|
Posted by Leythos on December 31, 2005, 10:55 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
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
|
|
Posted by Tom [Pepper] Willett on December 31, 2005, 11:41 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Sorry, you are wrong. I have plenty of memory.
Stop second guessing people. I'm not inexperienced when it comes to
computers.
Tom
| 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
|
|
Posted by Leythos on December 31, 2005, 12:04 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> 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
|
|
Posted by cquirke (MVP Windows shell/use on January 1, 2006, 2:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>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.
>| 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
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
|
|
Posted by Leythos on January 1, 2006, 3:33 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> 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
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | some good free program links | January 2, 2007, 1:50 am |
| Best Anti-Virus Program - Even if Not Free! | October 23, 2006, 4:30 pm |
| Free Anti-virus program | November 1, 2006, 1:46 pm |
| Re: Free Anti-virus program (again) | December 16, 2006, 6:29 pm |
| New Anti Virus Program to run With Free Downloadable Software from Shareware | November 30, 2005, 9:56 pm |
| Anti-Virus program: Free avast! 4 Home Edition | April 9, 2006, 9:10 pm |
| Cheap but good antivirus software? | March 22, 2006, 5:12 am |
| free virus protection | April 21, 2007, 3:28 pm |
| Re: Free access to several paysites! Free movies - games - software - mp3 - and more! | January 20, 2006, 9:56 am |
| says the name of best free Antivirus? | December 22, 2006, 4:38 pm |
|
XML site map