NAV 2005 surprised me

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Chuck57, Sep 12, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    After vowing never to put Symantec anything on my computer ever again, I installed the 90 trial version of Norton AV 2005. Just the AV, nothing else.

    I am surprised. It seems pretty light on my computer. Not much slowdown at all. I can run any program I want and the delay in loading is minimal. This is a big surprise to me, considering how miserably slow everything was 3 or 4 years ago -- the last time I tried Norton.

    Installation was easy and update not a problem, although slow since we only have dialup here in the sticks. The scan is going as I type this and I noticed very little slow down while connecting to the net and opening my browser. I also have MS Word running, along with another program.

    So far, I have no complaints -- except for the price should I want to keep it after the trial. I think, though, I could find it at Best Buy or other places quite a bit cheaper than what Symantec wants for it.

    I've only had it installed for barely a half an hour, so probably shouldn't be praising it yet.
     
  2. Chuck_IV

    Chuck_IV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Posts:
    133
  3. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Avoid Beta Av's. Wait for final release unless your a geek. And I mean that in a good way. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2005
  4. tuatara

    tuatara Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Posts:
    772
    To be honest, i am very happy with Norton AntiVirus 2005
    customers bring a lot of pc's in our shop with NAV2005 on it.

    Last month we had about 15 pc's which where running this,
    and all had serious problems.

    The cause is always the same, a trojan has disabled or better changed
    NAV2005 so that it LOOKS as if NAV2005 works, but in fact does not.

    After a scan with NOD32 or Kaspersky you find sometimes up to 50 virusses.

    You can understand that customers are really disapointed, because
    Norton (which was one of the best AV's in the early days) and is
    one of the best-known and easiest to find and buy AV
    Did not prevent this from happening.

    Slow down is still there when you decide to run Norton Internet Security.

    Of course, others can have other experiences, but solving this kind of problems, is our job, and this is what we find.

    So i was really a Norton fan in the early days, but when Symantec took over it went downwards fast.
    The same thing happened to Ghost, i was using this software from the first version (from the German Company) now the last SYMANTEC version
    needs .net and live-update o_O
    so again, a good product down the ..

    And it is expensive now so .. i can't reccommend it.

    I find it always very strange that Norton is often te number 1 AV from
    a test, but THEN there is never NOD32,Kaspersky,Sophos,G-data AntiVirusKit tested at the same time.

    So one Pro and one Contra (seems fair) ..;)
     
  5. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California

    A NOD32 fan per chance? ;) :D
     
  6. nicM

    nicM nico-nico

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Posts:
    631
    Location:
    France
    I don't want to be polemical, but I might be a little bit here, because there's something as ideology about Norton on forumS... :D :

    Don't you honestly think that in 80 % of "norton-computer-heartily-getting-viruses around" stories, the one to blame is not the AV but the people behind the computer o_O :p

    I mean, that's a fact that Norton av is the top selling product, the most "known" by common people, does come installed on nearly every brand-new computer, thus it's target is necessarily inexperimented people: Statistically, that's the natural and irremediable consequence.

    So, among Norton users, we can find most of people who don't get windows patches, or even don't know about updating their AV, or never heard about a firewall. There are chances that their AV will just stay on their computer like a "nice plant", just for the "good looking" role; you know what I mean.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that this product is for beginner: that's a good one, and yes, it happens that it scores first-second in tests, just behind Kaspersky or Nod32. Personally, I was running it till the beginning of last month, and I've never been infected; was doing regular scans with other AVs, used as backup, they never found a single piece of malware. I will use another one for now ( let's support smaller developers :D ), but I still like it :)

    So when you use it in a responsible way, it's just as good as any other famous AV: Norton is simply victim of its own success, it's used by the masses, and so by average users who are the most likely to get infected anyway - people who just want their computer to get their mails, to surf internet, and that's all: people who are not suspicious; there are a lot ! :rolleyes: , and they DO NOT CARE about security, a "tricky stuff for geeks" ( lol ).

    I bet that if the AV market was different from today, and lots of computer were running "something else" than Norton, ie. Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Nod32, Avast, etc-etc, the result would be ...the same. Just because of the human behind the machine.

    About uninstalling or installing Norton, that must be the same: do this on a "clean" computer, everything goes smooth ( I know, did it several times on several computers ). Do this on a ugly computer, full of junk-temp files, or infected, yes, the uninstall may become crazy. Again, we hear a lot about Norton here, but its spreading makes it the most likely to be concerned. I agree that its uninstaller is maybe not fully functionnal, or less than other products ( don't throw tomats at me :D ). But the popularity of the soft makes that we'll hear principaly about Norton, for theses maintenance bugs: just the masses factor again.

    Well, that's about all what I wanted to say about that.

    No, I'm not a Symantec employee- lol . But the common Norton ass-kicking speech is too frequent, I'm always pissed about that, that looks like ideology.


    Regards :)
     
  7. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    Excellent points nico-nico. I totally agree. I know a few of those people personally. :doubt:


    Again I agree. Using KAV as an example. If it were loaded on just about every PC that is sold like NAV is, I bet it would be the one taking the brunt of criticism for letting a ton of virus through. Those "people I know", don't want to bother with configuring their NAV, worry about virus updates, or subsription renewals. Even after I explain it to them, they just schrugg their shoulders and say they don't want to bother with it. They figure as long as it's on their PC, they are fine. I'm sure there are many, many more like them out there. :doubt: :(
     
  8. tuatara

    tuatara Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Posts:
    772
    yes, and of Kaspersky and of Sophos and of many others....
    but don't worry there are a lot of Symantec fans here as well

    And of course i agree, that Symantec AV
    is perhaps the most targetted AntiVirus.

    And i always have problems with uninstall, after the uninstall
    live-update etc. and the Application data directory and Symantec common
    files, are always left behind on the system (without asking)
    if i search in the registry then again there are lots of Symantec items.

    but i am happy to hear, there are also happy customers.
    That is the nice thing about this forum you always hear the Positive and Negative things ..
     
  9. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    I use NAV 2005, and haven't had any problems with viruses; however, a Live update trashed my system about a month ago. I've been a loyal Symantec customer since 2003, buying 2003, 2004, and now I'm on 2005. However, I must admit that I'm closer to moving away than I ever have been. I don't agree with tuatara's statements about Symantec though. Look at Symantec as a company. They have been tremendously successful and this doesn't happen by producing inferior products. They also have more resources at their disposal than some of those companies that tuatara mention. Also, I recently was in the market for a cloning program so naturally I researched Ghost. I heard more than one person recommend that I use an older version (2003) because "Symantec screwed up the newer versions." I didn't listen and have been very happy with the latest version of Ghost.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
  10. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    Ummm...an AV's job is to keep a persons computer clean of virii...no matter what their computer/surfing habits... and in the case with someone infested with 50 virii...yeah, I'd say that's the AV's fault - whatever AV it is <unless they didn't update for a year, which you can't tell from the examples given>

    It also didn't read as if Tuatara was bashing Symantec to me...rather just relaying a numerous number of experiences with Nortons AV.

    As for NAV....although they have in times past had lower trojan detection rate than they should (but they were still better than some other AV's for this)...they seem to have fixed that up considerably in recent times...at least, according to the latest www.av-comparatives.org
     
  11. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    A Nurse where I work had NAV on her home computer and had numerous virus infections. When a geek collegue of mine went to her home to check her computer,he found that her subscription had run out several months previously. The Nurse didn't know she had to renew her subscription for virus signatures. The AV came preinstalled and she thought it looked after itself. This sort of thing is typical.
     
  12. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    I suppose it would be easier to see the effectiveness of the AV...if when these cases came to light...they updated AV with the virii still there, and then scanned to see how many it picks up and how many it misses...any other method is just supposition about how many virii the AV missed because it wasn't updated, and how many it missed simply because it doesn't have the sigs.
     
  13. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Well, using myself as an example, even when I ran Kaspersky 4xx I always, and still have, a backup antivirus that I run every week or so.

    I made the decision to try Norton based on my oldest son's comments. He and his children spend half their computing time at gaming sites, which I avoid, just like I stay clear of porn sites, warez sites, and other similar places. They have been hit by a variety of nasty things, but none have ever gotten through. He also uses a couple of online scanners every week or so, and he keeps his xp machine currently updated with the endless ms security patches.

    On the other hand, I post at a retired person's forum at AARP. There, I find many people trashing Norton, McAfee, and others because their machines are infected. When people knowledgeable about computers question them, almost invariably you read that they didn't know they were supposed to update, they didn't know the software expired, or even that Norton/McAfee warned them about a virus and they selected to ignore it because they didn't know what to do. Reading some of those posts, I'm of the opinion that some people ought to be required to attend classes in computer useage and security before they're allowed to use one.

    We have close friends who are just as bad. They've had a computers for over 5 yrs and STILL can't get it through their heads that paid antivirus programs expire after a year. They've twice had to take their computer in and have it reformatted because of it. He doesn't know how to do it and I've given up helping. They, like my son and his kids, spend a lot of time at online gaming sites, and downloading various software trials from God only knows where.

    Antivirus, trojan, worms, security software is helpful but I have said and still say the best protection is knowledge and common sense, and that is, each and every one of us, our own personal responsibility. If we don't keep our security software current, whether through laziness or ignorance, and if we insist on surfing in dangerous waters, we should be prepared to get bitten by sharks sooner or later.
     
  14. Chuck_IV

    Chuck_IV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Posts:
    133
    The question is, WHY didn't she know? Was it the fault of the AV program not making it clear or even notifying her that she needed to or was she just ignorant? If an AV program does a GOOD ENOUGH job of warning the user that their subscription is about to run out, it's hard to believe she had no clue that the AV needed to be renewed.
     
  15. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    She might be like the friends we have. The antivirus expires but they can still run it, so all is okay. They don't understand, or won't understand, or who knows, that update means protection from new variants of viruses, etc. They've been told, but it simply won't sink in.
     
  16. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    You can blame the nurse for this, but I blame Norton for this.

    1. As long the subscription didn't run out, each AV should check for upgradings of its programs and updatings of its definition database automatically and several times a day and silent in the background.
    Don't tell me this isn't possible. It is just a matter of good and smart programming.

    Each time an AV disturbs my concentration, when I'm working with a message about upgrading/updating, I'm irritated.
    I don't need to be warned :
    - that an AV requires an updating, let the AV take care about that automatically
    - that the updating was successfull, if the updating wasn't successfull, let the AV take care about that too automatically during the NEXT check for an upgrading/updating.

    2. At least one week before the subscription expires, the user should be warned EVERY DAY with an eye-catching informative popup window, that his subscription needs to be renewed before a certain mentioned date with clear and easy instructions how to renew the subscription and how much it will cost.
    During that period the AV will continue to do its job.

    3. Once the subscription is expired, the AV will NOT work anymore, not even the scanning and the AV will warn the user again with the same popup window until he renewed his subscription or he un-installed the AV.
    If Norton would have done that, the nurse would have noticed this and done the right thing.
    End of subscription means also that Norton STOPS with doing its job. Isn't that normal ?
    If you can't agree with that, install a free AV scanner.

    Concerning scanning :
    Each AV scanner should run automatically and silent in the background at a hour, decided by the user.
    If the AV didn't find anything, the user doesn't need to be warned, because everything is OK. That's one disturbing message less.
    If the AV detected one or more malwares, the user should be warned in order to remove the malware or not to remove the malware in case of a false positive and the AV should provide a service (button) on the removal window
    to report that false positive to the AV company immediately.
    Less-knowledgeable users will most probably remove the false positive, but knowledgeable users will at least have an easy way to report false positives even when they are too lazy to report it manually.

    Concerning integrity of the AV :
    Each AV should do an integrity check of its own software at least one time a month.
    Is each file and registry of the AV still normal ?
    Are there files and registries that don't belong in the AV ?
    And anything else that is technical possible to guarantee the integrity of the AV and also that should be corrected automatically and silent in the background by the AV, even when it requires a downloading of a file to replace a corrupted file.

    Don't call me very demanding, the programmers at work, do that often, but they forget one important thing :
    A programmer writes a program during ONE period and it doesn't matter how complicated a program is, because it has to be done only ONE time.
    Once the program is tested and corrected, the programmer's work is done and he forgets about the program and starts working on another program. What happens with a program later is what we call maintenance. Maintenance isn't the same as writing a total new program.
    An user however has to work with these programs, year after year and he is entitled to have the very best service, because he is the one who pays and has to live with the AV and all its possible disadvantages day after day.

    I can understand that AV freewares don't offer the same service, because they are made intentionally this way, because the AV company wants you to buy the paid version.
    Some people prefer to think that AV freewares are made for charity reasons, I don't.
    But even the paid versions don't offer a full service, like it should be and that's what bothering me.

    What happened to the nurse with Norton is a typical example of a bad service caused by insufficient (not bad) programming, which doesn't mean that NAV is a bad one. NAV has always been one of the best AV's.
    When you evaluate an AV you have to SEPARATE problems from one another and certainly when they have nothing to do with eachother.
    If Norton software is called bloatware, that has nothing to do with the quality of NAV, to solve that problem buy a powerful computer that can handle Norton software.
    If Norton software is too expensive, that has nothing to do with the quality of NAV, it means only that you can't afford or you are not willing to buy Norton and pay the yearly subscriptions and the support.

    My post counts for every existing scanner and upto now, I never saw a scanner with that kind of service I described. Some are close, but there is always missing something.
     
  17. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    Sorry, I had to go back and edit my posting.
    I actually took the time to look this up:
    1 virus is a virus.
    2 virus are viruses, not viri, or virii.
    I learned something today and wanted to pass it along for anyone that cares.
     
  18. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    In the case of my friends, the subscription expired and, yes, I'm sure they were warned but since it was set to run a check every week automatically, they paid no attention and assumed McAfee was still doing its job. Expired to some people and expired to others apparently means a different thing. Likely, they just closed the warning box and went their merry way.

    When something is done without human input, other than maybe setting up the program, people tend to assume its working and ignore it from the time they set it up and forever after.

    We, even me, tend to pay more attention to security than the average user who just wants things to work and assume everything does work without any attention on their part. They take what's on the computer when they buy it, MAYBE make sure its all working but sometimes don't even do that, and hop online blissfully unaware and uncaring of what's out there.

    Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, NOD, I don't care what they have, if people don't do their part (meaning use their God given intelligence and common sense), the last people I will blame are the manufacturers. It boils down to personal responsibility.

    In the case of the nurse, my bet is that she ignored the warnings that the software was about to expire. I'm sure Norton warns just as McAfee, and I assume every other maker of antivirus and other programs do. Unless there was a glitch in the program and there was no warning given, she probably just closed the box each time it popped up. She wouldn't be the first to do that. I've done it and I'm sure we all have at one time or other.

    Like the people at the AARP site, we can always try to place the blame someplace else. Ultimately, it's our responsibility and like it or not, we have to accept it, even in this day and age when people tend to prefer to blame someone else for their misfortunes or blunders.
     
  19. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Chuck,
    I'm also sure that Norton warned the nurse and that she ignored the message.

    It depends on the CONTENTS of the message.
    If the message only warns the user, that his subscription is expired and nothing more than that, than he will probably ignore the message, because he thinks it's only about money.
    If the message also warns the user, that NAV will STOP protecting his computer and he ignores even that, than he can blame only himself and then I fully agree with you.

    I worked also with NAV long ago and as far as I remember the warning message was only talking about expiring, not about stopping the protection, which is more important for the user.
    Warning people isn't enough, you also have to tell them what the CONSEQUENCES are, if they ignore the warning.
    People ignore alot of warnings in life, because they don't know anything about the consequences.

    I don't know what NAV actually does, after the expiring date.
    If NAV doesn't stop the protection after the expiring date, than the meaning of expiring is worthless.
     
  20. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Good point, Eric, and I don't know what the warning says. A partial warning, such as you described, for the average user would be no better than no warning. They, from my experience with people not really into security, don't seem able to grasp the meaning, and don't want to bother taking the few minutes to investigate it.

    I've told people interested in getting a computer that the smartest thing they could do was to take a class in computer useage and ask questions if they weren't clear. None ever did, to my knowledge. I didn't either when I got my first, back in 1991, and paid the price of having to learn to reformat and reinstall...many times, since I couldn't resist playing with DOS 5 to try and learn how it worked. Neither did I look for help when I built my first computer, eventually ending up destroying the motherboard.

    Anyway, back on subject......I believe from talking with novice users that most just don't pay attention to those little boxes that pop up. They consider them a nuisance and click the 'x' immediately without even thinking. They're too anxious to get on with whatever they want to do to be bothered by a pesky warning or alert. And, I don't know a solution to the problem, unless the manufacturers perhaps make it so the box won't go away without some form of validation that the person has read and understood what the warning or alert is about. How to do that, I don't know. Even then, would what is being warned about register in their brain?

    Maybe Internet users ought to be licensed, like driving a car. Prove you can understand the Internet and the dangers before you're allowed to go online. I don't agree with it, and would fight any such attempt.

    Then, maybe there are just some people who shouldn't have computers at all. Maybe a typewriter is the limit of their ability.
     
  21. SDS909

    SDS909 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Posts:
    333
    Wait until you try and uninstall it.. Norton will never, ever, see a spot on any of my PC's hard drives ever again. Especially not at their ridiculous $50 pricepoint and aweful customer service.
     
  22. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    And I'm not looking forward to the experience. With the urge to try it, I spaced the warnings I've read here about the uninstall procedure. I have a restore point set in system restore. I wonder if that would remove all the garbage Norton leaves.
     
  23. Wake2

    Wake2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Posts:
    205
    I can share a story with you about uninstalling Norton.

    Some time back I set my Grandmother up
    with a computer and installed NIS 2003.

    I took the time to show her how to check
    the live updates, and how to run virus scans,
    and she had no problems with it.

    Much later my Grandmother while out shopping saw the
    new NIS 2004 versions and which the salesman there
    (Best Buy) told her was a must have.

    Grandma told me about this "purchase" mind you now
    she had four months left on her 2003 subscription and
    so I made the mistake of telling her to leave it and
    I would install it for her later....

    Week went by and I stopped by my Grandmothers checked
    the computer and saw OMG NIS 2004 installed, so when
    I asked her how that happened she said she had not
    wanted to bother me so she called Symantec on the
    phone who referred her at no charge to a very nice
    man in India who told her how to remove NIS 2003
    and install the 2004 version.

    I will never forget that lol

    Wake
     
  24. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Now we are on the same page. :cool:
    In Belgium we have a saying "What's the use of spectacles and candle, when the owl doesn't want to see."
    That's the trouble with some users and I also understand the user, when he is too busy with something else, that he will ignore the warning and click it away.
    That's why NAV has to warn him EVERY DAY, with a better formulated and eye-catching message.
    If he still ignores it, then Norton did everything what had to be done. Some users have to learn it the hard way and then they don't deserve my pity either.

    Scanners should only warn people, when it's absolutely necessary and not bother them with normal messages, concerning upgrading, updating, no threats found, etc... because these normal routine messages are disturbing, annoying and appear every day.
    If NAV gives them only messages, when something is really wrong, the user will pay more attention to them, because they don't appear that often.
    It's not only about NAV, it's about all scanners.
    Good security is silent in the background when everything is OK and should only act when there is "danger".
    I don't know any scanner that is so quiet.
    Somehow these scanners always have to tell me "Hey I'm working for you. Can you see me ?" :D
     
  25. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    The warning screen for Norton 2003 which I had looked pretty bland,and I think that could be part of the problem. The required warnings were there that you would not be able to update virus definitions and it did a daily countdown stating 30 days in advance, but it all looked ho hum and non threatening. Not like the bright red screen you get when NOD intercepts something like a trojan and scares the crap out of you the first time you see it. I wonder what the warning will look like when my NOD is about to expire. If more new users go to it when version 3 comes out with the simplified interface for beginners it should be an attention grabber with a dire warning.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.