«

Leythos wrote:
> In article <9dSdnXaIQaRyeP3cRVn->,
> says...
>> I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
>> problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
>> cannot be readily removed.
>
> I remove it from several machines that were of different types, and we
> removed the Norton product from hundreds of systems to replace it with
> Symantec SBE Corporate Edition. Not a single removal problem on any of
> the machines.
>
> --

Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
installing another vendor's application.

Q

In article <lcednZ1C1sYFyfzcRVn->,
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <9dSdnXaIQaRyeP3cRVn->,
> > says...
> >> I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
> >> problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
> >> cannot be readily removed.
> >
> > I remove it from several machines that were of different types, and we
> > removed the Norton product from hundreds of systems to replace it with
> > Symantec SBE Corporate Edition. Not a single removal problem on any of
> > the machines.
> >
> > --
>
> Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
> doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
> hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
> applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
> installing another vendor's application.

When we did the machines at the Sorority and some other non-profit
types, we removed expired NAV 2000, 2001, 2002 products to install AVG
Free version without any problem.

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

>Nope. Replacing a Symantec product with another Symantec product
>doesn't count, since most that I've worked with use the same registry
>hooks; the same hooks that remain in place when removing the
>applications; the same hooks that will cause pain and suffering when
>installing another vendor's application.

Well said, I couldn't agree more with you, and I can verify this from many
computer repairs where the owners have unsuccesfully tried to unistall a
Nortons product, then proceeded to dig deeper & deeper holes fot themselves
as they attempt to remove it manually.
The last machine I looked at had the Latest Corporate edition, with the
latest definitions, which did uninstall, and we installed Avast. After a
full scan Avast found 9 viruses that Nortons had let slip through.


Fred

Quaoar wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>
>>In article <sL%7d.3671$j24.1156@clgrps12>,
>>says...
>>
>>>This question isn't for me since I will be running Kapersky
>>>anti-virus.

[SNIP]

>>--
>
>
> I have always believed that Norton AV is a superior product. The
> problem with Norton and the rest of Symantec's products is that they
> cannot be readily removed. Consequently these products rank right up
> there with AOL as dangerous for the home user. If Symantec could or
> would take the time to clean out their astounding number of registry
> entries they might regain my trust and the trust of others. As it
> stands now, any vendor that cannot clean up after themselves is every
> bit as undesireable for the home user as the average virus infection.
> It's should be a simple issue which raises the question of why Symantec
> is unwilling.
>
> Q
>
>

I know that the Symantec AV products 'forget' to remove the Outlook hooks
upon de-install. After de-install, Outlook starts will errors that a
certain add-in can't be found.......

This behaviour was seen in the v7, 8 and 9 of Symantec AV corp. The problem
is easily resolved, but that's not the point, I think.

Currently I'm using McAfee Corp., and I'm very pleased with it.

Wimbo