Why do people hate Norton?

Firewall: It's resource-heavy, it's not very configurable, it causes problems with many of the things I do on the net. It blocks a lot of non-standard internet applications, such as bittorrent. It may be possible to work around those issues. My workaround was to get a product that just does what I want it to do.

Norton has been known to cause crashing, and system instability. It also generates alerts for things which are perfectly normal. It's too damn fussy.

Anti-Virus: Norton AV is quite simply defective. If you scan a PC with another product, after it has already been scanned with Norton, you will discover virii that Norton simply did not detect. It also suffers from the same problem of being resource-heavy.

Put simply, neither product is the best in their field, and why would you possibly wish to use anything less than the best? The odds are your PC is laden with virii and spyware, unless you run another product in addition to Norton. I will always recommend a product other than Norton, because Norton is not the best. It's a popular brand, but what kind of a basis is that to make a decision?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Gordon_Freeman

Thanks for the input - in the spirit of open debate, I am going to respond to some of the points raised.

Beg pardon, that is not the spirit of open debate. There's no way that you can call what you just did a debate. It's more just you giving your reasons to stick with Norton. I've got no quarrel with whatever you want to use, but you aren't really arguing from an open-minded standpoint with these kinds of arguments.

Quote:

It is true that Norton is resource heavy. But on today's computers is that really an issue? Yes, on my P2 I can tell its there, but on my P4, you would never know.

Maybe you don't use your PC for much of anything heavy-duty, but when I'm using Dreamweaver, Word, Firefox, my protection suite, and a few other things all at once, my resources become alarmingly scarce. My PC is an Althon 64 3000 with 1GB of ram, so it's more than adequate for those sorts of applications, in theory.

Quote:

Personal judgement of course, but I would never trust the integrity of my system to a free program. They have absolutely no obligation to you.

Nor do Norton, or McAfee. The shrink-wrap license specifically states that if the sofware b0rks your PC, or fails to prevent intrusions, that's tough luck, pal. Norton were a brand you could trust, when I started using computers. That was back when the company was still a small codeshop, before the days of Symantec. These days, the name has no connection to the products from back in the day. If you want to go for a name brand, feel free; don't believe that it makes you any safer though.

Quote:

something I have noticed too is that Nortons seems to be a lot more effective if you install it on your computer right after the windows installation.

Unless the computer is already virus-laden by the time you install it, it won't make a bit of difference. There's no technical basis for that to be the case. You're simply failing to take into account the fact that a computer is compromised as soon as it hits the net without protection these days. Withthat in mind, I always install whatever firewall and AV I'm currently using before I even plug in a network cable.

On the other hand, if you were to keep that same PC off the net, but install all kinds of safe software, such as MS shrinkwraps, freeware verified virus-free on another PC, etc.... and then install your protection suite, whether Norton or otherwise, the PC would be just as safe. Fact.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Gordon_Freeman

If you are having a heart attack, would you want to go to the hospital that has the freeware defibulator, or the hospital where they have the for-profit defibulator?

OK, now I just know you're just a corporate schill.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Gordon_Freeman

I am expressing favour for one side of the issue. How is that not a debate? I even concede a point!

It's not a debate when your mind isn't open. You're fixed quite firmly on the notion that Norton is the only way to go, in defiance of the facts. That's fine, and you can get as angry as you like, but it's not a debate.

Quote:

I have a similar system - vs.net ide, word, acrobat, inexplorer, full norton suite, winamp, and a host of utilities too numerous to mention concommitantly. Runs smooth as silk. Check for malware.

Dreamweaver is more resource-heavy than vs.net by a long way. Firefox is also more resource-heavy than iexplore. Naturally my system is entirely free of malware, but I have made application choices with a substantially greater memory footprint than yours. It's not about malware, it's about having a finite supply of RAM.

Quote:

Obligation in terms of support, and online resources. Who out there has not used Norton's reference to diagnose problems and find removal solutions. Yeah, that's free to use, but someone pays for it. They do an excellent job of helping you resolve your situation if you encounter trouble.

Oh well, if you want to change the meaning of the word "obligation", in order to prove your argument, then go right ahead. Personally, I've never found that I had a problem I couldn't handle with my own tools, but then my computer is maintained properly, and operated safely.

Quote:

Thanks for the lesson. I've never used a computer before.

You need lessons if you think that the stuff you are talking about has any technical basis. Don't post bullshit and then get upset when someone calls bullshit on it.

Quote:

My point isn't about how safe it keeps the computer, but about the user experience. If you install Norton late, even on a clean computer it doesn't seem to act as predictably as when you install it early. Not claiming this as a 'fact', just my impression.

Well there's no technical basis for that impression of yours, none whatsoever. There's nothing about it that supports your argument that Norton is the best, and it's actually pretty much a non-sequitur. Why'd you even post this thread if you're not interested in listening to what people have to say?

Quote:

It's a joke for Christ's sake.

Sure, you say that now. It's not just that one comment, anyway. You sound like a guy with an anti-OSS/FS agenda to push. Well, that's fine, like I said. We're all entitled to our delusions. Just don't expect me not to call it like I see it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Fjordor

Also, Soluzar, you are an idiot, and have no idea what a debate is. Openmindedness is a non-issue in debate. It is purely a presentation of differing viewpoints and the support behind them, viewing the personal opinions of the debaters as immaterial. Gordon can present whatever reasons he has for believing what he does, and you can present whatever reasons you have for believing what you do. Just because he presents a perception that clashes with your own does not mean it is not a debate. You do not know what you are talking about.

The fact that Gordon isn't listening to a word that anyone says makes him an idiot. My own idiocy is an unrelated matter, and one which I have no interest in disputingn with you. What's the point of starting a thread to 'debate' if you don't want to hear any other viewpoints than your own? His arguments are spurious, and his attitude stinks. I'm not going to let your accusation of idiocy spoil my day, to be blunt. Hell, I'm not even going to let it spoil my hour.

Gordon Freeman has not refuted any of the points which were presented to him, nor has he addressed any of the criticism aimed at Norton products. Yet still he congratulates himself on his open-mindedness, and continues to present spurious arguments against free solutions.

With regards to the suggestion that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd suggest that I at least know my stuff when it comes to the technical aspects of the debate, which is more than can be said for Gordon Freeman!

Most amazing jew boots