Why do people hate Norton?

One thing I have noticed consistently across many different kinds of message boards, is that no one recommends Norton Firewall or anti-virus when the question of Internet Security is raised. In fact many responders dissuade the poster from getting Nortons. Why is that?

I have had Nortons for as many years as I have had broadband, and have not had any issues or problems at all. It is unobtrusive, updates often, inexpensive and effective.

I am not being a shill here, just curious to know where the bad feelings come from.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

Configurable - I have not found that Nortons interferes at all with my online gaming, bit torrents, my home network, or my web server. I found the configuration settings to be intutive, although maybe claims they are not extensive are grounded.

Resources - 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.

Cost - 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.

Last point - 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. If you wait until many other programs are installed, or heaven forbid, the computer is already infected, you will not have a satisfying experience.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Ascendancy

What does this mean?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Arainach

And non-free ones don't? Companies trying to make a profit cut corners in quality and security to keep costs down and stick to a schedule. Free programs are written so that a good program exists without the ulterior motive of money.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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

Quote:

Maybe you don't use your PC for much of anything heavy-duty,

we can't all be as cool as you...

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

It's a joke for Christ's sake.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

There used to be a bug in Norton Anti-Virus, maybe about editions around 5-7 years ago, that if you uninstalled Norton, it removed a file or edited your registry or corrupted something...I don't remember quite what, but it did something that rendered all your network connections useless. This flaw was acknowledged by Norton and they conceeded that there was no solution, there was no way to repair these problems without completely formatting your computer and reinstalling Windows.

Since then I'm off Norton products for good.

That's a sly way to retain your clients. Let them leave only under serious penalty!

How ya doing, buddy?

This thread got a little out of control. Thanks again to everyone for their input. I have read with interest all of the thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many fair and easily substantiated claims have been levelled against Norton, but others are lacking context, anecdotal proof and in one or two cases, even a rational frame of mind. In my research I could find no corroboration whatsoever that Norton Firewall is less effective than the windows firewall, and plenty of testing reports that suggest that all the major Firewall brands for home use perform at roughly the same level.

It hardly matters. People choose what they choose for a litany of reasons, some reasonable some not. Still, surprised and impressed that a discussion about this arcane subject can arouse such vehemence.

FELIPE NO