| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 27529 | 2002-11-24 22:32:00 | norton antivirus 2003 | stevej (1205) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 101139 | 2002-11-26 02:16:00 | your antivirus would have come with your pc so basicly you bought it.(unless you downloaded it eg warz/cracked copy which we will not dicuss here). if you wish to upgrade to 2003 you will have to buy an upgrade. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 101140 | 2002-11-26 03:09:00 | Hmmm This is definitely a case of unsynchronised thoughts . I'm not sure what part of You have to pay you didn't understand, but I'll try one more time . If you have Norton 2002 then you must have paid for it originally, either as a full version or as a 90 day trial version when you bought your PC . Trial versions may stop working after the expiry date . They certainly do not get updated after expiry . If it is pirated version we can't (won't) help you . Are you updating your virus definitions every week or more often? To keep up your protection you have to get the virus signature updates . Although you can download these manually and free, I don't know if you will still be able to update an expired 90 day subscription . Somehow I doubt it and I wouldn't take the chance myself . Somebody else may know that answer . So if you want to have full protection, pay the charges . If you want Norton 2003, you have to buy it . Although the free AV programs work reasonably well, if you live dangerously, buy NAV as it is reliable and regularly updated . Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 101141 | 2002-11-26 04:12:00 | Nortons is crap, it slows your computer down, takes to long and just got killed by opaserv, which corrupted the nortons startup file which nortons could not fix so it tried to fix it then restarted which corupted the file which it tried to fix so it restarted the computer wich corupted the file...... For any one serious about antivirus see www.virusbtn.com which is THE industry website for antivirus products 300 pounds sterling for a one year subscription to look at the results of the testing. there is one product (which we sell) which has been on the market for over three years and has consistantly been the best since release there has been no misses in the wild and the reason it failed three times was two times it failed to take out a 100% award was due to ONE false positive in 14000 viruses and the third one was a new one for linux SuSe which every one failed on. www.virusbtn.com www.virusbtn.com Nortons has failed 6 times for in the wild not being detected. a review from virus bulletin on symantic www.virusbtn.com without mentioning the product in my speal go here to find infomation on what we consider the best product to use. www.virusbtn.com (take note of the speed issue) versus the symantic product which said it is slow. My two cents worth. |
Wayne H (1736) | ||
| 101142 | 2002-11-26 05:35:00 | First rule in marketing Wayne: Don't slag off the opposition. When you stoop to insults your credibility flies out the window. If your product is that good it will succeed on its merits. In six years Nortons has never let me down once, i.e not one infection and all attacks repulsed, but the program I used prior to that did let me down. Its updates were manual and distributed by floppy. This made for slow response to new virii and it was difficult to install and get going. As for speed issues, well I don't know what the issue is there, unless users are examininig milliseconds of response. I use Nortons on a P166 with 192MB RAM and see no problems. Haven't seen any opaserve issues either and I'm sure that if whatever it is was a big problem it would have hit Press F1 by now, we usually hear of big issues here first. Colour & contents of your box may vary. :D Notice I don't slag off the program I used before? Just some factual comments about why I changed. Others may have been happy and are probably still using it. Good products don't have to insult their opposition. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 101143 | 2002-11-26 07:51:00 | Just to sort out the 2 points raised. No, it's probably not worth updating to NAV 2003 if you have 2001 or 2002 and update regularly. Yes, it does cost. Around $129 in most stores - $89.95 couriered direct from Symantec. I've been sing it for a month now, and am happy with performance. | Shortstop (632) | ||
| 101144 | 2002-11-26 08:04:00 | All I can say about NAV 2002/2003 is that ever since changing over to WinXP Pro, I have never been able to install or run NAV successfully. It keeps crashing my system and I have never been able to find a solution to this and neither have Symantec. In fact, the only support I got from Symantec was a useless reply which was of no help at all. And looking at the Symantec support site, there are a lot of disgruntled users out there too! | btong (1066) | ||
| 101145 | 2002-11-26 22:26:00 | Point taken, :8} |
Wayne H (1736) | ||
| 101146 | 2002-11-27 00:39:00 | Billy T: Can you clarify something for me... Do you have to download the virus signature updates manually, or do you get them all installed with Live Updates. |
Baldy (26) | ||
| 101147 | 2002-11-27 09:59:00 | All on live updates Baldy. Cheers Billy 8-{) :D |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||