Using Norton antivirus

[Guest]

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

hi all,

when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
£80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old one,
and if so, which norton products should i be getting.

Thanks
--
robin

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:57:13 -0700, robina wrote:

> hi all,
>
> when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
> wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
> and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
> £80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
> continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
> and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old one,
> and if so, which norton products should i be getting.
>
> Thanks

Richard brings up a good point on the "gotcha" from Norton. Usually after a
year there is a new version available. If you watch for sales and rebate
offers, it's possible to acquire the new package for very little money
(sometimes free).

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

 

[Guest]

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

While you are trying to decide what to do why not check out a decent
freeware alternative to Norton.
Check here http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/ The download for the
fully free version is at the bottom of the page. Don't get confused and
download the 30 day demo. If you decide to try AVG 7 you need to remove
Norton AV first.

You can also get a free version of ZoneAlarm firewall scanner from here
http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/products/znalm/freeDownload.jsp

Both of the above free products are well respected.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"robina" <robinatter@msn.com.> wrote in message
news:EABDEA26-BC31-44C8-80B3-6C9AF512C7EF@microsoft.com...
> hi all,
>
> when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
> wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
> and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
> £80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
> continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
> and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old
one,
> and if so, which norton products should i be getting.
>
> Thanks
> --
> robin

 

[Guest]

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

What you do is up to you but I must mention a small gotcha!

I have, on occasion, heard of people who were using say Norton AntiVirus
2003. Their subscription ran out. They found a real good deal on another
copy of the SAME version because a newer version was now out. So, they
uninstalled the old copy, rebooted and then installed the new copy.

Guess what? The new copy was tagged as expired from the get go! So, either
buy an update for your present version or buy a newer version!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"robina" <robinatter@msn.com.> wrote in message
news:EABDEA26-BC31-44C8-80B3-6C9AF512C7EF@microsoft.com...
> hi all,
>
> when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
> wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
> and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
> £80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
> continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
> and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old
> one,
> and if so, which norton products should i be getting.
>
> Thanks
> --
> robin

 

[Guest]

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

Sharon F wrote:

>Richard brings up a good point on the "gotcha" from Norton. Usually after a
>year there is a new version available. If you watch for sales and rebate
>offers, it's possible to acquire the new package for very little money
>(sometimes free).
>

Personally, I'm always willing to use down level software if it's a good
enough deal. I generally don't use all the old features of some
program, let alone whatever they've added recently. With Norton AV it
says it's down level, but that doesn't matter since the virus signatures
are all current and who cares about whatever other functional features
they've added?

That said, I just bought a new copy over the web for $30 and expected to
get the Symantec $20 rebate marked off that for $10 net. The copy they
delivered to me was OEM, not retail, and thus not eligible for the
rebate. Even worse was that it was ARABIC and marked for use only in
the Middle East. Anyhow, some heated discussion with the vendor about
what their web site shows -vs- what they delivered produced a refund.

It's the first time I've run into that kind of problem though after
years of buying out of date software.

Caveat emptor....

Bill

 

[Guest]

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

It is always best to utilize the latest scanning engine.

Years ago (mid 90's) both Norton and McAfee would allow you to integrate a
newer scanning engine into an existing version of their antivirus packages.
Now you have to purchase the latest version! And, it only happens once a
year it seems.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote in message news:ubFqJzvVFHA.3572@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sharon F wrote:
>
>>Richard brings up a good point on the "gotcha" from Norton. Usually after
>>a
>>year there is a new version available. If you watch for sales and rebate
>>offers, it's possible to acquire the new package for very little money
>>(sometimes free).
>
> Personally, I'm always willing to use down level software if it's a good
> enough deal. I generally don't use all the old features of some program,
> let alone whatever they've added recently. With Norton AV it says it's
> down level, but that doesn't matter since the virus signatures are all
> current and who cares about whatever other functional features they've
> added?
>
> That said, I just bought a new copy over the web for $30 and expected to
> get the Symantec $20 rebate marked off that for $10 net. The copy they
> delivered to me was OEM, not retail, and thus not eligible for the rebate.
> Even worse was that it was ARABIC and marked for use only in the Middle
> East. Anyhow, some heated discussion with the vendor about what their web
> site shows -vs- what they delivered produced a refund.
>
> It's the first time I've run into that kind of problem though after years
> of buying out of date software.
>
> Caveat emptor....
>
> Bill

 

[Guest]

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

I have lived for years with Norton System Works, which
includes their Anti-Virus and several other more or less valuable
facilities. I don't have or use their Firewall (Windows XP has
one). Store chains all over the U.S. sell NSW 2005 for roughly $30 if
you are upgrading from any prior version, and it comes with a full
year of updates. I'm probably tempting Fate by saying this, but
between Norton's AV and my own ISP's, I have never had a
virus sneak past my front door.

robina wrote:
> hi all,
>
> when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
> wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
> and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
> £80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
> continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
> and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old one,
> and if so, which norton products should i be getting.
>
> Thanks

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Robina

You can buy it from Norton, but if i was you shop around for the latest
versions and prices.

Hope this helps
David Watts

"robina" wrote:

> hi all,
>
> when i got my pc last year it came with norton antivirus 2004 and the fire
> wall pre installed. it had those updates with it, but these have now ended
> and it says i need to pay to get them. the thing is they ask for almost
> £80.00 for a year. but on ebay i have seen norton products for £20. to
> continue to get the same level of cover on my pc, should i just pay norton
> and get updates, or should i buy the products again and delete the old one,
> and if so, which norton products should i be getting.
>
> Thanks
> --
> robin

 

[Guest]

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

Richard Urban wrote:
> It is always best to utilize the latest scanning engine.

I'm curious why you say that Richard? Is it a matter of principal or is
there something significant going on?

What do you think they add to the scanning engine that they don't also
update to the older version during the weekly updates? Sometimes those
download executable code as well as virus signatures. And they
certainly never tell users of down level products that they are no
longer protected -- not for as long as they supply updates anyhow.

Bill

 

[Guest]

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

They add newer methods of scanning, of course.

I remember when the only scanning was by virus definitions. Then, mid year,
McAfee came out with an engine update. WOW! Now I also had heuristic
scanning included. Are you saying that you would be happy to use an
antivirus product from 1993 as long as it had current virus definitions
installed? I think NOT!

If you have Norton AntiVirus 2003 you ARE NOT going to be able to scan your
IM messages and file transfers. It is NOT going to block worms and trojans.
With Norton AntiVirus 2005 - you can! Would you still want to be using your
product from 1993 with updated virus definitions? I think NOT!

Now, do you understand?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote in message news:epSxJiKWFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> It is always best to utilize the latest scanning engine.
>
> I'm curious why you say that Richard? Is it a matter of principal or is
> there something significant going on?
>
> What do you think they add to the scanning engine that they don't also
> update to the older version during the weekly updates? Sometimes those
> download executable code as well as virus signatures. And they certainly
> never tell users of down level products that they are no longer
> protected -- not for as long as they supply updates anyhow.
>
> Bill

 

[Guest]

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

Richard Urban wrote:
> They add newer methods of scanning, of course.
>
> I remember when the only scanning was by virus definitions. Then, mid year,
> McAfee came out with an engine update. WOW! Now I also had heuristic
> scanning included. Are you saying that you would be happy to use an
> antivirus product from 1993 as long as it had current virus definitions
> installed? I think NOT!
>
> If you have Norton AntiVirus 2003 you ARE NOT going to be able to scan your
> IM messages and file transfers. It is NOT going to block worms and trojans.
> With Norton AntiVirus 2005 - you can! Would you still want to be using your
> product from 1993 with updated virus definitions? I think NOT!
>
> Now, do you understand?
>

----------------

No, not really. I do understand the bit of hyperbole about a 1993
product but of course that's a moot point since they don't sell support
for that anymore anyhow.

What I still can't quite grasp is that you're apparently convinced that
Symantec is running some kind of scam by selling ongoing support for
last year's product? That one thinks you're buying full protection but
they're not providing it?

I know that the updates periodically include executable code, not just
virus signatures. Yet you seem to imply that it's only the signatures
they're updating. Either you don't realize they're updating the
executables too, or have I totally misunderstood what you mean?

And you think that the 2003 version does not scan files? I'm all the
time getting a wait window while Norton scans some incoming file. I
can't speak to your IM comment since I don't use IM.

Bill

 

[Guest]

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

My first post in this thread DID NOT say that.

You are the one who said you are willing to use "down level software" (old)
as long as you can get definitions for it. I just pointed why you may not
want to do that! If you can get the newer version for 5 dollars more than
renewing your subscription, I suggest you analyze what you get for that
extra 5 dollars. And the 2003 version does not scan IM transferred files
during the transfer - only when you open them after the fact. Is this a
benefit? I don't know! I do know that when my son received the nasty IM
virus that is going around now - he was flagged immediately! New
capabilities are added almost every year! Are you saying they are not?

As to whether you want to upgrade - who cares? It's your computer.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote in message news:OdtFvZLWFHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> They add newer methods of scanning, of course.
>>
>> I remember when the only scanning was by virus definitions. Then, mid
>> year, McAfee came out with an engine update. WOW! Now I also had
>> heuristic scanning included. Are you saying that you would be happy to
>> use an antivirus product from 1993 as long as it had current virus
>> definitions installed? I think NOT!
>>
>> If you have Norton AntiVirus 2003 you ARE NOT going to be able to scan
>> your IM messages and file transfers. It is NOT going to block worms and
>> trojans. With Norton AntiVirus 2005 - you can! Would you still want to be
>> using your product from 1993 with updated virus definitions? I think NOT!
>>
>> Now, do you understand?
>>
>
> ----------------
>
> No, not really. I do understand the bit of hyperbole about a 1993 product
> but of course that's a moot point since they don't sell support for that
> anymore anyhow.
>
> What I still can't quite grasp is that you're apparently convinced that
> Symantec is running some kind of scam by selling ongoing support for last
> year's product? That one thinks you're buying full protection but they're
> not providing it?
>
> I know that the updates periodically include executable code, not just
> virus signatures. Yet you seem to imply that it's only the signatures
> they're updating. Either you don't realize they're updating the
> executables too, or have I totally misunderstood what you mean?
>
> And you think that the 2003 version does not scan files? I'm all the time
> getting a wait window while Norton scans some incoming file. I can't
> speak to your IM comment since I don't use IM.
>
> Bill

 

[Guest]

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

heuristic scanning has been around for decades. I'm sure McAfee had this as an option in 94.

--
----------------------------------------------------------

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OEF84$KWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> They add newer methods of scanning, of course.
>
> I remember when the only scanning was by virus definitions. Then, mid year,
> McAfee came out with an engine update. WOW! Now I also had heuristic
> scanning included. Are you saying that you would be happy to use an
> antivirus product from 1993 as long as it had current virus definitions
> installed? I think NOT!
>
> If you have Norton AntiVirus 2003 you ARE NOT going to be able to scan your
> IM messages and file transfers. It is NOT going to block worms and trojans.
> With Norton AntiVirus 2005 - you can! Would you still want to be using your
> product from 1993 with updated virus definitions? I think NOT!
>
> Now, do you understand?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
> wrote in message news:epSxJiKWFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> It is always best to utilize the latest scanning engine.
>>
>> I'm curious why you say that Richard? Is it a matter of principal or is
>> there something significant going on?
>>
>> What do you think they add to the scanning engine that they don't also
>> update to the older version during the weekly updates? Sometimes those
>> download executable code as well as virus signatures. And they certainly
>> never tell users of down level products that they are no longer
>> protected -- not for as long as they supply updates anyhow.
>>
>> Bill
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

When it was a decent program.

--
----------------------------------------------------------

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OEF84$KWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> They add newer methods of scanning, of course.
>
> I remember when the only scanning was by virus definitions. Then, mid year,
> McAfee came out with an engine update. WOW! Now I also had heuristic
> scanning included. Are you saying that you would be happy to use an
> antivirus product from 1993 as long as it had current virus definitions
> installed? I think NOT!
>
> If you have Norton AntiVirus 2003 you ARE NOT going to be able to scan your
> IM messages and file transfers. It is NOT going to block worms and trojans.
> With Norton AntiVirus 2005 - you can! Would you still want to be using your
> product from 1993 with updated virus definitions? I think NOT!
>
> Now, do you understand?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
> wrote in message news:epSxJiKWFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> It is always best to utilize the latest scanning engine.
>>
>> I'm curious why you say that Richard? Is it a matter of principal or is
>> there something significant going on?
>>
>> What do you think they add to the scanning engine that they don't also
>> update to the older version during the weekly updates? Sometimes those
>> download executable code as well as virus signatures. And they certainly
>> never tell users of down level products that they are no longer
>> protected -- not for as long as they supply updates anyhow.
>>
>> Bill
>
>