Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 1

message: I am considering a removal of the section critizing Norton Anti-Virus.  It is not neutral in POV and its removal should strongly be considered. IMO, Norton is the best antivirus sofware, no matter what anyone says. Andros 1337 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But your opinion on NAV being the best anti virus software is just your POV and it is not neutral, which results in your willingness to remove the section that points to the negative aspects of the software. Moreover, how many alternative anti-virus software have you trialed on extended period to result in that conclusion? I believe it is necessary to leave it there for now, seeing from the excessive amount of complaints seen on the software. --Kucing 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think to clear it up, we should include Symantec AntiVirus, which is the corporate version. It takes less resources and is much cleaner and streamlined. 70.111.224.253 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... I actually did that, but didn't delve too much as I am really really tired. But yes, the Corporate version is much much better. IMO, NAV is still much better than the POS it replaced on my computers: McAffee. I used McAffee for say ... 1 month? It replaced my mixed CPAV/ViruScan environment when NATAS befell me back in '94. Hey, ViruScan was from XTree ... dating back to '89 or something and put more of a fight than CPAV. Wow. Anyway ... McAffee got rid of NATAS ... only to crap itself with a simple DIR II virus. Sooooo... it seems like my AV would crap with the virus list that my good ol' ViruScan would kill. So ... asking back then for opinions, I switched to NAV because it was the best. It isn't the best, but definitely not the worst. That honour, I leave to McAffee. 07:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute revival 

message: There is a correction needed in this article. there are actually 3 products that get a update on a daily basis. they are Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 10.0x, Norton AntiVirus 2006, and Norton Internet Security 2006. However, all other products are provided every wednesday,(except when there is a serious virus outbreak, which in the terms of Norton is NEVER) making Norton Antivirus the worst antivirus program around. Also, as mentioned, Norton antivirus and Symantec antivirus are the same. I am considering changing it so it would show "Norton(Symantec) Antivirus" Name fix please! The pointer outer 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not quite+name fix 

message: If you choose not to update your subscription, after 90 days you get a pop-up reminder which is (a) always on top and (b) won't go away. If you contact Symantec customer service, they acknowledge this as "a design feature" and a "friendly reminder". This occurs despite deselecting the alerts box under Options.
They also freely acknowledge that the only way to get rid of this pop-up, which effectively disables your computer by permanently obscuring nearly 1/4 of the screen, is to pay Symantec further money to upgrade or update subscription, or to uninstall software one has purchased the full rights to use.
Information at Symantec's knowledge base confirms this, listing ways to get rid of the box, all of which require exchange of money. This can be found at - Symantec Knowledge Base
This is menace-ware and should be stopped, or at least publicised. DividedSelf 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so what you're saying is that you DON'T want to renew but at the same time DON'T want to uninstall? The reminder is there for people who don't keep up with it normally and tells them they need to renew. If you don't want to renew, I don't see the point in keeping the damn software on your computer. You might want to consider uninstalling software you don't use instead of keeping it on your harddrive and complaining about "fair-use", and you may discover extra harddrive space popping up. TheRaven7 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norton AntiVirus is itself a Virus

message: http://www.gwy.org/nav.html
It automatically gets the latest Intelligent Updater (read: daily updates) and installs it, regardless of subscription status.
The application has been updated 22 May 2006 to be nearly silent (no pop-up window for IU) and potentially faster than LiveUpdate.
Crythias 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The minute this becomes at all widespread Symantec will simply stop putting the definitions on a public FTP server.Tjb891 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but as it is, the Intelligent Updater has always been freely available, whether via ftp or web. wget can get a public www link as easy as ftp. Now, if they determine a different self-extracting-archive function or encrypt their archives, there might be an issue. However, it might break LiveUpdate, and that wouldn't necessarily be fun. Another thing to note is that the update program above doesn't kill the annoying popups "Your subscription has expired." Crythias 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Intelligent Updater definitions free, easy 

message: someone put this topic as controversial, but did not explain why. The function of the talk pages are for this purpose. what's the controversy? The pointer outer 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONTROVERSY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 

message: This article takes a very negative look at Norton AV, and doesn't talk much about its technical aspects. I am not one to defend Norton AV, but this article is certainly in need of a revamp. :: Colin Keigher  09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Status Added 

message: I've used NAV before and all I can say is it is useless and that can actually infect your system rather than benefit it. I've tested it before on items I KNOW are absolute viruses, trojans, etc and it registers them as not being a threat. I updated them to see if it would make a difference and it does not. I've tested it on UCM, UCRPM, CRMP, and a few other things including a worm, a trojan, and a system virus. Same results. Not detected. I feel that it's often useless detection features should be included. -VonV
I must, say, you are completley right. Having used NAV before, it actually did more harm than good. For example, who would have known that Mozilla Firefox was "theifware"? After that, I uninstaled it, but couldn't. SO I had to go to regedit, manually delete everysingle key, and delete every single folder the damn thing created. IT's also the only security company I know who actually gives instructions to manually uninstall the thing, but they really couldn't make a batch file to run in safe mode that could! The pointer outer 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norton Anti-Virus Useless Feature 

message: The NPOV tag that was removed has been readded due to what the user had pointed out...
However, I do know that there should be a section devoted to the pros
Until that section is added and some balance is added to the existing section, the NPOV tag should stay on. :: Colin Keigher 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's not like Windows ME has anything good about it in its article...and it is considered fairly NPOV. DolphinCompSci 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, this article is rubbish.  There is almost nothing about the product or how it works, etc. but almost all criticism here with no sources to back it up (however correct they may be), so therefore the authors who contributed to this mess are obviously biased.  Regardless of how bad the product is, this should simply be an article on the product and varied points addressed in a NPOV, with clear sources to back up the claims.  I would definitely support a complete rewrite.  See What Is A Good Article for more info. Smoothy 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Status for section removed; readded for good reason 

message: A consensus must first be reached on how this shall be done, but it could be easier by brainstorming some topics and ideas for the fresh-from-start article of Norton AntiVirus.
=== History ===
A decent amount of non-biased history about the life-span of NAV.
=== Features ===
A section describing it's possibilities (features), NOT only what's unique with NAV.
=== Criticism ===
An acceptable amount of criticism, cause and effects, FULLY SOURCED.  However, until that occurs, this controversial section should be deleted or left blank until such time vs. subjecting the world to unsourced opinions and flames as we wait...
=== Future ===
The future of NAV, upcoming versions, news and interesting facts people would be find rewarding to know about.  
<c o n t i n u e d....>
Shandristhe azylean 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now is far far far better.  Good work, although we do need more content. Can probably remove the "Neutrality" tag now, as it's more NPOV than ever before. Smoothy 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norton AntiVirus rewrite plan - an attempt to revive a horribly written article from scratch 

message: The future of NAV, upcoming versions, news and interesting facts people would be find rewarding to know about.  
<c o n t i n u e d....>
Shandristhe azylean 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now is far far far better.  Good work, although we do need more content. Can probably remove the "Neutrality" tag now, as it's more NPOV than ever before. Smoothy 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: Removed it as the first two have nothing to do with Norton, but are to do with the company (and the FBI/CIA thing is not Symantec-exclusive). The last one refers to Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition (this article is about the product named Norton Antivirus, look at the title).  The section titled "Slow Response to viruses" is the ONLY thing that vaguely resembles a valid criticism, but needs reworking.  Criticisms should be discussed here first, confined to valid points and kept short.  Again, see What Is A Good Article for more info. Smoothy 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those obviously affect the performance and experience of the software. They are influenced by company decisions but the result is a software thing and should be covered in the article. Some guy 08:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You placed them in the article that someone else had already edited so you should've discussed placing them back in before actually placing them back in.  There is no such product as Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, only SYMANTEC Antivirus Corporate Edition, which is a different product, therefore should only be fleetingly mentioned in this article.  Your two points are points that clearly should be in the Symantec article, not this article on Norton as it affects the company more than one specific product, therefore it's not valid (especially as Symantec aren't the only ones who have done these things, are you going to put the same text in for McAfee, Kaspersky, etc. articles?).Smoothy 11:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd, it doesn't mean it's not valid. As for the Corporate Edition, I guess you're right about that, but that doesn't give you the right to repeatedly remove the criticism section. And what is this about someone else editing the article and me discussing it first? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if someone's doing a rewrite, you don't have to obtain permission to make an edit, it's a wiki. Some guy 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is obviously going nowhere I have put up an RfC--Acebrock 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some guy, exactly the same reason why you can't tell me I can't edit the criticisms Smoothy 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I'm trying to apply your own rules against you. You think you have the right to revert without discussing first but we don't? That's ridiculous. You aren't special or important. Some guy 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section revisited 

message: I work in PC tech support. At a rough guess, 60% of those who contact me, need assistance due to the way that Norton products have afflicted their machine.
The most common complaints I receive:
 - Customer's PC has slowed down to a crawl. Almost always due to Norton Antivirus.
 - Customer's PC has lost network connectivity, or has developed other minor faults. Almost always due to Norton Internet Security.
 - Customer has bought another antivirus product which will not function until Norton Antivirus is removed, and Norton Antivirus will not remove itself.
This article is by no means biased. It is telling the truth. --Intimidatedtalk 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing wrong with this article 

message: There seems to be a revert war between User:Smoothy and lots of other people.  This is unfortunate, as most people here seem to want the criticism section to stay.  However, I will agree that a "pro" section is necessary, one based on professional reviews, most of which seem to be positive (especially with regards to the user interface).  Also, the criticisms section is incomplete, as many issues are unaddressed due to lack of citations, likely because neither product criticism/bashing nor long-term usage is a forte of commercial magazines.  Here are some of the issues that NAV allegedly has that are not mentioned in the current article:
* Norton website: History of spotty responsiveness My experience
* False positives: Large tarballs often deemed as contaminated My experience
* False negatives: Many viruses not caught
* Spyware effectiveness and support: Spyware tool criticized for effectiveness and dropped
* Resource usage: Slow and inefficient
* Uninstall: Difficult to uninstall Contrary to my experience with 2004 edition
* Recurrent subscription extension reminders: Reminders many times a day, in spite of requests to not remind for two weeks My experience
* Firewall: Firewall either ineffective, nonexistent, or dropped upon virus subscription expiration
* Default timed scan: By default the software runs a scan of the computer on Friday nights (Unaware users would likely not leave their computers on.  Aware users might prefer a different night, due to the wasted energy of having a Windows client machine on all weekend.) My experience
Any sourced mention of these would greatly improve the article, even though they would enrage those who seem to think that a sizeable "criticisms" section is, by definition, POV.  Reasonable people should not confuse a neutral point of view with a misinterpreted concept of equal time (in which the opportunity for access becomes the "necessity" of a differing viewpoint). Calbaer 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms revisited 

message: The criticisms section appears to be adequately sourced and topical.  I recommend moving it toward the bottom part of the article. Durova 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC