Talk:Norton 360/Archive 1

message: Should a beta version be listed under the latest product build? TechOutsider (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the software infobox template has separate parameters for the latest preview and stable releases. I've fixed the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarification TechOutsider (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta Versions 

message: This is an abuse of Wikipedia and not appropriate.
--Kjb 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. I flagged it for being advert. Who wrote the article for Norton Internet Security? they'll fix it up. 
- Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is just marketing 

message: "Norton 360 is rated much better than NOD32 and is leading in its field of virus protection"
What kind of statement is that?  Where's the proof?  where are the numbers?  why is NOD32 the ONLY other AV product mentioned?  Why is this sentence tagged on there rather then in it's own heading.
this page IS just marketing.
ColbyWolf 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: :Image:Norton 360 Icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Norton 360 Icon.png

message: Does anyone oppose removing the Compatibility section? It seems unnecessary, poorly written, and bias. --Kycook (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Compatibility Section 

message: Do we need 2 logos in the infobox? Can we choose one? --Kycook (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Logos 

message: Is it really necessary to have the system requirements on the article?  Most other software articles don't have it, and Norton 360's requirements aren't that special to be mentioned at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto.icaza (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  System requirements 

message: Lots of criticism, no citation whatsoever? This needs to be either cited or removed. 193.188.12.15 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I know this isn't the place but I don't know where else to go, please help me. How the hell do you add anything to the exclude items list?
68.99.172.81 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclude list

message: I'm wondering why few if any of the Norton products contain information concerning their scoring in independent score tests.
Other entries such as Kaspersky and Avast! provide this information which is far more useful than a list of features or bulk criticism. 
These scores are, after all, the true measurement of how good a Virus program is. 13.20.137.12 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independant Scorings 

message: There is no information on the techniques employed by the Norton 360 Disk Optimizer, to optimize file placement. As many of you know, Norton released a product long ago called "Speedisk", which employs quite a engineered approach at optimal file placement. Does anyone know if the speedisk engine exists in Norton 360, or is it different? 
Here is a link to a forum, where I created a thread on this topic. yogesh_mohan on this thread has hinted that perhaps Norton 360 simply utilizes the windows defragger engine?
http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=Norton_360&thread.id=6911
More about Speedisk's file placement strategy here::
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q99/speeddisk/speeddisk-1.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.144.170 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  360 Disk Optimizer 

message: Should a beta version be listed under the latest product build? TechOutsider (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the software infobox template has separate parameters for the latest preview and stable releases. I've fixed the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarification TechOutsider (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta Versions 

message: Shouldn't we mention on the free upgrades for Norton products.  I stumbled upon this GENUINE Norton link: http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/support/special/upgrade2007/vista/migration_start.jsp?site=nuc --Tyw7‍  ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  free Norton upgrade