average protection. | |
|
quantum3 Premium Member join:2007-02-18 Hixson, TN |
quantum3
Premium Member
2010-Jan-22 4:46 am
kaspersky vs norton ?what do you guys think of kaspersky? my subscription is running out in a few days and i am tempted to try norton. any incite between the 2 would be very helpful. | |
|
|
Open Mind
Anon
2010-Jan-22 7:07 am
NortonI see a lot of opinions here, very little fact. Here is my two cents. I have 6 boxes running Norton Internet Security 2009 & 2010 versions (from 6 year old Pentiums with 256 megs of ram, to new I7s with 12 gigs of ram), and you don't even know it's there, unless it intercepts some malware. I also have 5 boxes running MSE in LOW risk environments, so far, so good. I used to use Avast on those, changed recently. I personally don't like McAffee, but that is based on old experience. Prior to 2009 versions I was ready to bounce Norton, but they got their act together again. | |
|
| |
Lunac
Member
2010-Jan-22 10:08 am
Re: Nortonquote: Prior to 2009 versions I was ready to bounce Norton, but they got their act together again.
You "was ready", but didn't? You mean to tell me you actually ran versions 2003 to 2008, or around there? Well that tells me a lot about how much your opinion and judgment is worth, and how much common sense you really got. What would have taken for you to actually drop Norton? Maybe if Norton tried to reformat your systems every day, instead of every other day? | |
|
|
.I love how all the McAfee slappys come out with the I hate Norton! When Comcast first offered FREE McAfee everyone was all, I HATE MCAFEE. Make up your minds. | |
|
|
Nobody mentioned this but...Okay, I see a lot of people who are bashing Norton/Symantec still... and I have long left McAfee and Norton years ago. I cannot say if they are still the same today or if they have changed. That's something for everyone to find out for themselves, which they should if they wish to judge a product. But I'll give props to those who are actually defending Norton for once, since, yes, they have changed drastically over the years. And they have. How? Why do we say that? Well... Despite all of you Norton haters out there still thinking that it's the same ol' same ol', nobody and I do mean nobody has mentioned » www.av-comparatives.org/ at all. No mentioned even though I skimmed through the thread to see if someone has the knowledge to really point it out. But nobody ever bothered. Is it something that you should put all of your trust and faith on? Still, judgment of a product is still reserved only to those who actually tried it out. I cannot say that I have tried Norton, McAfee, AVG, or Avira. But I have tried ClamAV and Microsoft Security Essentials. Both are decent. And MSE is a quick little bugger. It may not be the full-fledged commercial-like product that you see in other software. But it is something and has the basic essentials there. If you still doubt that Norton is worth a try now, I suggest you look through the site that I linked to earlier. Read through it and do a bit of reading and researching. Not everything is a constant once you considered one iteration of a product to be junk. | |
|
| Ulmo join:2005-09-22 Aptos, CA |
Ulmo
Member
2010-Jan-22 6:55 pm
Re: Nobody mentioned this but...Thank you for reminding people of that.
AVG used to be good, not so much now. ESET was OK, now it's getting long in tooth, but who knows it may stay ok. McAfee was always pretty bad. I've had trouble with "Norton" but didn't know which version I was using. But the point is, things change. | |
|
| fldiver Premium Member join:1999-12-27 Jacksonville, FL |
to sixshot
I personally run Linux. A lot of threats these days come from the web; and a lot of threats come from suspicious websites. If you use WOT, you are likely to stay out of trouble. I encourage anyone who does not know what WOT is to check the out. It's free (just about anything I recommend these days is). » www.mywot.com/Also, use a browser like Chrome or Firefox with AdPlus and No-Script addons. I run AV periodically to check for any sneaky products that might try to get on my PC, but I do not use any time of real time AV product. -Dan | |
|
|
|