Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Norton Internet Security 2005

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:36:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hi,

I use Norton Internet Security 2003.

In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the
subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was
less reliable.

Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? While I
understand that a lot of folks here are in favor of dropping Symantec
altogether, let's keep this option out (at least for now).

Those who either got or upgraded to NIS 2005, what is your opinion
about the product? Any known issues and/or incompatibilities?

TIA, Eugene
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Andrew,

<<< If you don't mind the inconvenience of reconfiguring: cheat.
Uninstall NIS, then re-install it. This will reset the subscription to
your install date + 1 year. >>>

The price of renewal is not cost prohibitive for me. I don't mind
paying for the version upgrade either as long as I'm not getting less
stable incarnation.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:48:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I'm a "Norton basher", but I can honestly suggest that NIS 2005 will be
a *worse* problem for Win9x users than even NIS 2004. I much prefer EZ
Armor, from ETrust (aka Computer Associates.) See the "Security" article
in my sig.

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

"Eugene F." <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113342185.685288.87960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew,
>
> <<< If you don't mind the inconvenience of reconfiguring: cheat.
> Uninstall NIS, then re-install it. This will reset the subscription
to
> your install date + 1 year. >>>
>
> The price of renewal is not cost prohibitive for me. I don't mind
> paying for the version upgrade either as long as I'm not getting less
> stable incarnation.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary,

<<< I can honestly suggest that NIS 2005 will be a *worse* problem for
Win9x users than even NIS 2004 >>>

Is it a hunch or do you have solid reasons for your suggestion? (I'm
not implying that your hunch isn't good enough.)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:09:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

A well-founded hunch... But you might also peruse Google Groups. I see a
fair number of reports about NIS 2005.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Norton+NIS+2005

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

"Eugene F." <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113343104.475110.157830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Gary,
>
> <<< I can honestly suggest that NIS 2005 will be a *worse* problem for
> Win9x users than even NIS 2004 >>>
>
> Is it a hunch or do you have solid reasons for your suggestion? (I'm
> not implying that your hunch isn't good enough.)
>
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

[This followup was posted to comp.security.firewalls and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article <1113338215.517161.46390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
pm771.am@gmail.com says...
> I use Norton Internet Security 2003.
>
> In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the
> subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was
> less reliable.
>
> Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? While I
> understand that a lot of folks here are in favor of dropping Symantec
> altogether, let's keep this option out (at least for now).
>
> Those who either got or upgraded to NIS 2005, what is your opinion
> about the product? Any known issues and/or incompatibilities?

If you don't mind the inconvenience of reconfiguring: cheat. Uninstall
NIS, then re-install it. This will reset the subscription to your
install date + 1 year.

Otherwise, on my parent's computers, I've been using Zone Alarm (free
version) and Grisoft Free AVG for AntiVirus

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:51:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 12 Apr 2005 13:36:55 -0700, "E. Fridman" <pm771.am@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I use Norton Internet Security 2003.
>
>In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the
>subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was
>less reliable.
>
>Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? While I
>understand that a lot of folks here are in favor of dropping Symantec
>altogether, let's keep this option out (at least for now).
>
>Those who either got or upgraded to NIS 2005, what is your opinion
>about the product? Any known issues and/or incompatibilities?
>
>TIA, Eugene

Why don't you look at other solutions. If you like the all in one
solution then look at bitdefender.com for BitDefender 8 professional
or f-secure.com for F-Secure internet security 2005. Personall the
best solutions are a combination of best of breed applications from
different vendors. I have Nod32 from www.nod32.com and Kerio Personal
Firewall 4 from www.kerio.com . I also use Sygate Personal Firewall
Professional on another machine with Nod32.

Symantec doesn't get any better with age :=)
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:09:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

A while ago, I upgraded from Norton AV 2002 to NIS2005. Be aware that
NIS2005 is a huge resource hog. Yes, it works, but again, slows the system
down dramatically. It also installs itself all over the place, so I went to
uninstall it (to try to reinstall - per Symantec's suggestion for 'fixing' a
live update problem), it really hose up my system.

In the end, the system really slowed down after the reinstall....so, I
reformatted the HDD and reinstalled Windows/etc. I chose a different
AV/Firewall solution.

Juan
"E. Fridman" <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113338215.517161.46390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi,
|
| I use Norton Internet Security 2003.
|
| In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the
| subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was
| less reliable.
|
| Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? While I
| understand that a lot of folks here are in favor of dropping Symantec
| altogether, let's keep this option out (at least for now).
|
| Those who either got or upgraded to NIS 2005, what is your opinion
| about the product? Any known issues and/or incompatibilities?
|
| TIA, Eugene
|
April 13, 2005 6:11:03 AM

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

Zone Alarm Professional stopped a 17,850 hack attempt on my 98SE machine that
originated from the government of China. According to Zone Alarm Information
anything above a 1000 is considered a hack attempt.

"Andrew Rossmann" wrote:

> [This followup was posted to comp.security.firewalls and a copy was sent
> to the cited author.]
>
> In article <1113338215.517161.46390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> pm771.am@gmail.com says...
> > I use Norton Internet Security 2003.
> >
> > In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the
> > subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was
> > less reliable.
> >
> > Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? While I
> > understand that a lot of folks here are in favor of dropping Symantec
> > altogether, let's keep this option out (at least for now).
> >
> > Those who either got or upgraded to NIS 2005, what is your opinion
> > about the product? Any known issues and/or incompatibilities?
>
> If you don't mind the inconvenience of reconfiguring: cheat. Uninstall
> NIS, then re-install it. This will reset the subscription to your
> install date + 1 year.
>
> Otherwise, on my parent's computers, I've been using Zone Alarm (free
> version) and Grisoft Free AVG for AntiVirus
>
> --
> If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
> All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
> law!!
> http://home.att.net/~andyross
>
April 13, 2005 6:14:02 AM

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

Norton (aka Symantec) products are a huge resource hog. I limit myself to
one Norton/Symantec product and that is GoBack because it was a Roxio product
for a long time. Have a nice day!

"Eugene F." wrote:

> Gary,
>
> <<< I can honestly suggest that NIS 2005 will be a *worse* problem for
> Win9x users than even NIS 2004 >>>
>
> Is it a hunch or do you have solid reasons for your suggestion? (I'm
> not implying that your hunch isn't good enough.)
>
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Juan,

Thank you for sharing your experience.

<<< A while ago, I upgraded from Norton AV 2002 to NIS2005. Be aware
that
NIS2005 is a huge resource hog >>>

I understand that when you're moving from AV only to full NIS package
(Firewall, Parental Controls, etc.) the bloat increases.

My question is whether NIS 2005 hogs more resources than its 2003
counterpart does.
April 13, 2005 7:29:02 PM

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

The problem with package suites is the same problem with an all in one fax
machine with phone and other stuff. It usually does what it is supposed to
do -- generally -- but it never does anything really well -- My 2 cents for
what it is worth is the following for a bare minimum of protection as well as
using common sense and being really careful:

Zone Alarm Professional or Computer Associates software firewall

Antivirus -- still researching -- possibly Norton, or paid AVG or ZA or EZ
Antivirus

Spyware -- Spysweeper by Webroot -- $20-$30 for a year and even Microsoft
knows it is good since MSN users can get it for free or a small fee if they
are subscribers to MSN and remember MSN is part of Microsoft

LOL!!

"Eugene F." wrote:

> Juan,
>
> Thank you for sharing your experience.
>
> <<< A while ago, I upgraded from Norton AV 2002 to NIS2005. Be aware
> that
> NIS2005 is a huge resource hog >>>
>
> I understand that when you're moving from AV only to full NIS package
> (Firewall, Parental Controls, etc.) the bloat increases.
>
> My question is whether NIS 2005 hogs more resources than its 2003
> counterpart does.
>
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:07:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I can say that NIS2005 hogs significantly more resources than other lesser
known 2005 suites. Not sure about Symantec's 2003 vs. 2005 versions.

"Eugene F." <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113409527.156596.175460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Juan,
|
| Thank you for sharing your experience.
|
| <<< A while ago, I upgraded from Norton AV 2002 to NIS2005. Be aware
| that
| NIS2005 is a huge resource hog >>>
|
| I understand that when you're moving from AV only to full NIS package
| (Firewall, Parental Controls, etc.) the bloat increases.
|
| My question is whether NIS 2005 hogs more resources than its 2003
| counterpart does.
|
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:14:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

NIS2005 can be/is very problematic to 98/SE machines. I believe that many who
continue to use Symantec, updating each year, never update any system elements
such as their processor, RAM and/or HD size. I currently use NIS2005 in a 98SE
self-built machine, Celeron 500Mhz, 512MB RAM and 2 160GB HD's. At present I
have no problems and never have with that machine and Symantec products,
although now it is used as a secondary machine.

You asked another poster in this thread if there is any significant difference
between NIS03-05 in resources, the short and simple answer is YES. NIS05 has
added 2 new categories I can think of right now, spam control and outbreak
warnings. It's up to you to try it if you wish, but I would suggest at the very
most the Trial version first to see if you have issues. I would also suggest
that you use a registry monitoring program to take a snapshot of before/after
installing NIS05 so you can do a thorough cleanup if warranted. The best
suggestion is to use an imaging application such as Norton Ghost to create an
image before installing, then if all goes haywire you can restore the image to
before the install.

--

Brian A. Sesko
<>MS MVP<>Shell/User<>
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm




"Eugene F." <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113343104.475110.157830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Gary,
>
> <<< I can honestly suggest that NIS 2005 will be a *worse* problem for
> Win9x users than even NIS 2004 >>>
>
> Is it a hunch or do you have solid reasons for your suggestion? (I'm
> not implying that your hunch isn't good enough.)
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 2:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Brian,

Thank you very much for the reply.

<<< I believe that many who continue to use Symantec, updating each
year, never update any system elements such as their processor, RAM
and/or HD size. >>>

I'm adding 256Mb of RAM to the original 128Mb and swapping CD-ROM for
DVD-R drive, but plan no processor and/or HD upgrades.

<<< NIS05 has added 2 new categories I can think of right now, spam
control and outbreak warnings. >>>

I'm not interested in their Spam Control. Never heard of Outbreak
Warnings, however. What is it about?
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:31:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

stop updating symantec. Go to http://www.isagency.net and secure your
pc and home with the finest security products and services. The
Internet Security Agency provides all on security matters.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:47:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.virus,alt.comp.anti-virus,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"E. Fridman" <pm771.am@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113499884.956837.44980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Brian,
>
> Thank you very much for the reply.

You're welcome.


> <<< I believe that many who continue to use Symantec, updating each
> year, never update any system elements such as their processor, RAM
> and/or HD size. >>>
>
> I'm adding 256Mb of RAM to the original 128Mb and swapping CD-ROM for
> DVD-R drive, but plan no processor and/or HD upgrades.

That's all fine and dandy, yet with the amount of bloat added by NIS/NAV each
year IMO they understate their sys requirements which appear never to change.
One has to question that!


> <<< NIS05 has added 2 new categories I can think of right now, spam
> control and outbreak warnings. >>>
>
> I'm not interested in their Spam Control. Never heard of Outbreak
> Warnings, however. What is it about?

Even though you're not interested in Spam Control, it gets installed. It doesn't
matter that you can disable it in NIS, the extra bloat is already in place.

I realize I mentioned outbreak warnings while it is really named Outbreak Alert.
As per the manual on OA:
"Notifies you of security threats affecting internet users worldwide and
recommends actions to ensure that you are protected"


--

Brian A. Sesko
<>MS MVP<>Shell/User<>
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
!