| 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 | ||
| 1136203 | 2010-09-26 23:20:00 | I'll give Norton products some respect when techs and users have widespread positive things to say about it, I'll give it the cred it thinks it deserves when techs are using it to clean machines (anyone think that will ever happen?) In the meantime the mass media should stop spreading propaganda based on "virtual infections" |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1136204 | 2010-09-26 23:25:00 | you %%$%^^ **&&&**^$$:illogical :p:p GOTYA! :lol: |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1136205 | 2010-09-27 00:48:00 | Not sure I wanna click that, in case I get rickrolled ... :p | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1136206 | 2010-09-27 01:00:00 | Not sure I wanna click that, in case I get rickrolled ... :p You won't get rickrolled ;) |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1136207 | 2010-09-27 05:01:00 | Why can't you people accept that Norton gets rid of viruses in a totally different manner to other products? First it attempts to make access to your files as slow and unresponsive as possible to make attack difficult. Secondly, it firmly controls the performance of your system programs in order to handicap the performance of the virus almost as much as it handicaps the user. Third, by it's well documented ability to mould the user experience it actively deters the user from turning the PC on; Norton philosophy is that if you use your computer it is at risk of getting and spreading viruses - a PC disconnected and thrown out the window is a safe computer. Fourth, Norton is amazingly successful at it's design objectives - to power through review tests and excel at magazine benchmarks - it is almost miraculous at this. What use is a happy experience to Norton? When the name was associated with clever useful programs they were also a small company that got gobbled up effortlessly by a larger predator company. Now that Norton has mastered the Puffer Fish defence, the company is as hard to swallow as their product. Remember, if effiency and speedy performance were desirable marketing aids, MicroSoft would have vanished without a trace with dos1.0, Nortons would be a small respected company, and people would like using Swiss Post. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1136208 | 2010-09-27 05:37:00 | Symantec re-wrote the codebase for NIS in late 2009 . The result of this work was that NIS has become a significantly faster and improved product from its 2010 edition onwards . I also compared NIS to other anti-malware/virus packages (most of which NIS 2011 whipped handily in terms of system resource use and system speed) . We don't care . You miss the point . Bloat is one issue but the MAIN reason we hate it is that it doesn't detect much . Auckland University had so many problems they did their own independant testing . Result: No more Nortons . They now use NOD32 and SPybot . Go check that with them . . . . . . . . . . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1136209 | 2010-09-27 20:02:00 | We don't care. You miss the point. Bloat is one issue but the MAIN reason we hate it is that it doesn't detect much. Auckland University had so many problems they did their own independent testing. Result: No more Norton's. They now use NOD32 and SPybot. Go check that with them.......... Why would you apologise to someone who gets it so wrong?That's the question I ask! |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||