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.

I wasn't aware of any Norton hate.

McAfee, on the other hand...

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

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

most programs for Norton are great,I used AntiVirus & Utilities more than 6 years.I don't have any problems with them.

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

Norton just isn't good enough. When it scans it seems to miss everything that it is scanning for. There are better applications out there, and they do a much better job than Norton ever will.

Besides Norton may have that auto-update thing and specific scanners for specific viruses, but they never seem to work. I recently ran Norton on a virus invaded PC and Norton found 7 viruses, i then ran XoftSpy and this found something in the region of 350 infections. I then ran AVG anti-virus and this found a few more infections. The PC also claimed to have blackworm on it, but Norton failed to find it, whereas AVG did but was unable to deal with it.

As for the Norton firewall, i think that we can all agree that even Windows firewall does a better job than this.

In conclusion there are more reliable, and better options on the market.

I was speaking idiomatically.

there big different between Viruses & Spyware,Norton AntiVirus for all viruses types and also can find famous spyware.isn't that mean is bad program,is make for protection from all viruses.and XoftSpy can scan for spyware not viruses.
that why we see alot programs for protection from spyware

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RYU

there big different between Viruses & Spyware,Norton AntiVirus for all viruses types and also can find famous spyware.isn't that mean is bad program,is make for protection from all viruses.and XoftSpy can scan for spyware not viruses.
that why we see alot programs for protection from spyware

I also ran AVG anti-virus and this found viruses that Norton didn't. I'm not saying it's a bad program, just that it's not a fantastic one. I know that Norton primarily scans for viruses, but also scans for spyware. i know this because when i ran Norton on my folks computer it found over 300 spyware entries. All of them were tracking cookies though, nothing too serious.

When i used to use Norton i thought that it was the best on the market, but now that i have found the internet and the viruses/ spyware becomes more common i have had to look into alternatives and found that other programs do a better job at a cheaper, sometimes free price than Norton.

AVG for anti-virus. Good program, free and reliable.
Zone-Alarm for firewall. Simple effective and most of all, free.

These are just suggestions. I have had no trouble with either of these programs, and they do the job that i installed them for.

FELIPE NO

Well I've been a Norton AV user for 3 years and every year, their AV seems to, well, as everyone says its resource heavy >_<

At first I was thinking twice if I were to trust AVG free because... its free. But I gave it a go and, so far so good Its not resource heavy compared to Norton as well

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The Anti-Virus consumes nearly as many (often more) resources as Windows and doesn't work as well as a lot of others. Sure, Mcaffee is worse. But just about every other one is better.

I use AVG on my Windows boxes.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Personally I think there's no reason to pay for PC security. It'd be like paying the police, firemen, or paramedics $100 every year to come and help you during an emergency (yes I do realize we pay for them with taxes, but not the freeloaders). You just need to bundle a few programs (Zone Alarm, AVG Free and Spybot), and you have free PC security. The only time when you would pay more is when you need special features such as scanning over a network or other services meant for the business (personal editions should always be free).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Gordon_Freeman

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.

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

In my experience Norton products are resource hogs and offer me no advantages compared to freeware solutions. Case closed.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Ascendancy

What does this mean?

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

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. There are software versions where profitable ones turn out to be better (A lot of graphics people prefer Photoshop to GIMP). There are software versions where free ones are better than profitable ones (Eclipse vs. the Visual Studio IDE for one). All-around, there's no clear trend. Both Free Software and For-Profit Software can be good, and both can suck.

FELIPE NO

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm no fan of Symantec Antivirus (or norton, whatever) for a lot of the reasons stated above. Especially the interfering with an awful lot of the system processes.

However, McAfee enterprise does the trick for me, and I don't know why people hate it that much. Maybe I'm missing something, here. Feel free to enlighten me if I am.

On the topic of antivirus software, I'm trying to find an alternative to the Symantec Corporate we're using at work, but I prefer something with functions similar to the Symantec System Center. (where you can deploy clients to the workstations and distribute virus definitions from). Does anyone know of some software packages that offer the same functions?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I use Norton AV and Firewall, along with Ghost on my newer computer, and AVG and Zone-Alarm on my older one. I supplement both with Ad-Aware and Spy-bot, and they normally do a better job than any other scanner, purchased or free.
While Norton is resource heavy, I run Maya a lot and normally see very little slow down, and if you've ever used Maya, you know how intense it can get on system resources.
As for Zone-Alarm, most of the time it bugs the crap out of me when navigating the web with Firefox, so I shut it off and turn it back on later, since I have an 'always on' connection.
It doesn't do much, but doing a daily or every-other-day scan with AA and SB really helps.

FELIPE NO

I always thought Norton was a pretty creepy guy. Maybe they should take him off the box. :P

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Wow, a quote war in the computing forum. This is surprising.

Anywho, I used Norton AV for a while since it was free, but after that ran out, I went out and got AVG. I definitely have to say that it takes up fewer resources, and the boot time for my computer is much lower.
I also got Norton firewall for free, but I still kept that one after the free licence expired because I am too lazy to configure a whole new firewall ( I had very particular settings that I made, which accumulated over time into quite a bit of custom settings), and it is not nearly as much of a resource hog as the AV was.

Anywho, that is my story.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.