Norton Scaring Windows 8 Owners

Lol..............If your sales are dropping. Scare them into buying your products Symantec says. Read and enjoy. FYI................No arguing. Norton products are very good.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ity_says_Symantec?taxonomyId=208&pageNumber=1

 

they`re just stating that windows 8 is not that secure as microsoft said it would be..they`re not the creators of win 7/xp/any other OS to try to scare people away from win 8 and buy their`s.. what made you draw that conclusion?

 

By making such a statement they are putting doubts and fears into Windows 8 owners. Making those people look into other means of protection such as Symantec. It's an advertising scam. Like reverse psychology.

 

This pretty much sums up everything the guy at Norton has said:

I find the statement true and not biased. Norton indeed does a better job than the bundled MSE (at least it would warn me about months-old definition and give me a tray icon to know if it's still working).

I'm more amazed about the amount of comments accusing Norton of their "bloated software". It's been 4 years since Norton 2009 was released and changed it all, and those guys are still stubborn enough not to give it a second chance. Norton is much more resource-tolerant than before and can now be considered pretty lightweight on today's PCs.

 

Wasn't it Symantec that said the same sort of thing about MSE.
Now, Norton is 'better', IMO, than MSE but it is MSE that has the largest user base in the USA?
With MSE 'in-place' with Windows 8 they have a tough time ahead.

Come back Doc Norton, Symantec needs you.

 

Oops I missed this one
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Blocks-Antivirus-Software-on-Windows-RT-293367.shtml

 

Norton/Symantec scaring "Tactics"...
Don't bite...

 

Symantec makes a habit out of bashing Microsoft. But yet it it wasn't for Windows they would be out of business. Don't crap where you sleep.

http://www.winrumors.com/symantec-microsofts-security-essentials-is-not-good-enough/

 

I don't think that's accurate at all. Windows 8 will have much stronger MAC than Windows 7, and more and better memory protection features; a lot of malicious stuff may simply not run. IMO Egan is simply wrong, and basically spreading FUD.

Re resource consumption, Norton is okay on high-end computers, e.g. Core i3 or better with 4+ GB of RAM. On netbooks and other low-spec computers, it's absolutely terrible. And I'm not convinced it's effective enough to warrant the price tag.

 

Actually norton came preloaded on two my kids gateway netbooks with dual intel atoms,1 gig ram and it ran very light,However after sending a few malwares sample right past it that most others had caught, I removed it along with its left over trash.I would have removed it anyways regardless because I dislike norton other then norton DNS which is very good, the rest of there products will never be on my systems period.

 

Wasn't Symantec that was sued sometime ago by some person due to scareware tactics in one of their scanning tools? I believe it was some free on-demand scanning tool? I think someone brought it up at Wilders perhaps a few months back...

Go figure...

 

Symantec Wins First Round In Scareware Lawsuit

 

Norton bashing?.........boring.

If those words came from your favourite security blogger all would be fine and dandy.

 

More like Norton bashing Microsoft which is the subject title of this thread.

 

I do not see a problem with what is quoted in the above links.

This on the other hand.

 

I have no problem with that and agree. Free AV is not sufficient from my experience, you get what you pay for. Nothing is flawless, but I will not run the free stuff.

 

That is not what I said... I said that the paid software was better and more complete protection. If I am going to run a product at all I will run the one I have had the best experience with. I have seen the free products miss plenty of things not missed by paid products. If there was no difference the free vendors you named would not also make paid products. And I would not run McAfee if they paid me to.

 

Most of the time that "complete protection" is nothing more than unnecessary bloat that slows down your box, increases your attack surface, and creates conflicts with other real-time security products. See the thread in here entitled something like: "local proxies impeding..." for a great example of how the Web Shield/Guards in Avast & Avira conflict with firewalls and actually decrease your security.

I would sooner pay for most of the free AV's than the paid versions. They're lighter, don't bring that potential for conflict along with them, and do all you really need an AV to do in the first place... stop malware. Anything more is just fluff, bells, whistles, bloat, and conflicts waiting to happen.

 

But, I never mentioned WSF users. Many people - not just WSF (I doubt they would do it blindly, anyway) - run an antimalware application that the computer shop "recommends", either free or paid. And, my experience is that many people I come across had computer shops installing them only an antimalware application, most of the time tricking their clients into buying the "recommended" solution. Then, they also try to sell plans to clean their clients systems in case of an infection. Not all of them do it, but many do.

I remember that a relative of mine came to me after an infection, quite sometime ago, and the only protection the laptop had, was another paid antivirus - a trial version, though; one of those deals with computer manufacturers. With this, I'm not saying a free AV would have stopped the infection - it could or it could not. But, a paid solution (for all that matters, considering that the malware definitions and functionality are the same) didn't stop it.
Many more people could come up with more examples like this one.

So, saying you get what you pay for doesn't really reflect the reality of antiviruses, as they all, free and paid, miserably fail to properly protect users.

-edit-

Also, the same way you don't solely rely on a paid antivirus, why should anyone using a free antivirus rely solely on it? Not only can they use another free third-party security tool to complement the free AV, if it lacks something they would like to have, and also SRP, AppLocker, etc. Which is why I mentioned that discussing free AV vs paid AV is futile, IMHO.

 

I hope you understand that's a business model? Get people to use the free version, and then add something to the paid version that people may believe they need to use in order to be better protected.

 

^ This right here. It's very true that not all free software (especially security software) is created equal, some simply are not that good. But, it should also be realized that even Kaspersky, Norton and so on miss things. In fact, check a lot of hacker forums/pirate websites and you'll see that malware is often tested against these "better" solutions to hide the payloads.

The engines are usually the same both in paid and free versions. What you generally pay for are faster updates and extras like parental controls, online banking/transaction protection and other "protections". M00nbl00d is right though in that having a free version is a great way to gain more customers and perhaps lead them to your paid product. Not everyone can afford 50 dollars or so, so give those people an option to use your product and, if they like it and it works well enough for them, they may shell out when they can afford that 50. Even if they don't, never underestimate the power and profitability of word of mouth.

 

... on the other hand, bashing Microsoft is really fun!