|
Posted by Leythos on January 1, 2006, 10:02 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
says...
>
> > 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.
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
|
|
Posted by Charlie Tame on January 2, 2006, 12:49 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> says...
>>
>> > 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.
>
> 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
|
|
Posted by cquirke (MVP Windows shell/use on January 1, 2006, 6:36 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >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
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
|
|
Posted by Leythos on January 1, 2006, 6:57 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> >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
|
|
Posted by cquirke (MVP Windows shell/use on January 2, 2006, 3:48 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>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
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
|
| 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