NAV: 2005 Upgrade DISASTER

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

 

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.

 

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

 

(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

 

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

 

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!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

Download any update for Norton yet?

 

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.

ain't broke don't fix it.

 

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.

 

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."

 

______________

Huh?

-CC

 

Another reason not to fix it?

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

Virg Wall

 

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.

 

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

 

-CC

What do you mean, -CC?