|
Posted by Charlie Tame on January 1, 2006, 9:53 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> says...
>>
>> > 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
| 
XML site map