• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*OFFICIAL* Norton Anti Virus 2004 SUX the big one

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I've used various version of NAV for years with no issues. Yes, there is a _slight_ slowdown, but nothing like you describe.

You can exclude certain folders from being scanned if you want - its in the options somewhere (at work, dont have NAV on this pc).

You can also change level of heurestic (spelling?) scanning.

Don't auto scan compress files may help ...

Run LiveUpdate several times...
 
*OFFICIAL* What makes your assessment of NAV official over other's?

Here's my thread title in the same style:

*OFFICIAL* NAV works great for me and doesn't slow my PC down. Maybe yours has another problem that isn't NAV?

Every computer I work on and build uses NAV. I have never, ever, had a problem. Not once. Admittedly I am "responsible" for only 5 PCs at this time. But three of them have been running NAV in various flavors for years.

\Dan
 
A lot of people seem to have problems with NAV 2004. I think I'll stick with my copy of 2003 for the time being.
 
Originally posted by:igowerf
A lot of people seem to have problems with NAV 2004. I think I'll stick with my copy of 2003 for the time being.
Click to expand...

Who are these "alot of people"? I'm running NAV 2004 and have absolutely no problems with it. All of my friends are running, my parents are running it, my parents work is running it. If NAV is slowing down you're email retrievals too much, turn off email scanning. Also turn off scan compressed files in auto protect.
 
I only use manual scans as I want to know exactly what programs are running on my computer. I also use scan compressed files, and happen to think it is a good feature even though it does take longer and drain abit of performance for a while.
 
Originally posted by: EarthwormJim
Originally posted by:igowerf
A lot of people seem to have problems with NAV 2004. I think I'll stick with my copy of 2003 for the time being.
Click to expand...

Who are these "alot of people"? I'm running NAV 2004 and have absolutely no problems with it. All of my friends are running, my parents are running it, my parents work is running it. If NAV is slowing down you're email retrievals too much, turn off email scanning. Also turn off scan compressed files in auto protect.
Click to expand...

I never said that I have problems with it. I've never even used it. Besides, having to turn off my email scanning to improve performance is a stupid fix. I've used Norton 2001 and Norton 2003. I've never had problems with email scanning so I'm not sure why you even bring that up, especially since you don't have problems with 2004.

The problems have been discussed a few times in the Software forum. A lot of people report immediately noticeable performance problems after installing 2004. There's an antivirus thread just about every other day. There have also been issues with it's script blocking features. Also, take a look at the Amazon.com reviews.
 
NAV2004 Auto-Protect on:
I go to yahoo.com and klick on "Mail", it takes about literally 10 seconds to get there.

NAV2004 Auto-Protect off:
I go to yahoo.com and klick on "Mail", it takes about 1 or 2 seconds to get there.
Click to expand...

Something is seriously wrong there. I've been using NAV for about 6 months now, and haven't had any problems doing things like that. Granted, i don't use Yahoo, but i doubt Yahoo is the only one causing the problem for you.
 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
*OFFICIAL* What makes your assessment of NAV official over other's?

Here's my thread title in the same style:

*OFFICIAL* NAV works great for me and doesn't slow my PC down. Maybe yours has another problem that isn't NAV?

Every computer I work on and build uses NAV. I have never, ever, had a problem. Not once. Admittedly I am "responsible" for only 5 PCs at this time. But three of them have been running NAV in various flavors for years.

\Dan
Click to expand...

Don't mind ndee, he's a little melodramatic.
 
I wish I had read some more reviews of Norton Internet Security (like the ones on amazon.com) before I bought Norton Internet Security 2004. I don't have problems with performance so much as with the Firewall. Admitedly, there is a bit of a drag on the system with NIS installed but nothing like the difference that ndee is experiencing. My problem with NIS 2004 is trying to connect to secure sites. At first it was only happening intermitently and I thought it was my local server or maybe my I.E. settings. When it started happening all the time, I called my local ISP tech line and we went through all my settings until we both figured out it was a Norton issue. Since then, I have been e-mailing back and forth with symantec tech support for nearly three weeks trying to get the firewall fixed. I cannot seem to log on and sign-in to sites like hotmail.com or even my local public library site with the firewall on. I literally have to turn the firewall off to sign-in. Symantec e-mails a suggestion, which is simply a link to their service and troubleshooting info page on their website, and says "try this", and I try it and e-mail them back to say "it doesn't work." Even when I sent my log files to them they couldn't figure out what the problem was. Since it costs $30. to talk to an actual real person at symantec, I'm pretty much stuck with dealing with them through e-mail. Another problem is sometimes NIS doesn't start properly with Windows and the NIS settings are all off and I have to reboot. I shelled out $95 (CND) for this?
Yep, Norton not only sucks, they blow too.
 
Me too - ran Norton AV 2003 for a long time - loved it. Found Norton AV 2004 to be a big resource dog. That's it 10 seconds just to load on my fairly high end PC. I switched to McAfee.

IMHO

Lou
 
I never cared much for Symantec's consumer stuff(as is the case with alot of software, the consumer stuff is dumbed down beyond usefullness alot of times), but Im running Corp Edition 8.1 and it's working great for me, as did all the older versions I've tried.
 
i payed for symantec systemworks then switched over to AVG cause it was so much better than NAV. dont worry about them complaining, just tell them they made a stupid decision and not to do it next time.
 
Originally posted by: igowerf
A lot of people seem to have problems with NAV 2004. I think I'll stick with my copy of 2003 for the time being.
Click to expand...
Funny, I wish the AT archives went back further than they do. There were tons of people a year ago saying how NAV 03 caused problems, was intrusive and such. Some were going to stick to NAV 02. Someone that worked for Symantec posted that they were changing/fixing the problems for NAV 04 .

ndee, there may be a simple solution to your problem. Use something besides IE. :Q


Ever notice how there are always just as many NAV sucks/rules, as there are AVG sucks/rules posts? More so than any other software it seems. 😉 But does anyone saying that actually test to see how many virii they miss? Bottom line, the best AV software is one that catches the most virii, doesn't slow down the PC or use a bunch of memory, and doesn't hose the OS. Right?
BTW, no one in this thread that said AVG sucks has given a reason.
 
Originally posted by: Slickone
BTW, no one in this thread that said AVG sucks has given a reason.
Click to expand...

AVG sucks because it does poorly in the virus bulletin tests. When I used it last year, it let me download the Klez virus on several occassion. It might be free and fast, but it's not very good.
Norton on the other hand had no problems immediately detecting Klez and prevented me from even downloading the email. It does take longer to load, but that's about it for me. It also does very well in the virus bulletin tests.
 
I don't have trouble with NIS 2004 either, that's what I use and I find it works great. And I agree, every new Norton product (and probably just about every other piece of software, period) has a rash of complaints/gripes/b!tches at release.

But does anyone saying that actually test to see how many virii they miss? Bottom line, the best AV software is one that catches the most virii, doesn't slow down the PC or use a bunch of memory, and doesn't hose the OS. Right?
Click to expand...
I don't need to test. That's part of what people who work for magazines like PC World, PC Magazine, Maximum PC, etc get paid to do. Review and compare products. Consistantly for the past couple/several years NAV has been a top (if not the top) choice for anti-virus software. I'd be willing to bet that number of viruses detected is a primary consideration in this type of NAV vs McAffee vs AVG vs etc vs etc... review.

And incidentally, there is no such word as "virii". The proper plural term is "viruses". See my sig. Alternatively, see for dictionary.com a more "correct" definition of the word. I apologize if this correction offends anyone. It's just one of my silly pet peeves. 😉

\Dan
 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
I don't have trouble with NIS 2004 either, that's what I use and I find it works great. And I agree, every new Norton product (and probably just about every other piece of software, period) has a rash of complaints/gripes/b!tches at release.

But does anyone saying that actually test to see how many virii they miss? Bottom line, the best AV software is one that catches the most virii, doesn't slow down the PC or use a bunch of memory, and doesn't hose the OS. Right?
Click to expand...
I don't need to test. That's part of what people who work for magazines like PC World, PC Magazine, Maximum PC, etc get paid to do. Review and compare products. Consistantly for the past couple/several years NAV has been a top (if not the top) choice for anti-virus software. I'd be willing to bet that number of viruses detected is a primary consideration in this type of NAV vs McAffee vs AVG vs etc vs etc... review.

And incidentally, there is no such word as "virii". The proper plural term is "viruses". See my sig. Alternatively, see for dictionary.com a more "correct" definition of the word.
Click to expand...
Oddly, I knew that (maybe from reading one of your posts in the past). Don't know why I wrote that. Guess maybe since I had read someone else using the word before I posted.

I used to see those tests, but haven't in awhile.

 
LOL, probably. My sig has had that for a while... 😉 Like I said, just a pet peeve...

I think one of the mags I referred to had a recent article/review about AV/security software. It can't have been too long ago, I almost remember reading it 😉

\Dan
 
Since it doesn't seem to be working out for you, just tell them (your parents) it's a very poor product and if they don't like your using something else, that they should return it and demand a refund (they probably bought it in a store, right?) ... that or try to deal with symantec support or disable features.

I don't trust norton products, their corporate stuff is about the only stuff I know of that anyone DOES trust...

Trend Micro user here. Very happy with their Internet Security 2004.
 
Since it doesn't seem to be working out for you, just tell them (your parents) it's a very poor product and if they don't like your using something else, that they should return it and demand a refund (they probably bought it in a store, right?) ... that or try to deal with symantec support or disable features.
Click to expand...
Most stores will not take back opened software. I don't blame them, as it is just too easy to open software, copy it and return it.
I don't trust norton products, their corporate stuff is about the only stuff I know of that anyone DOES trust...
Click to expand...
Hi. I'm Dan. Now you know someone who trusts Norton products. They have yet to fail me. It seems there are other people in this post who seem to be okay with Norton products too.

\Dan
 
Originally posted by: igowerf
AVG sucks because it does poorly in the virus bulletin tests. When I used it last year, it let me download the Klez virus on several occassion. It might be free and fast, but it's not very good.
Norton on the other hand had no problems immediately detecting Klez and prevented me from even downloading the email. It does take longer to load, but that's about it for me. It also does very well in the virus bulletin tests.
Click to expand...
Heh. As I was saying, there usually seems to be an equal # of 'it's the best' and 'it's the worst' posts on AV software.
From another thread:
AVG is the way to go for a free program. It's excellent
AVG kicks ass, its better than Norton IMO and free
Another:
AVG...
Norton had too many holes
Another:
I've seen AVG catch viruses that BOTH NAV and McAfee missed. I've never been infected using AVG, but have gotten bit by both of the others... The key is to keep it updated and to surf safely
 
I had NIS2003 and SystemWorks2003 and now have both NIS2004 and Systemworks 2004 and have no problems nor do I noticed much if any slow downs with either. After being slammed with a bad virus two years ago I am the better safe than sorry type now, I let NAV scan everyting so if it takes a few extra seconds to bring up a web page or download a file so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top