Symantec sucks!

Nice to hear that they improve something in years!

 

Hybrid threat, your comments about Symantec are factually incorrect. You state that 95% of issues with the software are generated from user error. With me Live Update failed through no error on my part and even Symantec concede to me in an email that the failure of Live Update can be through a fault in the product and not through user mistake.

I say that these sort of faults should not occur in a product provided for the public and if they do, Symantec are duty bound to put in place procedures to remedy their admittedly unreliable software.

With me the remedy was to uninstall and reinstall - something I could not do because NAV was preinstalled on my HP machine. You impertinantly suggest that because it was a free product I can have no complaint. This attitude on your part displays a crass and insensitive ignorance of consumer law. When I paid £50 to Symantec I entered into a legally binding contract in which they agreed to provide a service for the duration of the agreement. If their product fails it is THEIR responsibility to ensure that the matter is satisfactorily dealt with in a timely manner.

Symantec abrogated their responsibility to me as a consumer and thereby richly merit all the odium that I choose to heap upon them.

Perhaps in future you would care to take the trouble to get your facts right before sharing your arrogance with us.

 

"I say that these sort of faults should not occur in a product provided for the public".

Gee I think I said the same thing about and another product, and you called it drivel or some such thing. Granted the other product is free, however it is still for public consumption.

What is with this individual folks? He seems to criticize others for the same thing he does himself. Now he calls another individual arrogant, is he to be taken seriously?

Thanks
Wildman

 

You've got no bitching rights with something that's free.

 

I personally don't see a point in using NAV when Kaspersky, NOD32 and many more have better detection rates, lower CPU usage, better support, better pricing, less bugs, more updates, a better un-installer and a more friendly GUI. But then again, if i was a high class IT like Hybrid Threat then I might see things differently, but for now I will stick to my ignorant ways...

 

Wildman:-

When you use a free product, like AntiVir, you accept certain terms and conditions set out in the licence agreement; usually these will be along the lines of " this product is accepted 'as is' with no warranties as to fitness for purpose....etc".
This limits the gripes you can have. If the product fries your machine there still may be the possibility of action based on negligence, but that is another question.

Symantec make their product available for commercial gain and the onus is on them to provide support and a reliable product that is fit for the purpose it was intented (i.e. functions satisfactorily) . It doesn't matter how good NAV is when it is working if it has the propensity to fail through no fault of the user and the Company offer no provision to rectify the problem.

If I were to have difficulty with AntiVir (or KAV for that matter) I could download another copy and start again. With the preinstalled NAV products this is not possible - Symantec take your money and run!

H+BEDV are not unresponsive to their customers as you suggest, connecting with the server has greatly improved (for me at least); indeed for the last couple of weeks it has taken me precisely 30 seconds to update AntiVir, from the time I first click the icon to the time the download completes - that is even quicker than KAV at times! (I admit I am on DSL).

I categorise your comments about H+BEDV as drivel because they are non-constructive, obsessional, compulsive and do not accord with the experiences of many others. If you don't like the product you can always try Symantec instead - and if it loses you the thick end of 100 bucks we'll see how you complain then!

 

NO you have an obligation to inform those who may not be that computer savvy, about the pit falls of shoddy products, or companies who may not be as concerned as they would like you to believe, be it FREE or PAY . It tells me volumes, and should you also, about an individual who would only be concerned about doing so if money were involved. Even if only one other individual ever has a like experience, I can still feel good about having perhaps opened someones eyes. I said I would be civil, and I shall, even if I do think some one is disingenuous.

Thanks
Wildman

 

Both of you are correct.

Wildman - I agree, we do have a community obligation to inform potential users if we believe they are walking down a bad path, and to make that point known to the producers of the software. If the application has been paid for and does not work as advertised, the vendor has a pragmatic commercial committment to either fix the application or refund our purchase price. That really doesn't apply for free applications. Once our input is offered, we should be done to the extent that the vendor can impliment our suggestions or pass on them - the ball is in their court. The provider of the software has not entered into either an explicit or implicit agreement with us to provide specific performance as is the case with a paid application. Naturally, we should feel free to share our experience with other users, recognizing that our experience may be unique based on a number of hardware and software factors,

Notok - correct, we have no bitching rights, but we should feel some obligation to fellow users if we believe that net possibilities of using an application are negative. Note - my interpretation of bitching rights means a user communicating to a producer only. Anything else, posting warnings or critiques on forums, is feedback/opinion provided to users and potential users.

The minimal standards to be maintained are different for commercial and freeware applications. The lines are blurred since some commercial offerings are pathetic, while some freeware applications are works of absolute programming beauty.

TopperID's analysis is basically how I see it. We do need to realize that the problems, and good results for that matter, we experience may not translate to others. Thus in either criticizing or promoting a position, we need to appreciate that there may be diametrically opposed positions out there that are as real and valid as our own.

Blue

 

Indeed. It's reasonable to expect a commercial program to be effective and relatively trouble free. When a free program can do the same then it's an absolute gem, but it doesn't raise the standard of expectations for other programs to me.

I do agree that if your experiences with a product are negative and potentially have dangerous affect, then you should help others to avoid the same mistakes. This thread offers clearly illustrated experiences involved with NAV, and shows that it's not entirely uncommon. However offering negative opinions of individuals doesn't offer much more than distraction from the subject at hand. Offering perspective is generally far more effective than repetitive slandering.

I was using a free AV and hardware NAT when I got infected by a RAT from a Russian spam message, this is what brought me to NOD32 and ultimately this forum. There are trade-offs with all products, if those trade-offs can be kept in mind when choosing your defense strategy, you can make better decisions. This thread illustrates what I've heard time and time again about Norton, and I believe offers some good indication as to what you can be in for if you choose to give them your money.

It should be obvious, however, that if you don't take security seriously enough to pay for it, then you are going to be more likely to encounter problems. If you do pay, entering a contract with a vendor, then it's reasonable to expect that they will hold up their end of that bargain (hence the subject of this thread.) I don't in any way advocate spending excessive amounts of money for protection, but I can at least hope to offer perspective that can help others to find the balance between what's effective and what one can afford. Ultimately, however, you aren't doing anybody any favors if you don't have anything to offer besides personal insults. This also applies to the mentality that Hybrid Threat presents. I have experience as a tech, and still I know that continually stating 'user-error' is not acceptable when dealing with consumer level products. It may be fair to say that when the product is more complicated and made for experienced personnel, but when you have a product that is made for Ma & Pa Jones, it is in no way reasonable to expect them to have a comprehensive technical understanding of how the product works. User friendliness is the responsibility of the vendor when they have taken it upon themselves to make a product for, and specifically market to, the masses. These kind of considerations are not really relavant to a free product, however, that is offered as-is. As with any other product you may buy, just be aware of the alternatives and what the advantages of each are.

 

Outstanding comment! I wish I could have said it so well.

 

WOW!
Looks like I started something here.......
Lets clarify a few points,
1. I am relatively happy with NAV 2003 (that's why I renewed it).
2. It was on an OEM installation....and thats OK too.
3. It has worked well (maybe a little resorce hungry, but probably not as bad as 2004/2005)
4. I understand that formatting the HDD will remove registration stuff (thanks for the insulting comments Hybrid Threat!)
5. All I wanted was Symantec to reset my subscription (not rocket science)
6. You simply cannot contact Symantec.......and if you are lucky enough to, they simply ignore you......
7. My issue is with their complete lack of customer service, not so much the product

Cheers all,
Buck

 

I agree NAV works well, It is a hog but it's detection rate and cleaning rate is good. Now if their support just worked as well.

 

Perhaps we are getting side tracked.

I wish that I could write much more eloquently than I am able to. I wish that I did not come off so abrasive at times. Hell there are a list of things I wish I could accomplish better. So I ask please bare with me on this one.

I think of those who are not as savvy as the majority who post here at Wilder's, and wonder where do they go for answers to their concerns and problems. Thus my other post not using technical jargon.

I wounder why anyone would use a pay virus protection program, unless they are running a business, when that should be but a small portion of the total protection package.

I wonder why some would think that money or loss of it should have more importance in any of this. Haven't we been told, and seen posted here at Wilder's, that free virus protection programs are a chunk of the paid version?

Sorry if some view this as getting off the topic, said I wasn't that eloquent of a writer.

Thanks
Wildman

 

I had my own computer repair shop for over ten years. The majority of infected computers that I had to work on were running free av programs, I cant give you an exact percentage but it was in the neighborhood of eighty percent that were running free av's over commercial versions that came in infected by malware. Free av's just don't have the man power or the financial resources to produce a product that will perform as well as most commercial programs. There are three free av's that are used quite a bit and most users that have them seem to do all right with them. But after all of those years working on infected computers and seeing what can happen to a good machine due to use of a free av with questionable reliability, has taught me that the use of a commercial antivirus enhances the chances of not getting infected. And I am not willing to put my $1400+ computer at risk any more than I can help. And that means useing a commercial antivirus and firewall. This is my personal opinion derived from many years dealing with malware and antivirus programs first hand.


bigc

 

Once upon a time a long, long time ago I had McAfee installed on my machine. The problems it caused, we will not even touch, unless you want to see me really rant. This is why I tried AntiVir/PE. I think most know what I now think of the company behind that product. This little stint with McAfee is also the reason why I would never again spend a cent on a pay virus protection program, unless I were running a business. If this were the case, you can be darn certain that I would do a hell of a lot of home work before I spent a dime, and even then I wouldn't be happy about having to worry if I made the correct choice.

Thanks
Wildman

 

Exactly!......................Just a pity Symantec don't support NAV as it should be supported.

 

I don't expect you would ever try mcafee again after reading your post. The early versions of mcafee were definatly a pain in the butt. but after version six came out the program isn't even closely related to the older ones such as all the versions #4 and#5 they just didn't work right. But since versions 6,7,and 8 it is an extremely stable program with very good detection rates of viri,trojans.worms,dialers and more. but enough of this, I will say in closing that mcafee has come a long way in the last two years.

curt

and if you are happy with antivir then that is the one you need to use

 

Were these free AVs kept up-to-date? If someone has paid for a program and is told they need to download new files every week to keep it effective, in my view they are more likely to do so than with a free program where they have not made any (financial) commitment.

McAfee was the first AV I used on my system - and was running when I got my first (and so far only) virus infection back in 1998 (Marburg). It got caught when I did a signature update (this was monthly - back in the days when my Internet access was limited to weekends at home) but I had some cleaning up to do. Aside from this failure though, McAfee was a lean and unobtrusive program - guess it was just a little too unobtrusive in this case.

 

BigC nailed it! And yes Wildman my only virus that was not caught and killed was when I had an OEM Mcafee. I just did a little research in my hard copy log books I keep incase some tech guy wanted to know something in order to help me when I was a newbee, recorded alot of stuff. Now only major stuff, but anyway. On June 1 2002 I updated to version 5.21.1000. It was hanging on me after that. But by June 6 my computer was sick with a virus of unknown type. I talked to a tech guy explained what was happening and he told me. I dumped what was left of McAfee (the virus destroyed the signatures) and I loaded boxed NAV back then. Never could determine what bug I had.

Final thought I would never take the atitude that no payware for me just because a payware AV failed to catch something. Shop and buy based on your budget. Lots of products and more coming all the time makes for good products at good prices.

 

Actually, I have an identical reaction to McAfee. I realize that it may not be rational, that they may have changed, and that past performance doesn't necessarily equate to future potential, but with all the options out there I personally opt to avoid McAfee products for now. Same with Norton/Symantec. I realize many folks have good success with these products and that's great, but both let me down in a significant way in the past, were exceptionally slow on support, and I've chosen to support vendors that gone the extra mile when I needed it.

I also agree with bigc - noncommercial offerings simply do not have the resources to remain current and I feel that is absolutely essential. Commercial packages don't always remain current either. Paying for a program does not immediately impart superiority. The freeware AV's that are reasonable choices are the ones that are really just enticements to jump to the paid version with additional features. Some are fine, some are marginal, some probably leave a lot to be desired.

As to Wildman's question why anyone would pay for an AV if not running a business? Well, I keep a lot of financial, tax, and professionally related material on my PC. I'm not an independent business person, but there are technical tools that I've programmed on my own time that I do use in the context of my job and it's a pain to go through a recovery exercise. The kids use their PC's for schoolwork (well, about 3% of the time, and IM/surf/play music the remaining 97% of the time) and downtime there can be awkward (what do you mean a virus ate your homework?....). My wife is a teacher at a community college and she keeps lecture notes/presentations/tests/etc. on her personal laptop. Between the 4 of us, the money spent to keep things smoothly running and protected is, in my opinion, well spent insurance against an untimely incident. Sometimes it's a difficult pill to swallow covering 5 home machines, but that's the way it is. I do realize that there are inexpensive options available (e.g. F-Prot for AV, BOClean, etc.). Some I take advantage of (BOClean), in other cases I'm comfortable with the single seat apps I now have running.

Blue

 

Didn't want to get into the McAfee thing, as it was so long ago, but the short of the matter is that it came installed with all the other stuff on my Compaq Desktop. McAfee sent a notification for all Compaq computer owners to load a patch. In one of my post some where here at Wilder's I have told that I have had to start from scratch on my machine, twice because of computer crashes. Make a guess as to what caused the first crash. Also got the royal run around, because the program came already installed, no one wanted to accept responsibility. For what good it did, I filed a B.B.B. complaint against McAfee and went looking for other protection, the rest has been told on the pages of these post, in this thread and others. It has been from this time, that I went on a mission to warn as many as I could, when I thought that a product or it's company was blowing smoke. Haven't always done the best job at it, but I do not plan to stop any time soon.

Thanks
Wildman

 

I like mcafee and in the older versions I was burning up the phone lines also to mcafee support. I will admit their product in the past really did leave a lot to be desired especially the ver#5, what a joke. But we are a lot more fortunate now than then. There are quite a few more antivirus products to choose from now Well we have gone about five miles off topic so I will quit now and let it ride.

bigc.

 

I sure hope that I have not given the impression that one should not protect their machine(s) or the data it contains. I just think that one should spend money wisely, and it is not always necessary to keep up with the Jones. I do however believe in using all the protection you can, and no this is not a contradiction either. All that has been told about e-mail checking, using the other programs for spy ware, Ad ware a good fire wall etc., should be part of an over all protection plan. Tech support alert has an article about an individual who has so many layers of protection, that he is sure not much is going to get through to this guy's machine. That is the type of protection I am talking about. This mind you does not fit all, and for some scenarios this would not at all be appropriate.

Thanks
Wildman

 

I agree it can be overdone

bigc

 

Me, too -- but it's still a lot of fun if you are (like me) an AV-collecting junkie. Am I the only one here?