Anyone using Norton AntiVirus 2005?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Jimmy Dean, Jul 4, 2005.

  1. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean Guest

    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
    Jimmy Dean, Jul 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jimmy Dean

    Maybe Guest

    "Jimmy Dean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Maybe, Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jimmy Dean

    teabag Guest

    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.
    teabag, Jul 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Jimmy Dean

    willoughby Guest

    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.
    willoughby, Jul 4, 2005
    #4
  5. 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]
    Walter Mautner, Jul 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Jimmy Dean

    Sunny Guest

    "Jimmy Dean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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)
    Sunny, Jul 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Jimmy Dean

    Jack Guest

    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
    Jack, Jul 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Jimmy Dean

    Atreju Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, 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


    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---
    Atreju, Jul 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Jimmy Dean

    willoughby Guest

    Atreju wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, 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

    >
    >
    > 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.
    willoughby, Jul 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Jimmy Dean

    Gregg Guest

    "willoughby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Atreju wrote:
    >> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, 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

    >>
    >>
    >> 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.
    Gregg, Jul 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Jimmy Dean

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Jack" <> wrote in message
    news:l06ye.12616$...
    > 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)?
    >

    ZIP the JPG. Email the ZIP.

    Simple.
    Toolman Tim, Jul 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Jimmy Dean

    Jack Guest

    Toolman Tim wrote:
    > "Jack" <> wrote in message
    > news:l06ye.12616$...
    >
    >>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)?
    >>

    >
    > ZIP the JPG. Email the ZIP.
    >
    > Simple.


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

    I am not sending the pictures, I am trying to receive them.
    I have no control over the way they are sent.
    I have been able to look at and save similar pictures in the past
    and they are still sitting in my Yahoo inbox. Now Norton
    AntiVirus stops me from looking at them or saving them.
    Yahoo have decided that that Norton AntiVirus cannot be turned
    off or bypassed.

    Can Norton and Yahoo please fix this bug?
    I will not buy any Norton product until they fix it.
    If Norton cannot fix a simple bug like this one, who knows what
    other bugs their products might have.
    Jack, Jul 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Jimmy Dean

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Jack" <> wrote in message
    news:_jjye.12800$...
    > Toolman Tim wrote:
    >> "Jack" <> wrote in message
    >> news:l06ye.12616$...
    >>
    >>>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)?
    >>>

    >>
    >> ZIP the JPG. Email the ZIP.
    >>
    >> Simple.

    >
    > http://tinypic.com/5plsnl.jpg
    >
    > I am not sending the pictures, I am trying to receive them.
    > I have no control over the way they are sent.
    > I have been able to look at and save similar pictures in the past and they
    > are still sitting in my Yahoo inbox. Now Norton AntiVirus stops me from
    > looking at them or saving them.
    > Yahoo have decided that that Norton AntiVirus cannot be turned off or
    > bypassed.
    >
    > Can Norton and Yahoo please fix this bug?
    > I will not buy any Norton product until they fix it.
    > If Norton cannot fix a simple bug like this one, who knows what other bugs
    > their products might have.
    >

    Don't you think you should be talking to Symantec (re: Norton) or Yahoo
    then, instead of whining to this newsgroup? And you won't find many people
    here who would disagree with you about not buying Norton products. Most
    advise never touching the newer (last 3 years or so) products.
    Toolman Tim, Jul 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Jimmy Dean

    Jack Guest

    Toolman Tim wrote:

    > Don't you think you should be talking to Symantec (re: Norton) or Yahoo
    > then, instead of whining to this newsgroup? And you won't find many people
    > here who would disagree with you about not buying Norton products. Most
    > advise never touching the newer (last 3 years or so) products.


    Sure I should be talking to Symantec and Yahoo. And I have done
    that. And they don't reply. I think everyone should know that
    Yahoo and Symantec are bloody useless and don't care about their
    customers. I wonder if they read Usenet? They've probably never
    heard of it.
    Jack, Jul 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Jimmy Dean

    elaich Guest

    Jack <> wrote in news:jDjye.12806$U4.1559194
    @news.xtra.co.nz:

    > I think everyone should know that
    > Yahoo and Symantec are bloody useless and don't care about their
    > customers.


    We all knew that three years ago.

    I wonder if they read Usenet? They've probably never
    > heard of it.
    >


    You must be a newcomer, or you would have known about it three years ago,
    as well.

    --
    "This space for rent."
    elaich, Jul 5, 2005
    #15
  16. Jimmy Dean

    Jack Guest

    elaich wrote:

    > You must be a newcomer, or you would have known about it three years ago,
    > as well.
    >


    This is a new bug with Symantec that arrived in June this year
    when Yahoo started using Symantec for virus checking. I did not
    ask for that "feature" and I don't want it. It doesn't work
    anyway. It only stops what was working before.

    I'm sure the OP and others now have more to base their decisions on.
    Jack, Jul 5, 2005
    #16
  17. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:11:10 -0400, willoughby
    <> wrote:
    >
    >I have seen avg find viruses that Norton missed too.


    In the PC User mag I read, in the annual AV shootout, NAV always gets
    100 %. AVG has been improving and gets 100 % on current threats but
    lags in some old viruses (< 90 %) which are not usually around much.

    For anyone who wants to go freeware I always recommend AVG + ZoneAlarm
    for basic security.

    Thanks to all for your responses

    jd
    Jimmy Dean, Jul 5, 2005
    #17
  18. Jimmy Dean

    Maria Guest

    Atreju wrote:

    > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, 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

    >
    > 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---


    Hear hear -- you are so right... identical experience on about 10 computers
    since 2004.

    AVG runs 2 exe.files and is neither seen nor heard.
    RAM about 10MB, CPU % about 1%.
    Updates every 2 days on the free version!
    Compare that to Symantec NAV 2000, 2001.... and up.

    Apart from that, ever tried uninstalling NAV..?
    Use the NAV Cleaner, SYMCLEAN, RNAV etc. and your reg is still clogged with
    Symantec leftovers.
    Spaghetti software!

    What is worse? Symantec Internet Security 2005. Will bring a 3 GHz CPU to a halt
    or crash. Stay away - do not touch.
    Maria
    Maria, Jul 5, 2005
    #18
  19. Errr, recently replaced McAfee with Norton Internet Security 2005. I've
    turned off parental controls and outgoing email scanning. The machine is
    nothing special - just a good old Pentium 450 Mhz with 256 Meg RAM. It gets
    used mainly for business purposes, but there's a few things like Dark Reign
    and Theme Hospital on it for when the day really gets serious. Apart from
    the two services I turned off it seems to run just fine and cause no serious
    slowing down. It's certainly smoother than McAfee anyway. Hope this helps.

    --
    Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
    Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
    compulsive computer fiddler.


    "Maria" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Atreju wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:46:46 +1000, 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

    > >
    > > 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---

    >
    > Hear hear -- you are so right... identical experience on about 10

    computers
    > since 2004.
    >
    > AVG runs 2 exe.files and is neither seen nor heard.
    > RAM about 10MB, CPU % about 1%.
    > Updates every 2 days on the free version!
    > Compare that to Symantec NAV 2000, 2001.... and up.
    >
    > Apart from that, ever tried uninstalling NAV..?
    > Use the NAV Cleaner, SYMCLEAN, RNAV etc. and your reg is still clogged

    with
    > Symantec leftovers.
    > Spaghetti software!
    >
    > What is worse? Symantec Internet Security 2005. Will bring a 3 GHz CPU to

    a halt
    > or crash. Stay away - do not touch.
    > Maria
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Peter Ballantyne, Jul 5, 2005
    #19
  20. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean Guest

    On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:33:21 +1200, "Peter Ballantyne"
    <> wrote:

    >Errr, recently replaced McAfee with Norton Internet Security 2005. I've
    >turned off parental controls and outgoing email scanning. The machine is
    >nothing special - just a good old Pentium 450 Mhz with 256 Meg RAM. It gets
    >used mainly for business purposes, but there's a few things like Dark Reign
    >and Theme Hospital on it for when the day really gets serious. Apart from
    >the two services I turned off it seems to run just fine and cause no serious
    >slowing down. It's certainly smoother than McAfee anyway. Hope this helps.


    That's almost surprising as NAV seems to choke PCs under 500 MHz
    though not many of them might have 256 MB.

    jd
    Jimmy Dean, Jul 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim

    Sophos AntiVirus Vs Norton AntiVirus

    Tim, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    10,405
    Robert de Brus
    Aug 17, 2003
  2. Nicole Kidman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,109
    °Mike°
    Aug 16, 2003
  3. n_v_gogol
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,641
    ethan.blair
    Sep 24, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    777
    optikl
    Jul 26, 2005
  5. alexander rickert

    symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate

    alexander rickert, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,167
    James Baber
    Nov 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page