Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112538	2010-09-10 11:32:00	Norton review from NZHerald	nedkelly (9059)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1136183	2010-09-25 21:22:00	And many of us have to fix machines crippled by Nortons, Rather then just running ill-informed testing. If the real world results are completely the opposite then all your "informed fact" is worthless and shouldn't have been published. Death by virus is easier to fix then death by Nortons. Ditto here! I reqularly remove this Nortons trash to increase performance/ fix problems on users machines 'in the wild' (the real world). If Patrick Pilcher bothered to read the users comments at the end of the review HE posted he would see even there most users were generally unhappy also. Typical Herald journo...more concerned with filling a hole on the page & meeting deadlines than getting the facts right!	Paul Ramon (11806)
1136184	2010-09-25 21:54:00	Such a nice chap is Patrick,if somewhat behind the times.	Cicero (40)
1136185	2010-09-26 05:05:00	The trouble with Nortons, its like a lotto ticket, you pay your money and hope like hell you get something . Thing is with Lotto, you know the chances are not in a your favor . Looking back at Post #11 -- heres a question / time to put up some proof: Since Norton meant to be so good, Via Personal "tests", how about providing us ill-informed People exactly HOW the tests were done and prove the results . :stare: NOT links to some lab tests, but real life tests that prove what you say . ;) Since I would only expect to have the same question asked of me if I made such rubbish comments, epically when there are hundreds of techs, plenty of past users, all saying its rubbish - heres some testing I did today -- Pictures included, and they tell the real story as results . Being a Computer Tech I see this all the time with Nortons . So - from the ill-Informed labs :D Some real basic testing . Heres how the tests were done . A known Drive, infected with viruses, Trojans -- you name it . The drive had an image made, so every copy is exact . This image was then put on to two different drives . Fresh install of Windows 7 Pro on the Workshop PC, updated with all the latest updates from MS . Image Made . 1st Norton installed . Then once test done, drive wiped and updated image laid back and Nod32 installed . Both AV's were fully upto date, and set to scan as deep as they can go . Downloaded Norton INS and installed . Fun begun with Norton -- After doing an install of the Software - at first the PC wouldn't load, then when it finally did it came up saying I had a not Genuine OS -- yeah right . Wiped drive, and reloaded, booted OK this time, but still the Not genuine crap . ALSO - Norton FORCE you to register, even the trial . Boot Times: NO AV = 45 Sec With Norton Internet Security = 62 Seconds With Eset Nod32 = 55 Sec Once scan was done, wiped drive and repeated with Eset Nod32 . The results -- Well they speak for themselves . Norton Scan Result ( . imagef1 . net . nz/files/Norton_1 . PNG" target="_blank">www . imagef1 . net . nz) - the " Attention Required" What a disappointment ( . imagef1 . net . nz/files/Norton_Help . PNG" target="_blank">www . imagef1 . net . nz) - when going to the help site, it says disable System Restore and rescan -- Restore wasn't on :groan: Next Test: Eset Nod32 -- No Words Needed ( . imagef1 . net . nz/files/Nod321285477145 . png" target="_blank">www . imagef1 . net . nz) . The preventive protection from Norton is rubbish . If you go to This Site ( . eicar . org/anti_virus_test_file . htm" target="_blank">www . eicar . org), and download any of the files - the Antivirus if its any good will detect it, Heres what Norton did ( . imagef1 . net . nz/files/Test_Dowload . PNG" target="_blank">www . imagef1 . net . nz), or should be more like didn't . On the nod32 test heres what happened ( . imagef1 . net . nz/files/Nod32_Download . jpg" target="_blank">www . imagef1 . net . nz) -- stopped it dead . ( Note bottom Right hand corner message) As for performance, when actually scanning you basically couldn't use the PC with Norton - it slowed loading web pages so much it took 3 minutes to load yahoo . Nod32 - hardly even noticed . So from the labs of the ill-informed,proof Norton is still rubbish .	wainuitech (129)
1136186	2010-09-26 05:14:00	great post WT	GameJunkie (72)
1136187	2010-09-26 05:44:00	Saved for future reference :D	pcuser42 (130)
1136188	2010-09-26 06:53:00	The other thing is that the EICAR test file has been around now for over 10 years, certainly from Win98 days, and probably Win95 or earlier. It doesn't say much for Norton if their AV still cannot detect it. Back in 2005 Graham L made a similar comment relating to AVG7: pressf1.co.nz	Terry Porritt (14)
1136189	2010-09-26 08:07:00	Yes well, Hmmmmmm the testing I did was very basic. A clean Working (OS, W7 Pro) then a AV to do the test installed. The infected drive is attached as a slave, and the AV told to scan it, after being set to scan as deep as the setting will allow and fully upto date. One thing that may not be obvious, is the actual files scanned, Nod32 scanned a lot more than Norton did on doing the exact same test -- so the question should also be asked, if Norton is so good, why cant it even see the other 33924 files that Nod32 can see. I actually ran the Norton Twice just to make sure, both times from fresh - same result each time. After the second run, I reran it again to see if it would take out the trojan it couldn't the first time -- same result and suggestion.:( VERY good point Terry :thumbs: Edited: The only thing Norton did better was install quicker.	wainuitech (129)
1136190	2010-09-26 08:58:00	Fools www.trademe.co.nz	radium (8645)
1136191	2010-09-26 09:19:00	Fools www.trademe.co.nz Who wants to volunteer to buy it to remove it from the world? :D	pcuser42 (130)
1136192	2010-09-26 09:36:00	lets set up a disaster relief fund to help rebuild our modern and heritage pc's :lol:	GameJunkie (72)
1 2 3 4 5