Symantec NAV Version 2006

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

Just an FYI on Symantec's annual update of their product line.

Since I've been pretty rough on Symantec, I thought I'd check
out their Public Beta for NAV-2006 and see if they've made
any significant changes to it. It is a public Beta, so I'll have to
concede that the final production version may be "Better."

First off, they have added a few features to it. The problem is
NAV is still heavy on system resources. The boot time is very
similar to 2004/2005 versions. Internet Worm Protection is
built-in, but I think that was also in the 2005 NAV.

The service mappings are similar, with CCSetMgr.Exe and
ccEvtMgr.Exe being the heaviest on memory. Also a new
service called NSCSrvce.Exe. Total service memory is around
24 Megabytes.

Live update looks almost identical to last years iteration. Seems
to have some form of "Trusted Application Tables" as that comes
up as a Live Update Item. Live Update seemed slow and during
it's processing the CPU usage went to 100% and stay saturated
while it scanned & downloaded updates.

Scan times haven't changed either.

Product Activation still in place - No changes there, same type
of Startup interface to activate and set program options. Does
present a screen to use their "Worm Protection" instead of MS's
Firewall and override it's security warnings. The whole "1st-Boot"
process is just as slow as before. A couple of times, I was
thinking the process had "Frozen", but it eventually finished up.

Thought that this year they might make an effort to re-work it -
but looks like another $29.95 marginal update.
8 answers Last reply
More about symantec version 2006
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    R. McCarty wrote:

    > Just an FYI on Symantec's annual update of their product line.
    >
    > Since I've been pretty rough on Symantec, I thought I'd check
    > out their Public Beta for NAV-2006 and see if they've made
    > any significant changes to it. It is a public Beta, so I'll have to
    > concede that the final production version may be "Better."
    >
    > First off, they have added a few features to it. The problem is
    > NAV is still heavy on system resources. The boot time is very
    > similar to 2004/2005 versions. Internet Worm Protection is
    > built-in, but I think that was also in the 2005 NAV.
    >
    > The service mappings are similar, with CCSetMgr.Exe and
    > ccEvtMgr.Exe being the heaviest on memory. Also a new
    > service called NSCSrvce.Exe. Total service memory is around
    > 24 Megabytes.
    >
    > Live update looks almost identical to last years iteration. Seems
    > to have some form of "Trusted Application Tables" as that comes
    > up as a Live Update Item. Live Update seemed slow and during
    > it's processing the CPU usage went to 100% and stay saturated
    > while it scanned & downloaded updates.
    >
    > Scan times haven't changed either.
    >
    > Product Activation still in place - No changes there, same type
    > of Startup interface to activate and set program options. Does
    > present a screen to use their "Worm Protection" instead of MS's
    > Firewall and override it's security warnings. The whole "1st-Boot"
    > process is just as slow as before. A couple of times, I was
    > thinking the process had "Frozen", but it eventually finished up.
    >
    > Thought that this year they might make an effort to re-work it -
    > but looks like another $29.95 marginal update.

    Thanks so much for the thorough report. Looks like I'll continue to not
    recommend Norton. I appreciate your input.

    Malke
    --
    MS-MVP Windows User/Shell
    Elephant Boy Computers
    www.elephantboycomputers.com
    "Don't Panic"
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    You're Welcome - Thought it might be worth an hour or two to
    check out. I'd hate to continue to Bash the "Cupertino Coders"
    and not have up to date information to work from. Definitely will
    not be a recommended product for my customers. Not only the
    things I mentioned, but the Beta has Time-Out period of 15-days !

    "Malke" <notreally@invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:eNOGLPkkFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > R. McCarty wrote:
    >
    >> Just an FYI on Symantec's annual update of their product line.
    >>
    >> Since I've been pretty rough on Symantec, I thought I'd check
    >> out their Public Beta for NAV-2006 and see if they've made
    >> any significant changes to it. It is a public Beta, so I'll have to
    >> concede that the final production version may be "Better."
    >>
    >> First off, they have added a few features to it. The problem is
    >> NAV is still heavy on system resources. The boot time is very
    >> similar to 2004/2005 versions. Internet Worm Protection is
    >> built-in, but I think that was also in the 2005 NAV.
    >>
    >> The service mappings are similar, with CCSetMgr.Exe and
    >> ccEvtMgr.Exe being the heaviest on memory. Also a new
    >> service called NSCSrvce.Exe. Total service memory is around
    >> 24 Megabytes.
    >>
    >> Live update looks almost identical to last years iteration. Seems
    >> to have some form of "Trusted Application Tables" as that comes
    >> up as a Live Update Item. Live Update seemed slow and during
    >> it's processing the CPU usage went to 100% and stay saturated
    >> while it scanned & downloaded updates.
    >>
    >> Scan times haven't changed either.
    >>
    >> Product Activation still in place - No changes there, same type
    >> of Startup interface to activate and set program options. Does
    >> present a screen to use their "Worm Protection" instead of MS's
    >> Firewall and override it's security warnings. The whole "1st-Boot"
    >> process is just as slow as before. A couple of times, I was
    >> thinking the process had "Frozen", but it eventually finished up.
    >>
    >> Thought that this year they might make an effort to re-work it -
    >> but looks like another $29.95 marginal update.
    >
    > Thanks so much for the thorough report. Looks like I'll continue to not
    > recommend Norton. I appreciate your input.
    >
    > Malke
    > --
    > MS-MVP Windows User/Shell
    > Elephant Boy Computers
    > www.elephantboycomputers.com
    > "Don't Panic"
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    R. McCarty wrote:

    > You're Welcome - Thought it might be worth an hour or two to
    > check out. I'd hate to continue to Bash the "Cupertino Coders"
    > and not have up to date information to work from. Definitely will
    > not be a recommended product for my customers. Not only the
    > things I mentioned, but the Beta has Time-Out period of 15-days !
    >

    We hates Norton, we does. Nasssty and what have they got in their
    pocketses? More activations and time-outs! Right now there is a message
    on my answering machine from a frustrated user who can't renew her NAV.
    I think I'll wait until tomorrow. It's only 7:17 PM here, but I can't
    face a NAV troubleshooting now.

    Malke
    --
    MS-MVP Windows User/Shell
    Elephant Boy Computers
    www.elephantboycomputers.com
    "Don't Panic"
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:17:55 -0400, "R. McCarty"
    <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

    >Just an FYI on Symantec's annual update of their product line.

    I'm still using version 2003 because I was told it was the last good
    version before they started becoming a resource hog. My question is,
    by running 2003, are there any enhancements (anti-virus wise, I
    already got adware, spyware, highjackers, keyloggers and popups taken
    care of with other applications) in later versions that I am missing
    out on that are absolutely necessary for proper protection that 2003
    isn't giving me?

    Regards,
    Ed
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    No, not in my opinion. Version 2003 is probably OK. I would
    maybe do an on-line scan with an alternate product occasionally
    just to cross-check it. I use Panda ActiveScan and Trend Micro
    on-line scanners.
    If you are considering a change, I'd recommend CA's eTrust
    7.0. There is still a 1-Year free offer. Much leaner/efficient code
    than either Symantec/McAfee. Yearly renewals are around $13.00.
    A side benefit, is the increased system performance you'll get by
    removing Symantec/Norton.
    Download requires Registration (Opt out for Updates/Notices)
    https://store.ca.com/dr/v2/ec_Main.Entry17c?V1=1313418&PID=&PN=1&SP=10034&SID=55939&CUR=840&CID=183867&api1=78&api2=1360


    "Ed" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message
    news:5irde1dfrdt1vgfa7eiegvt5082suugv0b@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:17:55 -0400, "R. McCarty"
    > <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Just an FYI on Symantec's annual update of their product line.
    >
    > I'm still using version 2003 because I was told it was the last good
    > version before they started becoming a resource hog. My question is,
    > by running 2003, are there any enhancements (anti-virus wise, I
    > already got adware, spyware, highjackers, keyloggers and popups taken
    > care of with other applications) in later versions that I am missing
    > out on that are absolutely necessary for proper protection that 2003
    > isn't giving me?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Ed
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On 26-Jul-2005, Ed <fake@fake.com> wrote:

    > I'm still using version 2003 because I was told it was the last good
    > version before they started becoming a resource hog. My question is,
    > by running 2003, are there any enhancements (anti-virus wise, I
    > already got adware, spyware, highjackers, keyloggers and popups taken
    > care of with other applications) in later versions that I am missing
    > out on that are absolutely necessary for proper protection that 2003
    > isn't giving me?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Ed

    NAV 2003 detection of Trojans is the pits. Just about every computer I have
    removed it from and installed Kaspersky and after running a scan it detected
    a few Trojans which NAV 2003 missed.
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Gary" <zero@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:uvEJUcpkFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    |
    | On 26-Jul-2005, Ed <fake@fake.com> wrote:
    |
    | > I'm still using version 2003 because I was told it was the last good
    | > version before they started becoming a resource hog. My question is,
    | > by running 2003, are there any enhancements (anti-virus wise, I
    | > already got adware, spyware, highjackers, keyloggers and popups taken
    | > care of with other applications) in later versions that I am missing
    | > out on that are absolutely necessary for proper protection that 2003
    | > isn't giving me?
    | >
    | > Regards,
    | > Ed
    |
    | NAV 2003 detection of Trojans is the pits. Just about every computer I
    have
    | removed it from and installed Kaspersky and after running a scan it
    detected
    | a few Trojans which NAV 2003 missed.

    Out of curiosity, was NAV 2003 up-to-date with its virus list before you
    loaded Kaspersky and found the additional Trojans? I do know that many
    users let their virus update subscriptions lapse (doesn't matter which
    anti-virus program is used).
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:21:08 -0400, Ed <fake@fake.com> wrote :

    >I'm still using version 2003 because I was told it was the last good
    >version before they started becoming a resource hog.

    Well I'm still running 2003 because after umpeen uninstall/reinstalls,
    twenty or so emails to and from Symantec and god knows how many
    registry cleanups, I still couldn't get the 2005 version to operate
    correctly on my late model laptop - it would install the program but
    refuse to install some specific updates.

    Symantec tech sp advice seems to consist only of "uninstall/reinstall
    every Symantec product then do it again, and again, and again and...."
    and if that doesn't work they are stuffed.

    I got my money back from Symantec, but will be looking elsewhere when
    the 2003 subscription update runs out, because it costs nearly as much
    to update 2003 each year than to buy the new product. Planned
    obsolescence!
    --
    Regards,
    Peter Wilkins
Ask a new question

Read More

Symantec Microsoft Windows XP