Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Anyone using Norton AntiVirus 2005?

Reply
Thread Tools

Anyone using Norton AntiVirus 2005?

 
 
Jimmy Dean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2005
Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.

However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.

tia

jd
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Maybe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2005

"Jimmy Dean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
> be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
> However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
> does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>
>


I've used it for two weeks ---- no complaints.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
teabag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005

I am using it on a new computer XP and have no complaints but when I used it
on my old slower computer ME it screwed up everything. I think you need
lots of memory otherwise it really can bog things down. I turn the
antispam, ad blocking and pop up blocking off. You don't have to run all
the features.


 
Reply With Quote
 
willoughby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
Jimmy Dean wrote:
> Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
> be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
> However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
> does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>
> tia
>
> jd



If you are looking for decent protecting that doesn't slow a system down
do a google search for avast and avg both have free personal versions
and free updates. The reason I mention this is because they are better
for older computers and I dislike Norton bloatware.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Mautner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
Jimmy Dean wrote:

> Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
> be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
> However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
> does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>

Not using it by myself (linux won't need it) but had to fix a few 2004/2005
equipped boxen, where it missed some nasty virus/worm. The nice thing is,
it still shows as active and "up-to-date" in the tray, but once you get rid
of the virus (that probably blocks access to the update site) using some
real tool like knoppicillin, it finally discovers it's been totally
out-of-date. DUUUH.
Now, for my windows partition, I prefer Kaspersky. It doesn't seem to have
as many bells and whistles, but it works.
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
*to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**Reactivate*MS*software.
Linux woodpecker.homnet.at 2.6.12-mm2[LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sunny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005

"Jimmy Dean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
> be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
> However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
> does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.


Using it on two WinXP PCs with no complaints (bought a 3 licence pack)
one PC with 512Mb RAM the other with 1Gb RAM.
Haven't installed it on a WinME dual boot (using AVG Free)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
Jimmy Dean wrote:
> Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
> be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
> However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
> does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.


There is a bug with Norton AntiVirus in that it will not transfer
jpg picture attachments if it considers there is anything wrong
with the jpg structure.

How am I supposed to receive this picture other than by
forwarding the message to somewhere other than Yahoo, which does
work but why don't Norton fix their bugs instead (and answer emails)?

http://tinypic.com/5plsnl.jpg

 
Reply With Quote
 
Atreju
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, Jimmy Dean <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
>be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>
>However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
>does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>
>tia
>
>jd


I only recommend Norton Antivirus if your computer suffers from too
much RAM or CPU power. Norton is an _excellent_ utility for slowing
down your system to a nice easy-going pace, and filling up a lot of
that extra RAM.

Sense the sarcasm, and download AVG. You can get it free for personal
use, or buy it for around $35 which gives you 2 years of updates, as
opposed to the Norton 1 year deal. http://free.grisoft.com/

Plus AVG uses so much less RAM and CPU usage, it is sickening that
_anyone_ is even using Norton or McAffee anymore. Just naiveté I
suppose. Plus AVG is not being packaged with any brand-name computers.

Incindentally, I happen to be an AVG reseller, not that I'm selling it
here, I deal with businesses and Network Edition.

Oh, by the way, on several occasions, I have removed Norton from a
system and replaced it with AVG. Then AVG found a few hundred viruses
that Norton simply was not seeing.


---Atreju---
 
Reply With Quote
 
willoughby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
Atreju wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, Jimmy Dean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
>>be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>>
>>However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
>>does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>>
>>tia
>>
>>jd

>
>
> I only recommend Norton Antivirus if your computer suffers from too
> much RAM or CPU power. Norton is an _excellent_ utility for slowing
> down your system to a nice easy-going pace, and filling up a lot of
> that extra RAM.
>
> Sense the sarcasm, and download AVG. You can get it free for personal
> use, or buy it for around $35 which gives you 2 years of updates, as
> opposed to the Norton 1 year deal. http://free.grisoft.com/
>
> Plus AVG uses so much less RAM and CPU usage, it is sickening that
> _anyone_ is even using Norton or McAffee anymore. Just naiveté I
> suppose. Plus AVG is not being packaged with any brand-name computers.
>
> Incindentally, I happen to be an AVG reseller, not that I'm selling it
> here, I deal with businesses and Network Edition.
>
> Oh, by the way, on several occasions, I have removed Norton from a
> system and replaced it with AVG. Then AVG found a few hundred viruses
> that Norton simply was not seeing.
>
>
> ---Atreju---



I have seen avg find viruses that Norton missed too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005

"willoughby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Atreju wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, Jimmy Dean <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am using 2004 and quite happy with that but the newer version should
>>>be more capable/effective against threats one imagines.
>>>
>>>However I've heard 2005 slows one's system even worse than NAV usually
>>>does. Would like to hear comments from actual users.
>>>
>>>tia
>>>
>>>jd

>>
>>
>> I only recommend Norton Antivirus if your computer suffers from too
>> much RAM or CPU power. Norton is an _excellent_ utility for slowing
>> down your system to a nice easy-going pace, and filling up a lot of
>> that extra RAM.
>>
>> Sense the sarcasm, and download AVG. You can get it free for personal
>> use, or buy it for around $35 which gives you 2 years of updates, as
>> opposed to the Norton 1 year deal. http://free.grisoft.com/
>>
>> Plus AVG uses so much less RAM and CPU usage, it is sickening that
>> _anyone_ is even using Norton or McAffee anymore. Just naiveté I
>> suppose. Plus AVG is not being packaged with any brand-name computers.
>>
>> Incindentally, I happen to be an AVG reseller, not that I'm selling it
>> here, I deal with businesses and Network Edition.
>>
>> Oh, by the way, on several occasions, I have removed Norton from a
>> system and replaced it with AVG. Then AVG found a few hundred viruses
>> that Norton simply was not seeing.
>>
>>
>> ---Atreju---



Really? A few hundred viruses were found? I find this laughable.

>
>
> I have seen avg find viruses that Norton missed too.


I find this possible.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Norton Systemswork / Norton Antivirus question - Bobb - Computer Information 5 12-04-2005 07:18 PM
Norton Antivirus 8.1 Corporate versus newer versions like Norton 2005? aroma@metisoft.com Computer Security 3 07-26-2005 01:07 AM
symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate alexander rickert Computer Information 3 11-03-2004 09:37 PM
Sophos AntiVirus Vs Norton AntiVirus Tim Computer Support 7 08-16-2003 11:19 PM
Antivirus Questions - Norton Antivirus xmldso.cab file. Symevent? Nicole Kidman Computer Support 1 08-16-2003 06:13 PM



Advertisments