FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681

Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
advantage of released information in above article.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729

Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka Norton)
products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users to
rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means to
protect themselves in the on-line world.
29 answers Last reply
More about security problems plague symantec mcafee
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Dan! Thank you, thank you, thank you! ! !

    I was experiencing so many problems I was about to trash my machine and load
    a disk-shaped hand grenade into the CD slot! Figured out it was Symantec's
    stuff causing it all! Unloaded all their stuff and now everything runs great!

    Thanks for the tip!

    "Dan" wrote:

    > Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
    >
    > http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681
    >
    > Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
    > advantage of released information in above article.
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
    >
    > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka Norton)
    > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users to
    > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means to
    > protect themselves in the on-line world.
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    You are most welcome. Please feel free to share the stories with others and
    warn them of the dangers of McAfee, Symantec, AOL and other programs that
    disregard Windows by installing a bunch of unneeded junk to the computers as
    well as trashing the registry. As I have tried to show here, it is not
    always Microsoft who is responsible. Sometimes it is the fault of other
    companies. Have a great night!

    "mattlubic" <mattlubic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:F974E69E-E646-4F9F-AEE4-E5F5906FB185@microsoft.com...
    : Dan! Thank you, thank you, thank you! ! !
    :
    : I was experiencing so many problems I was about to trash my machine and
    load
    : a disk-shaped hand grenade into the CD slot! Figured out it was Symantec's
    : stuff causing it all! Unloaded all their stuff and now everything runs
    great!
    :
    : Thanks for the tip!
    :
    : "Dan" wrote:
    :
    : > Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
    : >
    : > http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/
    : >
    : >
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681
    : >
    : > Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
    : > advantage of released information in above article.
    : >
    : >
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
    : >
    : > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
    Norton)
    : > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
    users to
    : > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
    means to
    : > protect themselves in the on-line world.
    : >
    : >
    : >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
    Norton)
    > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users
    to
    > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means
    to
    > protect themselves in the on-line world.
    >

    Hi Dan,
    Is it only XP users that are affected?
    I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.

    regards Jane
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    " Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
    Norton)
    products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"

    Could you elaborate a little more on that?


    ______________________________
    Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
    daniel at royer dot ch


    "jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
    news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >
    >> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
    > Norton)
    >> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
    >> users
    > to
    >> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
    >> means
    > to
    >> protect themselves in the on-line world.
    >>
    >
    > Hi Dan,
    > Is it only XP users that are affected?
    > I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
    >
    > regards Jane
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    No, Jane. This particular issue, regarding Norton and McAfee
    installations "fooling" the Windows Security Center" doesn't affect
    anyone not running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 installed. See my
    reply to Daniel Royer, below.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
    news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >
    > > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
    (aka
    > Norton)
    > > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
    users
    > to
    > > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
    means
    > to
    > > protect themselves in the on-line world.
    > >
    >
    > Hi Dan,
    > Is it only XP users that are affected?
    > I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
    >
    > regards Jane
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729

    If the above link doesn't work for you, try this:
    http://tinyurl.com/7ybuc

    That is the "more" you're asking for. More than this, Dan doesn't know,
    I'm sure. My take on the subject is a bit different. While acknowledging
    that I am not a fan of either product, and I've not hesitated to say so
    on innumerable occasions, what is described by the article isn't a real
    security risk, per se.

    The way I read the article is this:

    One of the new features in Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the "Windows
    Security Center". It keeps track of what, if any, antivirus and firewall
    apps are installed, and whether they are up to date. If you are lacking
    in a firewall or antivirus, or if they are simply not running, the WSC
    advises you of the situation. However, as anyone who pays attention will
    know, when you first install such applications, they are *never* up to
    date and should be updated immediately. One result of this combination
    of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
    Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
    Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
    experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
    get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
    very act of installing protection.

    Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
    during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
    Windows Security Center, doesn't it?) McAfee changes the dates of
    certain files to "now" as they are copied into the system. This
    convinces Windows Security Center that there is now up-to-date
    protection installed and it keeps quiet. However, apparently, the
    antivirus app now thinks it's up to date, also, and may not initiate an
    update, leaving the user with a very out of date antivirus until
    sufficient time has passed and it then updates. Or perhaps it still
    initiates an update during the normal course of installation, but in
    many cases this isn't feasible due to the system not being able to
    connect to the internet. I don't know the particulars.

    For myself, the most alarming thing about this whole affair is that the
    Windows Security Center *can* be disabled by any means other than user
    intervention. Makes it rather useless, don't you think? Plus, McAfee's
    methods would tend to leave a user with a false sense of security
    between the time of installation and the first actual update. Judging by
    the usual amount of time that such apps consider reasonable between
    updates (a horribly long time in my opinion), a person could be running
    several days without real antivirus protection and not realize it.

    Of course, this has always been the case--automatic updaters are famous
    for failing in their duties, especially where the systems aren't
    connected to an always-on internet connection, or are used sporadically
    for relatively short periods of time, or simply being inadvertently
    disabled. This is why Windows Security Center was developed. And this is
    why I always admonish users to *check* that AV and Firewall is running
    when they startup and periodically throughout the day, and that they run
    the updater(s) manually, on an at *least* daily basis. These are habits
    that should be as deeply ingrained as checking your rear-view mirrors
    regularly while driving.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Daniel Royer" <daniel@royer.ch> wrote in message
    news:4211c945$1@nntp.unige.ch...
    >
    > " Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
    (aka
    > Norton)
    > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"
    >
    > Could you elaborate a little more on that?
    >
    >
    > ______________________________
    > Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
    > daniel at royer dot ch
    >
    >
    > "jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
    > news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > >
    > >> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
    (aka
    > > Norton)
    > >> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I
    advise
    > >> users
    > > to
    > >> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use
    other
    > >> means
    > > to
    > >> protect themselves in the on-line world.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Hi Dan,
    > > Is it only XP users that are affected?
    > > I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
    > >
    > > regards Jane
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/faq.html#9

    Q: Why does the Windows Security Center say that the status of my Norton
    security product is "unknown."

    A: Your Norton security products contain tamper protection features that
    prevent malicious code from determining their status. This tamper protection
    also prevents the Windows Security Center from determining the status of your
    Norton security products.

    Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the Windows
    Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec security
    software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and is
    available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products. The
    update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you have
    the Windows Security Center installed.


    "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
    >
    > If the above link doesn't work for you, try this:
    > http://tinyurl.com/7ybuc
    >
    > That is the "more" you're asking for. More than this, Dan doesn't know,
    > I'm sure. My take on the subject is a bit different. While acknowledging
    > that I am not a fan of either product, and I've not hesitated to say so
    > on innumerable occasions, what is described by the article isn't a real
    > security risk, per se.
    >
    > The way I read the article is this:
    >
    > One of the new features in Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the "Windows
    > Security Center". It keeps track of what, if any, antivirus and firewall
    > apps are installed, and whether they are up to date. If you are lacking
    > in a firewall or antivirus, or if they are simply not running, the WSC
    > advises you of the situation. However, as anyone who pays attention will
    > know, when you first install such applications, they are *never* up to
    > date and should be updated immediately. One result of this combination
    > of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
    > Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
    > Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
    > experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
    > get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
    > very act of installing protection.
    >
    > Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
    > during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
    > Windows Security Center, doesn't it?) McAfee changes the dates of
    > certain files to "now" as they are copied into the system. This
    > convinces Windows Security Center that there is now up-to-date
    > protection installed and it keeps quiet. However, apparently, the
    > antivirus app now thinks it's up to date, also, and may not initiate an
    > update, leaving the user with a very out of date antivirus until
    > sufficient time has passed and it then updates. Or perhaps it still
    > initiates an update during the normal course of installation, but in
    > many cases this isn't feasible due to the system not being able to
    > connect to the internet. I don't know the particulars.
    >
    > For myself, the most alarming thing about this whole affair is that the
    > Windows Security Center *can* be disabled by any means other than user
    > intervention. Makes it rather useless, don't you think? Plus, McAfee's
    > methods would tend to leave a user with a false sense of security
    > between the time of installation and the first actual update. Judging by
    > the usual amount of time that such apps consider reasonable between
    > updates (a horribly long time in my opinion), a person could be running
    > several days without real antivirus protection and not realize it.
    >
    > Of course, this has always been the case--automatic updaters are famous
    > for failing in their duties, especially where the systems aren't
    > connected to an always-on internet connection, or are used sporadically
    > for relatively short periods of time, or simply being inadvertently
    > disabled. This is why Windows Security Center was developed. And this is
    > why I always admonish users to *check* that AV and Firewall is running
    > when they startup and periodically throughout the day, and that they run
    > the updater(s) manually, on an at *least* daily basis. These are habits
    > that should be as deeply ingrained as checking your rear-view mirrors
    > regularly while driving.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "Daniel Royer" <daniel@royer.ch> wrote in message
    > news:4211c945$1@nntp.unige.ch...
    > >
    > > " Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
    > (aka
    > > Norton)
    > > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"
    > >
    > > Could you elaborate a little more on that?
    > >
    > >
    > > ______________________________
    > > Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
    > > daniel at royer dot ch
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Gary S. Terhune wrote:

    >One result of this combination
    >of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
    >Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
    >Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
    >experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
    >get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
    >very act of installing protection.

    >Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
    >during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
    >Windows Security Center, doesn't it?)

    Symantec's explanation, as I remember it, seems to be that it is a
    security risk for its products to report their status to windows
    Security Center. But you make a good point anyway.

    Ken
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Paul" <Paul@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:9AE1679E-9D2C-41AA-A5A3-280CC6E972D4@microsoft.com...
    > http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/faq.html#9
    >
    > Q: Why does the Windows Security Center say that the status of my
    Norton
    > security product is "unknown."
    >
    > A: Your Norton security products contain tamper protection features
    that
    > prevent malicious code from determining their status. This tamper
    protection
    > also prevents the Windows Security Center from determining the status
    of your
    > Norton security products.

    I'm interested in knowing how the update status of antivirus or other
    security apps could possibly be of use to malicious code. In any case,
    as I read it, this is not the issue being discussed in the article

    >
    > Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the
    Windows
    > Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec
    security
    > software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and
    is
    > available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products.
    The
    > update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you
    have
    > the Windows Security Center installed.
    >

    Which doesn't in the least explain why it needs to disable Windows
    Security Center in order to install (if, in fact, it does so. I only
    have the article to go by.)

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather the
    opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
    update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule. The
    general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still at
    a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
    going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its legs
    and run the other way?

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:ee34119r76ru7j8hh3ggikjgbf54ggdrjh@4ax.com...
    > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    >
    > >One result of this combination
    > >of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows
    Security
    > >Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
    > >Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
    > >experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting
    to
    > >get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
    > >very act of installing protection.
    >
    > >Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
    > >during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
    > >Windows Security Center, doesn't it?)
    >
    > Symantec's explanation, as I remember it, seems to be that it is a
    > security risk for its products to report their status to windows
    > Security Center. But you make a good point anyway.
    >
    > Ken
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    Gary S. Terhune wrote:

    >If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather the
    >opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
    >update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule. The
    >general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still at
    >a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
    >going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its legs
    >and run the other way?

    I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
    of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
    more malicious than that?" :)

    Ken
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I have to admit that I *am* a Symantec basher, and while I agree with
    the sentiments, but I can't say things like that too often--people might
    take me less seriously, <g>.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:jem4119du32vs94s9dtlnpv86orvd7mh8g@4ax.com...
    > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    >
    > >If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather
    the
    > >opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
    > >update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule.
    The
    > >general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still
    at
    > >a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
    > >going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its
    legs
    > >and run the other way?
    >
    > I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
    > of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
    > more malicious than that?" :)
    >
    > Ken
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:%23efuAP6EFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >I have to admit that I *am* a Symantec basher, and while I agree with
    > the sentiments, but I can't say things like that too often--people might
    > take me less seriously, <g>.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
    > news:jem4119du32vs94s9dtlnpv86orvd7mh8g@4ax.com...
    >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    >>
    >> >If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather
    > the
    >> >opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
    >> >update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule.
    > The
    >> >general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still
    > at
    >> >a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
    >> >going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its
    > legs
    >> >and run the other way?
    >>
    >> I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
    >> of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
    >> more malicious than that?" :)
    >>
    >> Ken
    >

    I can easily say that I don't like any of the retail
    products(symantec/norton) ....BUT I run SAV corp edition which updates
    itself and pushes definitions to clients...all set to by my schedule. I've
    disabled security center on XP because it was annoying and I think I can
    handle my own security without Windows help :>.
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

    This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.

    1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that
    was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.).

    [...]
    That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added
    anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every
    version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes.
    Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.

    I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest
    accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
    [...]
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    saying about newer versions now.

    Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.

    The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    they come preinstalled.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >
    > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    >
    > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    fatware that
    > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    utilization.).
    >
    > [...]
    > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    the added
    > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
    every
    > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    processes.
    > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    >
    > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    greatest
    > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
    WXP.
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
    back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
    was using MSDOS 6.22.

    Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    | I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    | *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
    | has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
    | Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
    | the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
    | that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
    |
    | Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
    | became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
    | automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
    | with the OS.
    |
    | The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
    | is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
    | that they come preinstalled.
    |
    |
    | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    | news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    ||
    || "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    || news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    ||
    || This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    ||
    || 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    || fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
    || CPU utilization.).
    ||
    || [...]
    || That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    || the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    || included with every version since and including 2002 that has
    || plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
    || all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
    || have no idea.
    ||
    || I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    || greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    || properly with WXP. [...]
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    There is no 'you guys' when it comes to my post.
    I Certainly agree about McAfee
    I Agree 99% for the most part about NAV/SAV too.

    My secondary point was I've found when it comes to 'W9x' the standalone
    Retail NAV2001 version (not NIS) in my experience was a great simple but
    comprehensive all-round AV for W9x ... Afterall this is a W9x group.
    I actually still use v2001 many times over on this W98SE box.
    On my W2k & WXP boxes of course I use a different AV for sure.

    I was interested in and so tested and used each and every single
    'standalone' version of NAV/SAV since NAV v5.01 and tests were
    done on each W98x, W2Kpro, and WXPro OS's as each AV & OS evolved
    respectively within its era. When v2002 came on the scene and every version
    since v2002 with all the new anti-theft modules (except NAV/SAV Corporate)
    running real-time and that's where the Major problems started with it's
    ability to Fatally compromise the OS itself and I feel sorry for those who
    don't have partition image backups or the experience to recover.
    I have nothing comforting to say about NAV/SAV anymore except maybe for
    corporate versions which are devoid of the proprietary semantics.

    Rick


    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    > I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    > *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    > PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    > Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    > about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    > saying about newer versions now.
    >
    > Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    > eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    > updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    >
    > The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    > that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    > they come preinstalled.
    >
    > --
    > Gary S. Terhune
    > MS MVP Shell/User
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >
    > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    >>
    >> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware
    >> that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    >> utilization.).
    >>
    >> [...]
    >> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the
    >> added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
    >> every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    >> penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    >> processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    >>
    >> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest
    >> accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
    >> [...]
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Rick Chauvin wrote:
    > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
    > CPU utilization.).
    ===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.

    >
    > [...]
    > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    > included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
    > millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
    > extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
    > idea.
    ===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
    boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
    develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
    in, ...


    >
    > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    > properly with WXP. [...]
    ===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
    heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
    track of who might be getting in who's way.

    Pop
    --
    -----
    How long did the 100 Year War Last?
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
    its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
    is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
    (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
    98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
    recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
    in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
    of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
    with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
    as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
    I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
    PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
    is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
    brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
    all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
    day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    : I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    : PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    : about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : saying about newer versions now.
    :
    : Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    : eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    :
    : The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : they come preinstalled.
    :
    : --
    : Gary S. Terhune
    : MS MVP Shell/User
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    :
    : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : >
    : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : fatware that
    : > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    : utilization.).
    : >
    : > [...]
    : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : the added
    : > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
    : every
    : > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    : > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    : processes.
    : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : >
    : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : greatest
    : > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
    : WXP.
    : > [...]
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    :
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    BTW, does anyone know how much a retail full copy of MS-DOS 6.22 costs and
    where I can buy it safely? I want to explore MS-DOS more in my search for a
    true maintenance operating system to present to Microsoft on Chris Quirke,
    MVP and Gary S. Terhune MVP's advice. Thanks in advance for all of your
    help.

    "BBUNNY" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
    news:en%234X1dFFHA.2564@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    : These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
    : back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
    : was using MSDOS 6.22.
    :
    : Gary S. Terhune wrote:
    : | I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : | *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
    : | has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
    : | Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
    : | the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
    : | that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
    : |
    : | Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
    : | became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
    : | automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
    : | with the OS.
    : |
    : | The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
    : | is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
    : | that they come preinstalled.
    : |
    : |
    : | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : | news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : ||
    : || "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : || news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : ||
    : || This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : ||
    : || 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : || fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
    : || CPU utilization.).
    : ||
    : || [...]
    : || That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : || the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    : || included with every version since and including 2002 that has
    : || plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
    : || all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
    : || have no idea.
    : ||
    : || I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : || greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    : || properly with WXP. [...]
    :
    :
    :
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    That is a problem with Symantec. I tested that theory and was connected to a
    business associate in less than a minute. When I went the individual
    consumer route I got nowhere.
    {Down with Symantec. Up with Microsoft! Up with Google! Up with Mozilla!
    Up with Open-Source, Linux and Unix. LOL!!} [Just being silly] :~

    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:u824l3eFFHA.1084@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    : There is no 'you guys' when it comes to my post.
    : I Certainly agree about McAfee
    : I Agree 99% for the most part about NAV/SAV too.
    :
    : My secondary point was I've found when it comes to 'W9x' the standalone
    : Retail NAV2001 version (not NIS) in my experience was a great simple but
    : comprehensive all-round AV for W9x ... Afterall this is a W9x group.
    : I actually still use v2001 many times over on this W98SE box.
    : On my W2k & WXP boxes of course I use a different AV for sure.
    :
    : I was interested in and so tested and used each and every single
    : 'standalone' version of NAV/SAV since NAV v5.01 and tests were
    : done on each W98x, W2Kpro, and WXPro OS's as each AV & OS evolved
    : respectively within its era. When v2002 came on the scene and every version
    : since v2002 with all the new anti-theft modules (except NAV/SAV Corporate)
    : running real-time and that's where the Major problems started with it's
    : ability to Fatally compromise the OS itself and I feel sorry for those who
    : don't have partition image backups or the experience to recover.
    : I have nothing comforting to say about NAV/SAV anymore except maybe for
    : corporate versions which are devoid of the proprietary semantics.
    :
    : Rick
    :
    :
    :
    : "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    : news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    : > I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : > *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    : > PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : > Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    : > about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : > saying about newer versions now.
    : >
    : > Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    : > eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : > updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    : >
    : > The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : > that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : > they come preinstalled.
    : >
    : > --
    : > Gary S. Terhune
    : > MS MVP Shell/User
    : > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    : >
    : > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : > news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : >>
    : >> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : >> news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : >>
    : >> This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : >>
    : >> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware
    : >> that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    : >> utilization.).
    : >>
    : >> [...]
    : >> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the
    : >> added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included
    with
    : >> every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of
    users
    : >> penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    : >> processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : >>
    : >> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    greatest
    : >> accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
    : >> [...]
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Pop, did you ever try to remove Symantec products in order to try a
    competitor's product like Computer Associates E-Trust EZARMOR? It is really
    difficult and with Norton (Symantec) System Works 2005 you have several
    hundred registry entries that you have to manually delete in order to fully
    clean a registry. It is not automatic. Trust me because I have done it and
    I like computers but it is not fun staring at the screen in order to remove
    several hundred registry entries because a behemoth company like Symantec
    that screws individual consumers does not care about the little guy (or girl)
    and just wants to screw the consumer. Sure their corporate editions may be
    great (???) I don't know about the corporate editions because I never used
    them. I like to go on first-hand knowledge and not always what I learn from
    texts, magazines, the internet, the government, etc. Have a great day and
    please reconsider your position because I feel your knowledge is flawed but I
    anxiously await your rebuttal. I Yield The Floor to You, Pop with a willing
    and gracious heart. Godspeed!!

    "Pop" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:eNv2dEfFFHA.3384@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    : Rick Chauvin wrote:
    : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
    : > CPU utilization.).
    : ===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.
    :
    : >
    : > [...]
    : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
    : > millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
    : > extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
    : > idea.
    : ===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
    : boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
    : develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
    : in, ...
    :
    :
    : >
    : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    : > properly with WXP. [...]
    : ===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
    : heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
    : track of who might be getting in who's way.
    :
    : Pop
    : --
    : -----
    : How long did the 100 Year War Last?
    :
    :
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Dan wrote:
    > AVG all the way! :>
    >
    Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
    supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
    Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    I previously stated how I did not like how Avast scans all the time. It
    takes up too many system resources in my opinion. However, you do have a
    good point and I will give you that. Personally, I think CA E-Trust
    Antivirus is best although you do have to pay for it. As it is said "you
    (usually) get what you pay for" I added the (usually) because I know it is
    not always the case. :>

    "Ad" <graaphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:111ofioj92vcd39@corp.supernews.com...
    : Dan wrote:
    : > AVG all the way! :>
    : >
    : Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
    : supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.
    :
    :
    : ---
    : avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    : Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
    : Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
    : avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    : http://www.avast.com
    :
    :
    :
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
    2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
    protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on unistalling
    Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
    associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
    E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

    "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

    00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
    Center\SymWSC.exe
    00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
    00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

    With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
    listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
    This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
    browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few
    games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
    Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
    fastest machine, but no slouch either).

    Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether.
    These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I
    do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned
    off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of
    the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none
    of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes
    Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

    Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not
    got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
    since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update
    tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
    no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

    Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The
    "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
    features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
    2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
    System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
    problems than they fixed.


    "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
    of
    its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
    is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
    (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for
    my
    98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
    recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which
    is
    in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
    protection
    of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
    with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
    safe
    as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
    day
    I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
    PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
    is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
    brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
    give
    all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
    day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    : I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    : PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    : about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : saying about newer versions now.
    :
    : Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    : eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    :
    : The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : they come preinstalled.
    :
    : --
    : Gary S. Terhune
    : MS MVP Shell/User
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    :
    : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : >
    : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : fatware that
    : > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    : utilization.).
    : >
    : > [...]
    : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : the added
    : > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
    : every
    : > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    : > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    : processes.
    : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : >
    : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : greatest
    : > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
    : WXP.
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    I remember Gary Terhune saying he liked NA 2000 and later versions had
    trouble. Perhaps he will reply. I think you must give firewalls some trust
    but just for the heck of it. I have ZA PRO. always notify me in 98SE and in
    XP PRO. CA EZARMOR is always notifying me as well. It is a price I pay for
    peace of mind. Sure you may have more services running in EZARMOR but it
    completely removes itself when you unistall it and it also removes the
    associated registry keys. Symantec (Norton) products do not remove the
    associated registry keys. In the 98(98SE) newsgroup people are constantly
    having problems and a majority of them can be tracked to using Symantec
    (Norton) SystemWorks, RealPlayer, Quicktime, and AOL.

    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:uhIyyBNHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    : "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
    : > I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
    : >
    : > 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
    : > Center\SymWSC.exe
    : > 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
    : > 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
    :
    : Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
    back
    : and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
    when
    : it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003,
    : 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is
    : much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later versions.
    :
    : I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it
    : has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
    remember
    : why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
    you
    : gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
    :
    : Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there.
    : I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my
    : computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
    : ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my firewalls
    : trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
    : whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain rude!
    : Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is constantly
    : prompting for online connections for this or that.
    : To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
    : ..no thanks, notta.
    : ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : > With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
    : > above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
    : > program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
    : > of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
    : > running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
    : > my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
    8Mb
    : > cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
    : >
    : > Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
    : > altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any
    : > PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
    : > automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
    bin,
    : > etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag
    : > floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
    floppies
    : > or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
    : > which I tried).
    : >
    : > Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
    : > not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
    and
    : > none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
    : > Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
    failing
    : > to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
    : > perfect.
    : >
    : > Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
    : > The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
    : > features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
    : > 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
    : > System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
    : > more problems than they fixed.
    : >
    : >
    : > "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    : > news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : > I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
    : > of
    : > its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
    it
    : > is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
    : > (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
    for
    : > my
    : > 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
    : > recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    : > enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
    which
    : > is
    : > in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
    : > protection
    : > of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
    Also,
    : > with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
    : > safe
    : > as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    : > keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
    : > day
    : > I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
    number
    : > PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
    time
    : > is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
    : > brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
    : > give
    : > all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
    another
    : > day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
    : >
    : > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    : > news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    : >: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : >: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    : >: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : >: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    : >: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : >: saying about newer versions now.
    : >:
    : >: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    : >: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : >: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    : >:
    : >: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : >: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : >: they come preinstalled.
    : >:
    : >: --
    : >: Gary S. Terhune
    : >: MS MVP Shell/User
    : >: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : >: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    : >:
    : : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : : >
    : : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : : >
    : : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : : >
    : : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
    : : > low CPU utilization.).
    : : >
    : : > [...]
    : : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    : : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
    : : > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
    : : > all the extra running processes.
    : : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : : >
    : : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly
    : : > with WXP
    :
    :
    :
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on
    sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the
    moment." Well I don't have a problem with that and I hope your system
    continues running well. Have a nice day!

    "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%23x9%23UTKHFHA.2416@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    When or if I can no longer renew my virus list update subscription, I will
    simply uninstall NAV and install something else. I do have the expertise to
    remove the associated registry entries, and have done so in the past with
    this version to assist other's with problems they encountered.

    I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on
    sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the
    moment.
    "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    news:uOli68xGFHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
    2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
    protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on
    unistalling
    Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
    associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
    E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

    "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

    00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
    Center\SymWSC.exe
    00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
    00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

    With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
    listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
    This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
    browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a
    few
    games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
    Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
    fastest machine, but no slouch either).

    Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
    altogether.
    These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish.
    I
    do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is
    turned
    off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few
    of
    the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards
    (none
    of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that
    includes
    Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

    Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
    not
    got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
    since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus
    update
    tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
    no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

    Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
    The
    "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
    features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
    2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
    System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
    problems than they fixed.


    "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
    of
    its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
    it
    is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
    (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
    for
    my
    98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
    recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
    which
    is
    in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
    protection
    of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
    Also,
    with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
    safe
    as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
    day
    I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
    number
    PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
    time
    is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
    brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
    give
    all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
    another
    day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

    "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    : I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
    has
    : PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same
    things
    : about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : saying about newer versions now.
    :
    : Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
    became
    : eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    :
    : The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : they come preinstalled.
    :
    : --
    : Gary S. Terhune
    : MS MVP Shell/User
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    :
    : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : >
    : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : >
    : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : fatware that
    : > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
    : utilization.).
    : >
    : > [...]
    : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : the added
    : > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
    : every
    : > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
    : > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
    : processes.
    : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : >
    : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : greatest
    : > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
    : WXP.
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
    the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules.
    It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation &
    maintenance Apps/Services.
    eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as
    opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule"
    changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a
    user's incorrect rule decisions.

    "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    news:uhIyyBNHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
    >> I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
    >>
    >> 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
    >> Center\SymWSC.exe
    >> 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
    >> 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
    >
    > Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
    > back
    > and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
    > when
    > it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003,
    > 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is
    > much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later
    > versions.
    >
    > I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it
    > has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
    > remember
    > why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
    > you
    > gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
    >
    > Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there.
    > I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my
    > computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
    > ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my
    > firewalls
    > trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
    > whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain
    > rude!
    > Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is
    > constantly
    > prompting for online connections for this or that.
    > To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
    > ..no thanks, notta.
    > ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
    >> above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
    >> program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
    >> of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
    >> running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
    >> my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
    >> 8Mb
    >> cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
    >>
    >> Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
    >> altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any
    >> PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
    >> automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
    >> bin,
    >> etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag
    >> floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
    >> floppies
    >> or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
    >> which I tried).
    >>
    >> Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
    >> not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
    >> and
    >> none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
    >> Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
    >> failing
    >> to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
    >> perfect.
    >>
    >> Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
    >> The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
    >> features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
    >> 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
    >> System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
    >> more problems than they fixed.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    >> news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >> I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
    >> of
    >> its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
    >> it
    >> is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
    >> (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
    >> for
    >> my
    >> 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
    >> recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    >> enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
    >> which
    >> is
    >> in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
    >> protection
    >> of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
    >> Also,
    >> with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
    >> safe
    >> as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    >> keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
    >> day
    >> I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
    >> number
    >> PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
    >> time
    >> is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
    >> brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
    >> give
    >> all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
    >> another
    >> day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
    >>
    >> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    >> news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    >>: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
    >>: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    >>: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
    >>: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    >>: saying about newer versions now.
    >>:
    >>: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
    >>: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    >>: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    >>:
    >>: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    >>: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    >>: they come preinstalled.
    >>:
    >>: --
    >>: Gary S. Terhune
    >>: MS MVP Shell/User
    >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    >>:
    > : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    > : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > : >
    > : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > : >
    > : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    > : >
    > : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    > : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
    > : > low CPU utilization.).
    > : >
    > : > [...]
    > : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    > : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    > : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
    > : > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
    > : > all the extra running processes.
    > : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    > : >
    > : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    > : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    > properly
    > : > with WXP
    >
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Exactly, R. McCarty, on my dual-boot 98SE and XP PRO. ZoneAlarm PRO. has the
    box checked by default to allow the user not to ask again and I always am
    unchecking this box. It gets kind of tiring after a while. Also, ZoneAlarm
    Pro. later versions are being written in a sloppy manner because it allows 2
    tvdumpflags=10 in the autoexec.bat. This seems like sloppy programming to me
    and I have edited the autoexec.bat to remove one of the tvdumpflags=10 in the
    past and the software firewall works fine. I recently upgraded ZA PRO. to
    the latest version and voila I now have 2 tvdumpflags=10. I do not know why
    ZoneAlarm has these isssues but I am a member of the ZoneAlarm newsgroup and
    so I am tempted to write about it to complain. Have a nice day. I am
    considering switching 98SE to complete EZARMOR with antivirus and fireawall
    and dump ZA Pro. after my subscription runs out and also dump the free
    AntiVir program which is good but sometimes gives false positives. It gave a
    false positive in regards to CWShredder 2.x by Intermute and I wrote to the
    FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to complain and it turned out to be a false
    positive. Have a great day!

    "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:LekUd.1100$wy3.1073@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    : Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
    : the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules.
    : It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation &
    : maintenance Apps/Services.
    : eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as
    : opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule"
    : changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a
    : user's incorrect rule decisions.
    :
    : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : news:uhIyyBNHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : > news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
    : >> I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
    : >>
    : >> 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
    : >> Center\SymWSC.exe
    : >> 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
    : >> 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
    : >
    : > Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
    : > back
    : > and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
    : > when
    : > it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV
    2003,
    : > 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001
    is
    : > much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later
    : > versions.
    : >
    : > I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise
    it
    : > has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
    : > remember
    : > why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
    : > you
    : > gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
    : >
    : > Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends
    there.
    : > I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see
    my
    : > computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
    : > ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my
    : > firewalls
    : > trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
    : > whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain
    : > rude!
    : > Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is
    : > constantly
    : > prompting for online connections for this or that.
    : > To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
    : > ..no thanks, notta.
    : > ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >> With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
    : >> above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
    : >> program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
    : >> of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
    : >> running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
    : >> my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
    : >> 8Mb
    : >> cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
    : >>
    : >> Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
    : >> altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making
    any
    : >> PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
    : >> automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
    : >> bin,
    : >> etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to
    defrag
    : >> floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
    : >> floppies
    : >> or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
    : >> which I tried).
    : >>
    : >> Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
    : >> not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
    : >> and
    : >> none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
    : >> Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
    : >> failing
    : >> to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
    : >> perfect.
    : >>
    : >> Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
    : >> The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
    : >> features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
    : >> 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
    : >> System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
    : >> more problems than they fixed.
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
    : >> news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : >> I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast!
    because
    : >> of
    : >> its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
    : >> it
    : >> is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on
    Norton
    : >> (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
    : >> for
    : >> my
    : >> 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and
    only
    : >> recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
    : >> enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
    : >> which
    : >> is
    : >> in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
    : >> protection
    : >> of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
    : >> Also,
    : >> with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
    : >> safe
    : >> as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
    : >> keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
    : >> day
    : >> I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
    : >> number
    : >> PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
    : >> time
    : >> is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of
    my
    : >> brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
    : >> give
    : >> all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
    : >> another
    : >> day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
    : >>
    : >> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
    : >> news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    : >>: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
    : >>: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
    has
    : >>: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
    : >>: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same
    things
    : >>: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
    : >>: saying about newer versions now.
    : >>:
    : >>: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
    became
    : >>: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
    : >>: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
    : >>:
    : >>: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
    : >>: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
    : >>: they come preinstalled.
    : >>:
    : >>: --
    : >>: Gary S. Terhune
    : >>: MS MVP Shell/User
    : >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
    : >>: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
    : >>:
    : > : "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
    : > : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    : > : >
    : > : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    : > : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    : > : >
    : > : > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
    : > : >
    : > : > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
    : > : > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with
    : > : > low CPU utilization.).
    : > : >
    : > : > [...]
    : > : > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
    : > : > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
    : > : > included with every version since and including 2002 that has
    : > : > plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
    : > : > all the extra running processes.
    : > : > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
    : > : >
    : > : > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
    : > : > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
    : > properly
    : > : > with WXP
    : >
    : >
    : >
    :
    :
Ask a new question

Read More

McAfee Security Symantec Microsoft Windows XP Windows