Why Norton Internet Security So Utterly Sucks

pupa said:
Anything Norton is a Fcuckup except their "Ghost" program I use as boot-able. Reason is they think they know more than Microsoft engineers
Click to expand...

I would say it is possible that they actually do know more about the Microsoft boys, at least about security, because Norton actually manage to improve Windows' dysmal security to some extent.

Pity they can't do it right in the first place.
 
I like the name of this thread! Lol!
Never been a fan of Norton, heavy on system resources.

:rolleyes: N7.1
 
koffiejunkie said:
I would say it is possible that they actually do know more about the Microsoft boys, at least about security, because Norton actually manage to improve Windows' dysmal security to some extent.

Pity they can't do it right in the first place.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Microsoft have to implement their own security measures as the Security companies does not seem to win. For their effort they surely will be slammed with a anti competitive suit, but that's life. Norton interferes with critical system components. AVG do not do so or do it effectively. Look at any site on anything for list of problems and incompatibilities and you have a 90% chance to find Norton in the list!
 
Well, boo hoo to them. If they had built any sort of security into their OS from the start, the Antivirus industry wouldn't have existed.
 
Remember in Windows 3.1 you had a Microsoft anti-virus program? :D

Mind you, I'm a culprit and I would like to confess - I use Norton Internet security, my PC runs fast & haven't had any viruses.
 
Been running Kaspersky Internet Security 6.0 for the past two weeks,
absolutely no issues so far! It's by far the best.

:rolleyes: N7.1
 
kingrob said:
Remember in Windows 3.1 you had a Microsoft anti-virus program? :D

Mind you, I'm a culprit and I would like to confess - I use Norton Internet security, my PC runs fast & haven't had any viruses.
Click to expand...

You mean, you *think* it runs fast, and you don't know about the viruses because it didn't detect them...
 
Before Windows 3.1, actually. There was a MSAV shipped with MS-DOS at some point. It was something else rebranded, cannot remember what any more. We used F-Prot antivirus in those days - it was by far the best.

kingrob, I don't blame MS for not having made DOS secure - they didn't write it after all. Windows 1 through 3.x ran on top of DOS, so it was vulnerable to the same virusses. But for Windows 95 onwards, there's no excuse. They told everybod that this is a "new" operating system and that DOS is dead, while it was no different from the previous versions that simply ran on top of DOS. They had the code that didn't require DOS (in Windows NT) but they broke it so far at that point it wasn't really usable for anything. They should have concentrated on fixing that and using it as the base for their consumer OS, but instead they're still trying to keep backwards compatibility with the DOS dependant systems, and braindead software that requires a user to be administrator, and thus we still have to deal with all these security issues.

It's really so easy to fix - just cut compatibility with the old broken stuff. Make a fresh new start. MS has enough blind followers to be able to do that. Heck, even Apple pulled it off.

Linux breaks compatibility with old stuff all the time. If something is found to be bad for security, it gets cut. If it breaks some app, that app either dies or gets fixed - end of story.
 
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think their enormous market share is largely thanks to all the people who copied MS-DOS and Windows 3.x-98 left right and centre. In the DOS days I never met a single person (or company, for that matter) who had the original stiffies - everybody copied it. I've encountered two legal copies of Windows 3.11 - I remember them very clearly. The res were all pirate-ware. The first time I saw a legal Windows 95/98 disc was when I started working for an IT company that insists their clients use legal software.

But even if that's irrelivant, they have had a big enough market share for the last 5 years to cut the old stuff. They could have cleaned up the NT 4 code to make Windows 2000 really secure, and bugger the Windows98 compaibility. The people who need 98 for one reason or another would still be using it - they still are anyway. The rest would have moved on.
 
do you guys think that these virus company's are actually protecting us from hackers

They are protecting us from them

do you think that some oke is writing virus's everyday because he can?

rubbish these companies write the virus's just so they can protect us and make a kuk load of cash
 
HaNsA said:
is that antivirus and firewall together?
Click to expand...

Yip, Kaspersky Internet Security comes with the following modules:

File Anti-Virus
Mail Anti-Virus
Web Anti-Virus
Proactive Defense
Anti-Spy
Anti-Hacker (Firewall)
Anti-Spam


Nice bundle.


:rolleyes: N7.1
 
well anyways.....i was with bitdefender, then tried out Zonealarm, kapersky, and mcafee to try and solve this virus i had........turns out only NOD32 solved the problem completely so im obliged to stay with it......

but now i have no firewall :( whats the best firewall SOFTware to get?
 
AVG is good and Norton is a total resource-eater. This is how I personally rate the anti-virus programs to my personal experience. I rate BitDefender 10 the highest because it has a good virus detection, anti-spam, firewall + anti-spyware all in one and is low on resources ESPECIALLY if you consider what it offers. It might not have the best detection but its a good all-rounder.

1. BitDefender (version 10)
2. NOD32
3. AVG (Higher than F-Secure because it's extremely light on resources)
4. F-Secure (Very good program, 2006 version got a bronze award)
5. Kaspersky (Would probably have rated this higher had been less resource-hungry)
6. Avast
7. Norton Anti-Virus

Just my personal opinion. Have not tried others yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X