NAV: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by ChrisCoaster, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. ChrisCoaster

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    I followed all the steps, purchased online, uninstalled norton 2001 as
    directed, installed and ran Norton 2005.

    Now, my 2001 Gateway with Me, 256MB RAM, AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, hangs all
    the time, takes forever to open anything, takes years to boot up, and
    hangs on shutdown everytime so as I have to manually shut it off(press
    power button for at least 5 sec.) WTF?

    -ChrisCoaster
    ChrisCoaster, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    "ChrisCoaster" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I followed all the steps, purchased online, uninstalled norton 2001 as
    > directed, installed and ran Norton 2005.
    >
    > Now, my 2001 Gateway with Me, 256MB RAM, AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, hangs all
    > the time, takes forever to open anything, takes years to boot up, and
    > hangs on shutdown everytime so as I have to manually shut it off(press
    > power button for at least 5 sec.) WTF?


    Norton's bloat factor seems to grow geometrically with each new version that
    comes out. I would suggest getting Computer Associates EZ-Antivirus
    www.ca.com or if you want a good free scanner, go to www.avast.com and
    download their free antivirus program for home users. Even if you got Norton
    working it would still impact your system's performance to a much greater
    degree than either of the two I mentioned. Just say no to bloatware.
    Thor, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ChrisCoaster

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    Depends what system your running thor.

    Norton does tax your comp but when your running a 2.GHz or higher spec with
    enough ram running Norton products isn't really a problem.

    I know the original poster isn't running that so I wouldn't advise him to
    run Norton's either.

    LJ
    Lloyd Jones, Oct 19, 2004
    #3
  4. ChrisCoaster

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    (I meant 2.6GHz btw with 1Gb of ram because that's the spec on my comp and I
    don't have any issues with Norton products)

    But it's up to you what software your comfortable with at the end of the
    day.

    LJ
    Lloyd Jones, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    "Lloyd Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Depends what system your running thor.
    >
    > Norton does tax your comp but when your running a 2.GHz or higher spec
    > with enough ram running Norton products isn't really a problem.
    >
    > I know the original poster isn't running that so I wouldn't advise him to
    > run Norton's either.


    Gee, you should ask youself just WHY one should need a 2GHz or higher
    machine with over 256MB of RAM to run a fucking ANTIVIRUS program without
    suffering slowdown, Lloyd. That should be a big flapping red flag that the
    program is bloated beyond belief. Run CA EZ Antivirus and see the
    difference. That alone is enough evidence that Norton's impact on the system
    is well in excess of what is normal or necessary for the job it is intended
    to do.
    Thor, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. ChrisCoaster

    Lloyd Jones Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    As I said I run it on my system there's no problem what so ever, I'm not
    suggestion that people with older systems should run it.

    It's up to you what you run Thor but it's works a treat for me. I think you
    said before that you work in a shop,can't remember exactly what you do but
    do you sell Norton products?

    LJ
    Lloyd Jones, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    "Lloyd Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > As I said I run it on my system there's no problem what so ever, I'm not
    > suggestion that people with older systems should run it.
    >
    > It's up to you what you run Thor but it's works a treat for me. I think
    > you said before that you work in a shop,can't remember exactly what you do
    > but do you sell Norton products?


    I own my own PC sales and service business. I sell what the customer wants,
    including Norton products if that is what they desire, and I have installed
    them (and cleaned up after them) countless times over the years for people
    who bought it, so I can attest to the immediate performance impact it seems
    to have on many systems fast and slow alike. I don't make any more profit on
    selling one brand of antivirus versus another. However, given my field
    experience with the bloat and problems that Norton products seem to cause
    with alarming regularity, I never recommend it when asked what is the best
    antivirus program to get. Haven't recommended it at all since the 2002/2003
    versions. I would wonder why, if you paid for a nice fast machine, you would
    want to waste a considerable chunk of that power on something as banal as an
    antivirus program? It may not run badly for you on your fast system, but it
    is nonetheless taking system resources far in excess of what it really
    should need to do the job, as evidenced by the performance of other
    competing programs that have but a fraction of the footprint compared to
    Norton. Norton Antivirus these days is a wasteful parasite on resources,
    eating far more than is appropriate for it's task and Symantec shouldn't be
    rewarded for putting out such crap, IMHO. Companies that write efficient,
    quality software should be recognized.
    Thor, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
  8. ChrisCoaster

    Trent© Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:52:21 -0400, "Thor" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Lloyd Jones" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> As I said I run it on my system there's no problem what so ever, I'm not
    >> suggestion that people with older systems should run it.
    >>
    >> It's up to you what you run Thor but it's works a treat for me. I think
    >> you said before that you work in a shop,can't remember exactly what you do
    >> but do you sell Norton products?

    >
    >I own my own PC sales and service business. I sell what the customer wants,
    >including Norton products if that is what they desire, and I have installed
    >them (and cleaned up after them) countless times over the years for people
    >who bought it, so I can attest to the immediate performance impact it seems
    >to have on many systems fast and slow alike. I don't make any more profit on
    >selling one brand of antivirus versus another. However, given my field
    >experience with the bloat and problems that Norton products seem to cause
    >with alarming regularity, I never recommend it when asked what is the best
    >antivirus program to get. Haven't recommended it at all since the 2002/2003
    >versions. I would wonder why, if you paid for a nice fast machine, you would
    >want to waste a considerable chunk of that power on something as banal as an
    >antivirus program? It may not run badly for you on your fast system, but it
    >is nonetheless taking system resources far in excess of what it really
    >should need to do the job, as evidenced by the performance of other
    >competing programs that have but a fraction of the footprint compared to
    >Norton. Norton Antivirus these days is a wasteful parasite on resources,
    >eating far more than is appropriate for it's task and Symantec shouldn't be
    >rewarded for putting out such crap, IMHO. Companies that write efficient,
    >quality software should be recognized.


    I just did another Norton machine again yesterday. His ISP shut down
    his mail server on him. It seems he sent out 2000 emails!

    Nice machine...in its day. 450...96 meg of RAM...running 98SE.
    Actually, it ran really nice...once Norton was off!

    Not to mention...Norton let a couple of dozen Trojans get through.
    Once all the crap was cleaned up...which included Norton...all ran
    well again.

    I've said it before...I'll say it again. I *LOVE* Norton! Even the
    teller at my bank calls me 'Norton' every now and again! lol



    Have a nice one...

    Trent

    Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876!
    Trent©, Oct 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Lloyd Jones" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > As I said I run it on my system there's no problem what so ever, I'm not
    > > suggestion that people with older systems should run it.
    > >
    > > It's up to you what you run Thor but it's works a treat for me. I think
    > > you said before that you work in a shop,can't remember exactly what you

    do
    > > but do you sell Norton products?

    >
    > I own my own PC sales and service business. I sell what the customer

    wants,
    > including Norton products if that is what they desire, and I have

    installed
    > them (and cleaned up after them) countless times over the years for people
    > who bought it, so I can attest to the immediate performance impact it

    seems
    > to have on many systems fast and slow alike. I don't make any more profit

    on
    > selling one brand of antivirus versus another. However, given my field
    > experience with the bloat and problems that Norton products seem to cause
    > with alarming regularity, I never recommend it when asked what is the best
    > antivirus program to get. Haven't recommended it at all since the

    2002/2003
    > versions. I would wonder why, if you paid for a nice fast machine, you

    would
    > want to waste a considerable chunk of that power on something as banal as

    an
    > antivirus program? It may not run badly for you on your fast system, but

    it
    > is nonetheless taking system resources far in excess of what it really
    > should need to do the job, as evidenced by the performance of other
    > competing programs that have but a fraction of the footprint compared to
    > Norton. Norton Antivirus these days is a wasteful parasite on resources,
    > eating far more than is appropriate for it's task and Symantec shouldn't

    be
    > rewarded for putting out such crap, IMHO. Companies that write efficient,
    > quality software should be recognized.
    >
    >


    Not to argue for or against NAV 2005, but here's what bugs me:


    I ran Norton v 4.0 clean up until I went to XP and it always updated and
    never let me down. I now have NAV 2002 and just delete and reinstall it
    every year... didn't seem to slow me down on this unit when I had 256M & 1.3
    Duron running Paint Shop Pro and plug-ins galore or another with 384M & 1.3
    Duron or another still chugging here on a K63+ 450 overclocked to 600 and
    128M of RAM. They all seem to run just fine on 2002.

    If everything is fine on 2002 and one constantly reads of issues with 2004
    and now 2005... why bother? Why keep wasting money when the old one works
    fine?

    I do have a copy of 2003 here that I got as a freebie with a bundle as well
    as McAffee AV 7.0... but why mess with something that works? Am I missing
    something?
    Jess Fertudei, Oct 20, 2004
    #9
  10. ChrisCoaster

    Plato Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    Thor wrote:
    >
    > suffering slowdown, Lloyd. That should be a big flapping red flag that the
    > program is bloated beyond belief. Run CA EZ Antivirus and see the
    > difference. That alone is enough evidence that Norton's impact on the system
    > is well in excess of what is normal or necessary for the job it is intended
    > to do.


    Several years ago somebody here did a comparison of registry entries for
    5 or so anti-viris programs. At the time as I recall ca put in 40 or so
    registry entries and nortons av put in 2,500 or so if memory serves. The
    point is it was a HUGE difference.
    Plato, Oct 20, 2004
    #10
  11. ChrisCoaster

    Plato Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    Lloyd Jones wrote:
    >
    > Depends what system your running thor.
    >
    > Norton does tax your comp but when your running a 2.GHz or higher spec with
    > enough ram running Norton products isn't really a problem.


    When faced with a onsite call with a customer with odd computer problems
    guess what they look for first and remove which often solves the odd
    computer problems?
    Plato, Oct 20, 2004
    #11
  12. ChrisCoaster

    WebWalker Guest

    On 19 Oct 2004 10:17:21 -0700, (ChrisCoaster) wrote:

    >I followed all the steps, purchased online, uninstalled norton 2001 as
    >directed, installed and ran Norton 2005.
    >
    >Now, my 2001 Gateway with Me, 256MB RAM, AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, hangs all
    >the time, takes forever to open anything, takes years to boot up, and
    >hangs on shutdown everytime so as I have to manually shut it off(press
    >power button for at least 5 sec.) WTF?


    Download any update for Norton yet?

    --
    WebWalker
    WebWalker, Oct 20, 2004
    #12
  13. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER


    > Not to argue for or against NAV 2005, but here's what bugs me:
    >
    >
    > I ran Norton v 4.0 clean up until I went to XP and it always updated and
    > never let me down. I now have NAV 2002 and just delete and reinstall it
    > every year... didn't seem to slow me down on this unit when I had 256M &
    > 1.3
    > Duron running Paint Shop Pro and plug-ins galore or another with 384M &
    > 1.3
    > Duron or another still chugging here on a K63+ 450 overclocked to 600 and
    > 128M of RAM. They all seem to run just fine on 2002.
    >
    > If everything is fine on 2002 and one constantly reads of issues with 2004
    > and now 2005... why bother? Why keep wasting money when the old one works
    > fine?


    As long as it continues to be supported then that is just fine. The 2002
    version is vastly superior to the 2004 and 2005 versions in terms of
    stability and performance anyway IMHO.

    >
    > I do have a copy of 2003 here that I got as a freebie with a bundle as
    > well
    > as McAffee AV 7.0... but why mess with something that works? Am I missing
    > something?


    ain't broke don't fix it.
    Thor, Oct 20, 2004
    #13
  14. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    "Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
    news:4176026d$0$44988$...
    > Thor wrote:
    >>
    >> suffering slowdown, Lloyd. That should be a big flapping red flag that
    >> the
    >> program is bloated beyond belief. Run CA EZ Antivirus and see the
    >> difference. That alone is enough evidence that Norton's impact on the
    >> system
    >> is well in excess of what is normal or necessary for the job it is
    >> intended
    >> to do.

    >
    > Several years ago somebody here did a comparison of registry entries for
    > 5 or so anti-viris programs. At the time as I recall ca put in 40 or so
    > registry entries and nortons av put in 2,500 or so if memory serves. The
    > point is it was a HUGE difference.


    well when you watch the installation or uninstallation procedure for Norton
    2004 or 2005, you'll shit your britches when you see all the registry keys
    it installs. It's truly incredible.
    Thor, Oct 20, 2004
    #14
  15. ChrisCoaster

    bmoag Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    My 2 cents worth:
    even computer magazines, who must kiss up to their advertisers in product
    reviews, are now being truthful about Norton Antivirus. It is a resource
    hog, slows many computers by 10% or more, interferes with the installation
    of many programs and the stable operation of many other programs. NAV is the
    primary reason many installation routines tell you to shut off your
    antivirus program before installing their new program. NAV can completely
    trash your computer if you change XP accounts or the way NAV handles
    accounts becomes corrupted. Norton has little useful information on their
    website (there are complex, cryptic instructions for some problems that send
    you over to the MS Knowledge base), charges for telephone support and Email
    support is hit and miss, usually confined to recommending uninstall and
    reinstall (some NAV corruption issues cannot be solved by uninstall). I have
    had to learn this the hard way because of what NAV has done to some of my
    computers and all I did was click on "install."
    bmoag, Oct 20, 2004
    #15
  16. ChrisCoaster

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    WebWalker <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 19 Oct 2004 10:17:21 -0700, (ChrisCoaster) wrote:
    >
    > >I followed all the steps, purchased online, uninstalled norton 2001 as
    > >directed, installed and ran Norton 2005.
    > >
    > >Now, my 2001 Gateway with Me, 256MB RAM, AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, hangs all
    > >the time, takes forever to open anything, takes years to boot up, and
    > >hangs on shutdown everytime so as I have to manually shut it off(press
    > >power button for at least 5 sec.) WTF?

    >
    > Download any update for Norton yet?

    ______________

    Huh?

    -CC
    ChrisCoaster, Oct 20, 2004
    #16
  17. ChrisCoaster

    VWWall Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

    Thor wrote:
    >>Not to argue for or against NAV 2005, but here's what bugs me:
    >>
    >>
    >>I ran Norton v 4.0 clean up until I went to XP and it always updated and
    >>never let me down. I now have NAV 2002 and just delete and reinstall it
    >>every year... didn't seem to slow me down on this unit when I had 256M &
    >>1.3
    >>Duron running Paint Shop Pro and plug-ins galore or another with 384M &
    >>1.3
    >>Duron or another still chugging here on a K63+ 450 overclocked to 600 and
    >>128M of RAM. They all seem to run just fine on 2002.
    >>
    >>If everything is fine on 2002 and one constantly reads of issues with 2004
    >>and now 2005... why bother? Why keep wasting money when the old one works
    >>fine?

    >
    >
    > As long as it continues to be supported then that is just fine. The 2002
    > version is vastly superior to the 2004 and 2005 versions in terms of
    > stability and performance anyway IMHO.
    >
    >
    >>I do have a copy of 2003 here that I got as a freebie with a bundle as
    >>well
    >>as McAffee AV 7.0... but why mess with something that works? Am I missing
    >>something?

    >
    >
    > ain't broke don't fix it.
    >
    >

    Another reason not to fix it?

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39170603,00.htm

    Virg Wall
    --
    A foolish consistency is the
    hobgoblin of little minds,........
    Ralph Waldo Emerson
    (Microsoft programmer's manual.)
    VWWall, Oct 20, 2004
    #17
  18. ChrisCoaster

    Thor Guest

    Re: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER


    >>
    >> ain't broke don't fix it.
    >>
    >>

    > Another reason not to fix it?
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39170603,00.htm
    >



    LOL! that figures. Still, likely to be patched quickly via Norton's
    liveupdate, but a major embarrassment nevertheless. Of course I'm sure some
    *concerned* person with nothing but good intentions will post a proof of
    concept example of the exploit on the web for all the virus and hacker
    scumbags to see and immediately put into action. Whatever the case, just one
    more reason to avoid Norton for the time being.
    Thor, Oct 20, 2004
    #18
  19. ChrisCoaster

    WebWalker Guest

    On 20 Oct 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (ChrisCoaster) wrote:
    >>
    >> Download any update for Norton yet?

    >______________
    >
    >Huh?


    Liveupdate it yet?

    --
    WebWalker
    WebWalker, Oct 21, 2004
    #19
  20. ChrisCoaster

    ChrisCoaster Guest

    WebWalker <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 20 Oct 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (ChrisCoaster) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Download any update for Norton yet?

    > >______________
    > >
    > >Huh?

    >
    > Liveupdate it yet?

    _________________
    Live Update? Heck, I disabled it! I got 256mB RAM on this machine
    with 120-128 free after booting up before putting Norton 2005 on it,
    after installing, I'm showing 80-85mB free- fuggedabawdit!!

    -CC
    ChrisCoaster, Oct 22, 2004
    #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. Harvey Gratt

    NAV 2005 LiveUpdate

    Harvey Gratt, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    414
  2. Joel Rubin

    Latest "upgrade from MS" spam does not trigger NAV

    Joel Rubin, Dec 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    560
  3. Vic

    NAV 2005 Will not scan in Normal Mode

    Vic, Aug 9, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
  4. JayGee

    Getting Rid of NAV 2005 by remote control

    JayGee, Jul 30, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    351
    JayGee
    Aug 1, 2006
  5. MrDave

    NAV, NAV 5x.... Norton Anit-Virus??

    MrDave, Aug 9, 2009, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,592
    MrDave
    Aug 9, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page