NAV and product activation 2003 - 2005

When I bought 2003 boxed version at fry's it came with a big rebate. They took their sweet time sending it to me, but they did send it. Lately I have seen NAV2005 actually free, after the rebate.

I have not upgraded to 2005, though obviously I could. I have heard it is good, but in 2004 they went to some kind of product activation. Lot's of people think I make too big a deal about it, but I hate product activation. BTW, This is not the same as having to put your serial number key in, this means, as I understand it, your computer must constantly (or at intervals, or be prepared to) prove that it is a legal copy or the program stops working).

To me it is unacceptable for my anti-virus program to stop working if something happens to cause the validation system not to work. And I don't really appreciate having to prove I am not guilty. In America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I don't want to play fast and loose with the facts. I am relating what to the best of my knowledge is true.

In 2004 when I was going to upgrade, I read articles suggesting that over 200,000 legitimate users were completely unable to use NAV2004 for two months or more because of a malfunctioning activation. That is unconscionable! If I called the shots at Norton I would have immediately removed the activation. My responsibilities to the customers would have come first. That sentiment very nearly led me to unstall my Norton products, however, I was not willing switch until I found a comparable free version, or a vastly superior paid product. I have not found any that strike me that way. [remember it would be off topic to flame me]

NAV-2003 is solid as the Rock of Gibralter, as far as I am concerned. It would be good to know if they learned from the 2004 activation debacle. A lot of people like this product, and I wish I knew what to say when they ask would I recommend it. 2003, for sure. Anyone know about 2005 and activation? Is NAV-2005 tough on Viruses, soft on its loyal users?


-HandsOff

 

Activation is just the same process - It aint changed in NAV 2005.

Y'know, NAV 2003 does not detect dialers, adware and spyware - I think that was for 2004 onwards only.

 

version 2005 is better than 2003 as stated by firecat 03 did detect some of these but not most the new one does dialers and quite a bit of malware instead of just trojans. i myself am not a nav user however i have tested 05. and yes you can upgrade as firecat said. 03-04 had issues and a lot of people say the 2005 version is actually lighter than before

 

Activation doesn't require constant contact with Symantec servers. This is done only on activation and no more after it's finished. But you'll need connection later for updates...
I also recommend that you upgrade to NAV2005 if you have chance to update for free (if i understood correctly). Better packers support,spyware detection,worm blocking and so on.

 

I appreciate the answers and i suppose it is possible that 2005 might provide more comprehensive coverage, however, even if activation is "only on activation", the fact is that I activate quite a bit. Usually it is when I am doing some major upgrade, swapping drives, reformatting, temporarily trying a different a/v product, XP has crashed, ect, ect. I don't plan to waste time activating products. As long as that feature is there I won't even consider it. The thing is, if I play that little game with Norton, then what about all the other programs on my computer. As for dialers, I don't even have a modem installed, so I guess they can dial to their hearts content! I'm not saying that the other features arent good, but I do have dedicated programs for the other things as well as alternates for them. Not that I don't agree with layered protection, but I really think of NAV as having one main responsability and that is as an active virus shield for real time detection of files, downloads, email and so on. I use it as an on demand scanner to, but I am scouting for a second program to fill that role.

In short, i guess I can recommend it for other people, just so long as they are not wild eyed fanatics---not that i'm one!

I may be more wild eyed than usual, because recently I was doing some routine task when up jumps the devil! XP chimes in with an error message such and such authentication can not be detected windows is shutting down. Pretend for a moment, that I rely on my computer to make a living. pretend again, that as a result I have to reinstall windows, and all of my programs.

That was not the case, but you see my point? If not, let me spell it out. I pay the money, they give me the program. I paid for not one, but two licensed versions of windows xp for this one computer. I even decided to fill out the "genuine XP' certification which was promply accepted. I don't care about their piracy problems. The bald fact is that they are either just plain stupid, or they think that the job of authentication is mine, and not theirs. Well, last time I checked i was not on Microsoft's payrole, so as far as I'm concerned they can go to...well, you get the idea.

I'm serious when I say if this happens again, I'm switching to windows 2000. I'm not a circus animal and even if I was I don't see my self jumping through flaming hoops to make microsoft happy. There are well established ways to prevent piracy of products. But its just easier to do it stupidly and make others pay for their mistakes.

Am I being unfair? is this the exception and not the rule? Makes no difference. I'm not willing to pay for their insurance policy. I already pay for my own.


-HandsOff
(the guy who wrongly thought he could discuss this calmly)

 

Well - I got lucky - I was given two license for WinXP Home at the price of one

 

Which will have the exact same effect as having no license once XP's authentication check fails.

We are all familiar with the "...shall not be held responsible..." clause found in EULA's. To my mind that can only apply to the PROGRAM malfunctioning unintentionally. The authentication portion of the program is really an addition to the program that is not related to the program as such. The end user certainly can't be represented as 'paying for the right' to use a feature that is, in fact, used by the software maker, against him, and not for him. That being the case I don't believe that the "irresponsibility clause" should apply and any damages resulting from its failure should be actionable.

Moreover, the sheer numbers of mistakes made by these activations schemes suggests that they are reckless and irresponsible at the very least. The continued deployement of methods without regard for the consequences is worse than neglegent.

I really don't know how microsoft and others get away with this. I question whether even a EULA which does not contain illegal provisions could be enforced. I for one will celebrate if and when this ever blows up in their collective face.


-HandsOff

****************************
Late Entry:

I appologize for letting my recent bad experience get the best of me. Rezjor, and Firecat, you have made some valid points, and I should not cut of my nose to spite my face. I will keep my eye out for the 2005 deal, and if it doesn't work out, nothing stopping me from going back, plus, I could make a gift of 2005 to someone who needs it. Microsoft, I'm sure will work the bugs out of its authentication. If not in my lifetime, Firecat, surely in yours.

-HandsOff

 

In my lifetime - Oh I'm sure of that, unless open source gets more popular and puts M$ into back seat

 

I decided to read some reviews on NAV 2005. cnet, PC-World, Epinions, ITWord, and more to my liking, Amazon.com with 99 user reviews.

I'm not much of an investigative reporter, but I thought I would post a few quotes that support the idea that
-activation makes installation a nightmare
-authentication takes place every bootup making boot time much longer
-NAV 2003 still has a loyal following, and is still available on the cheap if you look for it.

and a possibly unrelated, but interesting fact that Norton states that KB828741 (RPC/DCOM criticle update) must be removed prior to installation of NAV 2004 & 5. According to Norton's own help page there is a conflict, and the update can be reinstalled after NAV installation is completed.

Apparently failure to do so could result in trouble or even loss of internet capability.

I saved a bunch of quotes, supporting this but it is kind of lengthy. I will include the Norton help page address and partial quote because it might be of use to someone googling to find out what conflict occurred when KB828741 was installed and Internet Explorer and Outlook Express stopped working.

**********************
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/d4578f66d8f00a0188256d4e006aaa94/5a394d579bfffd0e88256d

a400741772?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam

that link sort of got chopped up when i copied it, oh well...


and I quote:

Solution:
This problem can be caused by a conflict between Norton AntiVirus Auto-Protect and the Microsoft®

Windows® RPC/DCOM security update MS-Hotfix (KB828741).

To fix the problem, you must uninstall Norton AntiVirus, uninstall the Microsoft security update,

reinstall Norton AntiVirus, and then reinstall the Microsoft security update. For detailed

instructions, follow the steps in each section in the order listed.


There you have it! I am happy with NAV 2003. It can still be purchased online. I have reservations

about NAV 2005 so I am going to avoid it.




-HandsOff!

 

Hands off,
God is trying to protect you from buying NAV2005. Norton has become a bloated piece of crap. I purchased a new Dell recently, and I installed NAV2005. After a few weeks I noticed it was taking longer and longer to shut down. Then I began getting the blue screen of death at shut down. After much investigation, I figured out it was because of NAV. It was suggested that I uninstall Norton and see if that fixes it. I did and it did. I have deleted every last file from NAV and installed ZoneAlarm Security Suite. It doesn't need near as much resources, and runs great.

 

You would be happier with a fax machine.

 

Don-

I would love a fax machine. I prefer one that is separate from my computer though, so I can leave Telephony and Fax services disabled, and because I don't even know where the modem I removed from my computer is.

twl845-
You could just be right. I hate to be a burden on him, but I do appreciate the help.


Now, for the moment we have all been waiting for!

And as fate would have it, I need to get down there anyways. I am not always good at reading the signs. Perhaps my brother has been bad and fate is about to deal him a blow in the form of NAV2005!


- HandsOff!

 

I think that activation can prevent piracy for novice and business users but actually contribute to piracy for determined home users. The widely available XP Pro Corporate is probably being used by a lot more individuals illicitly than by corporations who have purchased a volume license. It's not just because of the price, but also because it doesn't use activation. Microsoft's policy of restricting browser updates (IE6SP2) to "XP only" also works both ways: if someone likes IE6, it may "encourage" them to pay more $$$ to upgrade their operating system OR to find a cheaper (XP Pro Corporate) alternative that can be updated properly. My theory is that most people prefer the honest way of doing things...if software has enough installation flexibility (number of installs on separate computers per household could be controlled by 1-user/3-user/5-user licenses at different retail prices) and is PRICED CHEAPLY ENOUGH, there would be no need for this activation. Microsoft is well aware of these factors. In fact, cheap pricing is their way of reducing piracy in many overseas markets. Product activation, manipulating the media and using silly slogans like "windows genuine advantage" just don't work for families who earn less in a month than we do in a day.

 

I can't understand what everyone is saying about nortons activation. It's nothing, it takes about a minute to activate and that is it. and as for the people that constantly call norton a bloated piece of crap, they have no business giving anyone advice because they are so far out of the knowledge flow that they are actually doing a disservice to the other members here with their incorrect information. Norton is a world class antivirus and is improving with every version. Their detection is absolutley great. Compare at av-comparatives on demand latest test.

 

I can't speak for others, but for me it doesn't have anything at all to do with "time". It just reminds me of a checkpoint where you have to show someone your "papers". After your "papers" are authenticated, you are free to go...until you reach another checkpoint. I wouldn't want to live in a country like that, even if it is otherwise a nice country.

 

I don't like activation because you have to call to re-activate after a certain amount of activations. I've had to a couple times because of various bugs and re-formats. As for the other things bigc said, it does use too many processes, and from my experience, KAV, NOD32, and BitDefender are clearly better choices for detection. It's a good AV, though, and I used it again until I bought BitDefender this month.

 

Maybe I don't understand the analogy here. You only have to activate Norton once, unless you are uninstalling/restalling all the time.

 

You're right Namor but you are never going to convince the anti-activation crowd; we had a lot of these discussions over at DSLReports and I learned the hard way that for some folks "Product Activation" are just "dirty words" {anathema} and you will never convince them otherwise. I agree with BigC that Norton's Product Activation is nothing more than entering a CD Key and then forget about it. {Even if you do a corrective uninstall and reinstall on the same box {with the same hardware}, you only have to do the activation once}. It reminds me of registering MS Office products, or something similar. It is amazing to me that people make such a Big Deal out of this, as if their civil liberties are in dire peril, but hey, like I said, it is futility to try to convince them otherwise. Oh well, yawn -- I have heard it all before and know the futililty of convincing the naysayers .. Take Care, Warmly, Ran

 

I do a lot of antivirus testing and I have had NIS2005 installed and uninstalled at least a dozen times and have never had to reactivate it a second time. Now if you did a complete reformat yes you would have to reactivate it. And as far as resource usage goes On this computer NIS 2005 runs just as light as Kav5 or Nod32 (which my computer doesn't like) if you have an older machine with a very small processor and low memory you might see a slowdown useing NAV. But I don't see it even running the suite, the antivirus by it self runs very light. just because it is a large program and takes up a bit of space on the HDD has nothing to do with resource use.

 

Hi bigc73542,

Do you do much online gaming? Just wondering if your testing includes some intensive online gaming with a resident scanner running that may be a factor for some folks in choosing an AV.

Thanks,

 

I just purchased Norton IS 2006 recently and play World of Warcraft, Battlefield 2, Half-life 2, CS source, and the new Rainbow 6 demo with out any problems so far. My computer isn't the slowest on the planet, but it isn't the fastest either (Intel 2.6).

 

Thanks! That is good information.

 

and 2006 versions are far lighter than previous 2004/2005...

 

I also have NIS 2005 installed as my default AV. And I do play some resource intensive game playing, an Nis doesn't affect it at all that I have noticed.

 

Well all that talk about nav being heavy on resource usage is 100% true with the 2006 version of their products. But when it comes to nav internet security 2005 its bs. As a former user i can say it was very lite. Maybe even litter than my current set up which is nod 32 and outpost but im mainly pointing the finger at outpost. Anyways the firewall in that suite is excellent it allows u to block firewalls seperately and tells u about intrusion atempts. And the spam tools are top notch. The av engine might not be the best because it nvr caught viruses on my system but when i switched to nod it nvr found any either do maybe navs engone is very acurate or its shields are good. But take into considerations i dont really download much stufff from the net so ur experience with the av might be different.