Norton

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I've recently been advised via these newsgroups to ditch most aspects of
Systemworks (possibly excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities, as
well as other free anti spyware and anti adware programs.
Can someone also please advise on Norton Internet security Professional?
Should I be using this? If I don't, what will protect me from whatever it
does????
Thanks.
9 answers Last reply
More about norton
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:07 -0000, Geoff A. wrote:

    > I've recently been advised via these newsgroups to ditch most aspects of
    > Systemworks (possibly excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities, as
    > well as other free anti spyware and anti adware programs.
    > Can someone also please advise on Norton Internet security Professional?
    > Should I be using this? If I don't, what will protect me from whatever it
    > does????
    > Thanks.

    I'm not a fan of Symantec BUT if it's working well for you and it's already
    installed - why not use it?

    I never worry about what I "should" be using. Instead I look for programs
    that do what they're supposed to, do it well and that don't cause other
    problems with my system. If Symantec is behaving itself on your system,
    leave it alone. Trying to remove it could cause another whole world of
    woes...

    --
    Sharon F
    MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    If you are not having problems leave alone at least until the subscription
    is up. Personally, I use Norton System Works 2005 and am doing OK.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Sharon F" <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org> wrote in message
    news:OEKxY$SEFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:07 -0000, Geoff A. wrote:
    >
    >> I've recently been advised via these newsgroups to ditch most aspects of
    >> Systemworks (possibly excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities,
    >> as
    >> well as other free anti spyware and anti adware programs.
    >> Can someone also please advise on Norton Internet security Professional?
    >> Should I be using this? If I don't, what will protect me from whatever it
    >> does????
    >> Thanks.
    >
    > I'm not a fan of Symantec BUT if it's working well for you and it's
    > already
    > installed - why not use it?
    >
    > I never worry about what I "should" be using. Instead I look for programs
    > that do what they're supposed to, do it well and that don't cause other
    > problems with my system. If Symantec is behaving itself on your system,
    > leave it alone. Trying to remove it could cause another whole world of
    > woes...
    >
    > --
    > Sharon F
    > MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >
    >
    > My opinion is to ditch the software firewall altogether - I have a router
    > which acts as a hardware firewall - you have no idea how much faster my
    > system has been since ditching it - it munches clock cycles like - well like
    > a clock cycle munching thing.
    >


    I disagree.

    If you use a router with NAT, it's still a very good idea to use a
    3rd party software firewall. Like WinXP's built-in firewall,
    NAT-capable routers do nothing to protect the user from him/herself (or
    any "curious," over-confident teenagers in the home). Again -- and I
    *cannot* emphasize this enough -- almost all spyware and many Trojans
    and worms are downloaded and installed deliberately (albeit unknowingly)
    by the user. So a software firewall, such as Sygate or ZoneAlarm, that
    can detect and warn the user of unauthorized out-going traffic is an
    important element of protecting one's privacy and security. (Remember:
    Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or protect you from
    adware/spyware, because, after all, you've installed them yourself, so
    you must want them there, right?)

    I use both a router with NAT and Sygate Personal Firewall, even
    though I generally know better than to install scumware. When it comes
    to computer security and protecting my privacy, I prefer the old "belt
    and suspenders" approach. In the professional IT community, this is
    also known as a "layered defense." Basically, it comes down to never,
    ever "putting all of your eggs in one basket."


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In article <djOPd.10439$vI5.398@fe01.buzzardnews.com>, noone@here.com,
    Miss Perspicacia Tick says...

    > My opinion is to ditch the software firewall altogether - I have a router
    > which acts as a hardware firewall - you have no idea how much faster my
    > system has been since ditching it - it munches clock cycles like - well like
    > a clock cycle munching thing.
    >
    > If you've no need for a router then, yes, ZA is good.
    >
    >

    And this catches all your outgoing also?
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In article <#oSueMhEFHA.4052@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
    bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com, Bruce Chambers says...

    > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > My opinion is to ditch the software firewall altogether - I have a router
    > > which acts as a hardware firewall - you have no idea how much faster my
    > > system has been since ditching it - it munches clock cycles like - well like
    > > a clock cycle munching thing.
    > >
    >
    >
    > I disagree.
    >
    > If you use a router with NAT, it's still a very good idea to use a
    > 3rd party software firewall. Like WinXP's built-in firewall,
    > NAT-capable routers do nothing to protect the user from him/herself (or
    > any "curious," over-confident teenagers in the home). Again -- and I
    > *cannot* emphasize this enough -- almost all spyware and many Trojans
    > and worms are downloaded and installed deliberately (albeit unknowingly)
    > by the user. So a software firewall, such as Sygate or ZoneAlarm, that
    > can detect and warn the user of unauthorized out-going traffic is an
    > important element of protecting one's privacy and security. (Remember:
    > Most antivirus applications do not even scan for or protect you from
    > adware/spyware, because, after all, you've installed them yourself, so
    > you must want them there, right?)
    >
    > I use both a router with NAT and Sygate Personal Firewall, even
    > though I generally know better than to install scumware. When it comes
    > to computer security and protecting my privacy, I prefer the old "belt
    > and suspenders" approach. In the professional IT community, this is
    > also known as a "layered defense." Basically, it comes down to never,
    > ever "putting all of your eggs in one basket."
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Couldn't of said it better myself............ ;0)
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Sharon F wrote:

    > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:07 -0000, Geoff A. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've recently been advised via these newsgroups to ditch most aspects of
    >>Systemworks (possibly excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities, as
    >>well as other free anti spyware and anti adware programs.
    >>Can someone also please advise on Norton Internet security Professional?
    >>Should I be using this? If I don't, what will protect me from whatever it
    >>does????
    >>Thanks.
    >
    >
    > I'm not a fan of Symantec BUT if it's working well for you and it's already
    > installed - why not use it?
    >
    > I never worry about what I "should" be using. Instead I look for programs
    > that do what they're supposed to, do it well and that don't cause other
    > problems with my system. If Symantec is behaving itself on your system,
    > leave it alone. Trying to remove it could cause another whole world of
    > woes...
    >
    Sharon is SO right!!! When a Norton program goes bad,
    just uninstalling it can be a monumental task, involving
    pages and pages of printout of instructions, and then
    messing with the (ugh) registry.

    --
    William B. Lurie
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I am using Norton Systems Works. I have found their features one button
    check up (which does registry scan and its shortcut scan checks for
    mismatched or missing programs and file shortcuts) very useful.

    The feature Norton Utilities (which have optimize performance and find and
    fix problems) is also very useful.
    Is their any free alternatives for these features or we can do without these
    features?

    Your view in this will be very useful.
    TIA.

    <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:edqpxyiEFHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Sharon F wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:07 -0000, Geoff A. wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I've recently been advised via these newsgroups to ditch most aspects of
    > >>Systemworks (possibly excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities,
    as
    > >>well as other free anti spyware and anti adware programs.
    > >>Can someone also please advise on Norton Internet security Professional?
    > >>Should I be using this? If I don't, what will protect me from whatever
    it
    > >>does????
    > >>Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    > > I'm not a fan of Symantec BUT if it's working well for you and it's
    already
    > > installed - why not use it?
    > >
    > > I never worry about what I "should" be using. Instead I look for
    programs
    > > that do what they're supposed to, do it well and that don't cause other
    > > problems with my system. If Symantec is behaving itself on your system,
    > > leave it alone. Trying to remove it could cause another whole world of
    > > woes...
    > >
    > Sharon is SO right!!! When a Norton program goes bad,
    > just uninstalling it can be a monumental task, involving
    > pages and pages of printout of instructions, and then
    > messing with the (ugh) registry.
    >
    > --
    > William B. Lurie
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In article <elR6PoEFFHA.624@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, newbie16@invalid.com,
    newbie says...

    > I am using Norton Systems Works. I have found their features one button
    > check up (which does registry scan and its shortcut scan checks for
    > mismatched or missing programs and file shortcuts) very useful.
    >
    > The feature Norton Utilities (which have optimize performance and find and
    > fix problems) is also very useful.
    > Is their any free alternatives for these features or we can do without these
    > features?
    >
    > Your view in this will be very useful.
    > TIA.

    If you know your system well you will find that the "onebutton" fixes
    are not all that they are cracked up to be......I would never trust any
    program to just "auto" fix anything.......Way back when I used to use
    Norton Windoctor I was amazed that the majority of the fixes that were
    "auto" suggested had NOTHING to do with the actual program or
    path/shortcut corrections...........
    But heh, that's my opinion & experience though but also based on fact
    when I seen it with my own eyes..........I use a prog called "Registry
    First Aid" and find it very useful for what I need it for..........

    All is just my opinion..........
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Geoff A." wrote:
    >
    > I've recently been advised via these newsgroups
    > to ditch most aspects of Systemworks (possibly
    > excluding the AV) and use win XP's own utilities,
    > as well as other free anti spyware and anti
    > adware programs. (snip)


    Well, then you've been advised wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong
    with Norton SystemWorks (or the individual components purchased separately),
    as many millions of long-term users can attest. Each of the individual
    components, while rarely the very best in the industry, are more than
    adequate for most users. Therefore, unless you have a particular reason to
    demand more, I suspect the same may be true for you.

    And, of course, nothing stops you from also using WinXP's tools when they
    serve you better. For example, I use Window's Disk Defragmentor instead of
    Norton's because my computer feels slightly faster afterwards, but rely
    heavily on Ghost to back up my computer (it has restored my computer twice
    with only very minor problems afterward - Microsoft Office had to be
    reactivated, for example).

    Finally, freeware alternatives are a very mixed bag. Some work well, and
    some can cause more harm than good. Likewise, some are updated and supported
    well, while others are not. I personally would never comfortably rely on
    freeware for the critical, and potentially damaging, activities reliably
    handled by SystemWorks (disk backups, virus scans, disk and Windows repairs,
    and so on).

    One final note. You talked about trashing SystemWorks except for
    Anti-Virus. The individual components of SystemWorks cannot be installed
    separately and work properly (the documentation mentions this). Instead, if
    you actually decide to trash SystemWorks, you would need to purchase the
    stand-alone version of Norton Anti-Virus.

    Stewart
Ask a new question

Read More

Norton Windows XP