| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Norton | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 29 2009, 08:19 PM (669 Views) | |
| Viral. | May 29 2009, 08:19 PM Post #1 |
Member
  ![]](http://209.85.62.24/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
This used to be by far the most used anti-virus as far as I know, but for some reason people hate it now  . What's actually wrong with it?
|
 |
 
|
| mcteeth | May 29 2009, 10:40 PM Post #2 |
Oh, Comely.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_AntiVirus#Criticisms I never liked it when we had it some number of years ago. I can vouch for the uninstallation criticisms on Wikipedia---it was a real pain when we decided to oust it. Otherwise it consumed a lot of resources and I usually turned it off when I was using the computer. But my experience may be outdated. 
|
|
|
|
| Brandon | May 30 2009, 12:31 AM Post #3 |
 
|
Some versions of it would inject Javascript into web pages you visited. I recall in the early beta days of ZB that the injected JS broke parts of ZB. Hence this little chunk of code in ZB's HTML:
Edited by Brandon, May 30 2009, 12:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jory | May 30 2009, 12:36 AM Post #4 |
 
|
I'm missing one thing on that list: Regardless of what hardware you have in your PC, NAV will cause it to slow down, hogging loads of memory and CPU time. (And you still get viri. :P) |
|
|
|
| Fission | May 30 2009, 01:07 AM Post #5 |
SRS BSNS
|
I'm betting the only reason it was ever widely-used was manufacturer pre-installment. This computer came standard with some version of Norton, which I eventually became so pissed off at that I flat-out removed it, which was almost as difficult as removing a leech with you fingers when they are covered in lard. Not only is it slow and ineffective, there are many, many free alternatives. |
|
|
|
| Tim | May 30 2009, 05:27 AM Post #6 |
Captain Cupcake
|
Anti-virus programs are slow and take up a lot of resources, Norton seems to be the worst. Even though I am on Windows, I don't actually have a firewall or anti-virus program. Not worth the performance hit I would get by having one. Suicidal? Maybe, but I don't download crap, or open attachments, so I am not too worried. |
|
|
|
| mcteeth | May 30 2009, 08:16 AM Post #7 |
|
Oh, Comely.
|
The need for anti-virus software is overblown anyway. They don't prevent the user from doing something stupid. That's the user's job. They aren't useless, but people should be aware that they're for "after the fact" treatment and not a preventative measure. I guess "you'll only need this in a jam, here's some education instead" doesn't sell though. 
|
|
|
|
| Aaron | May 30 2009, 08:43 AM Post #8 |
Green Rocks Blue Socks!
|
Even though I agree I hate that argument. Just because something isn't a preventive measure and is used after the fact to help "clean up" doesn't mean it isn't valid. Why have a first aid kit? Why have a fire extinguisher, etc. All of these are used After the fact, besides even "safe" users can become infected by viruses/adware/spyware/malware, back in 2007 there was an exploit in google ads that downloaded a virus (or trojan or something) in to people's computers. Other then using a firewall, and visiting only sites you know/trust (which doesn't mean they could be hacked/cracked and a virus/trojan put in to it), the only other protect I know of is to use Mac, Linux, Unix, or something else other then Windows.  |
|
|
|
| mcteeth | May 30 2009, 11:15 AM Post #9 |
|
Oh, Comely.
|
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say it was an invalid security measure, but it would be more useful if people understood its purpose and educated themselves on safety.  Other measures can be taken, eg. using add-ons like noscript or the equivalent methods for browsers other than Firefox (I think Opera has this sort of functionality built in, just disable Javascript and plugins and selectively enable them for websites). This can substantially lower your risk. The hardest part is knowing what to do and where to find information, and that's really unfortunate. I don't have any answers for that besides asking people you know and gaining experience at making search engines give you the results you want. Edited by mcteeth, May 30 2009, 11:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
| FearKiller | May 31 2009, 09:48 AM Post #10 |
www.fearkiller.net
|
I hope you're browsing around under a standard user account and not one with admin rights. My opinion on Norton is that it's antivirus is ok, but it's security suite that comes with the firewall and all that other stuff is terrible. I wouldn't install Norton on any computer with low resources as well for reasons already stated and there are many free alternatives such as Avira and Avast. My security setup involves Avast Antivirus backed up by the protective host files provided by Spybot's immunize feature and Spywareblaster. My router also catches some viruses before they even hit the computers and openDNS helps with protection from adware and phishing attacks. |
|
|
|
| Moonface | May 31 2009, 02:30 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
|
I used to detest Norton a few years ago, then used McAfee and hated that more than anything ever to go on my PC. I got Norton 360 a while back, and must say I love it. Works much faster than any of the older versions of Norton I used, and hardly ever becomes noticeable. AntiVirus always scanned when I didn't want it to and would take forever to load something, whereas 360 does it quicker and made my PC overall faster. |
|
|
|
| aeharding | May 31 2009, 06:21 PM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
Please, please, please use NOD32! For your own good! xD |
|
|
|
| ZapTap | Jun 1 2009, 09:43 PM Post #13 |
|
Want to talk? My inbox is always open
:D
|
the speed is a misconception Norton acknowledged the complaints and fixed it in Norton 360, I find it much better than McAfee ever was |
|
|
|
| Reid. | Jun 4 2009, 12:00 AM Post #14 |
|
C'est un piège!
|
Peoples' opinions of one version of a software from then on out are pretty misguided usually. Vista for example. I'm sure there were lots of people to think the next version was going to be utterly useless as well just because Vista is. Of course, from what I understand, they did a good job, but everyone was expecting it to be horrible. 
|
|
|
| Dale | Jun 26 2009, 12:11 AM Post #15 |
TeleArena Gold
|
I'm still hooked on Nortons AV (plain version no 360 or what ever) and buy a 3 computer licenese (typo) every year. With lots of ram I dont even know its running.
Edited by Dale, Jun 26 2009, 12:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Technology Chat · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:05 PM Nov 23
