Norton Internet Security 2008
Erik Eckel owns and operates two technology companies. As a managing partner with Louisville Geek, he works daily as an IT consultant to assist small businesses in overcoming technology challenges and maximizing IT investments. He is also president of Eckel Media Corp., a communications company specializing in public relations and technical authoring projects.
Truly. Giving us a "review" of a product that appears to be based on Norton promotional handouts together with a bunch of lame screenshots is sloppy at best & downright irresponsible at worst. NIS has got to be THE WORST product (Windows Vista aside) I've had the misfortune of dealing with over the last few years. It's bloated, temperamental & will instantly put the brakes on any PC's performance. Trying to resolve problems with it via their "online tools" is a joke & invariably leads to a Windows re-install. I took it off my PC's a long time ago & switched to a combination of Windows Firewall, Avast and Adaware with no problems at all & no infections whatsoever. Please Cara, do your research properly in future & give us a balanced, objective product review.
NO COMMENT UNTIL I CAN DOWNLOAD AND TEST THE SOFTWARE MYSELF. please provide the downloadable version of norton antivirus. thanks!
What is the difference between previous version particularly NIS 2006 version 10.3.0.12? Is it worth upgrading?
I suggest my clients remove Norton ASAP if they want decent performance from their PC. Better yet, you can order PCs now without the pre-installed junk and get a real decent antivirus solution.
The aforementioned AVG free The aforementioned Avast! free and for a paid alternatives, I have found that F-secure had little impact on system performance and did it's job pretty well. (this was a while ago, though, and I haven't used it since the newest release)
We make ton's of money removing Norton because of slowdown's, infections it's let by, or just where it's become a parasite itself. We use the Suites from either PC-Cillin or AVG if they need a firewall or just AVG Free if they've got a router.
Bought it, installed it, didn't like it. The previous version was a pain to remove and the new one makes a lot of assumptions i.e. it assumed I wanted to run a full scan on startup, assumed I wanted Phishing add-ons installed in my browser and by default doesn't ask your permission to do anything. So after slowing my PC down I had to then change all the options to have a decent working machine. Won't be buying it again......
PLEASE. DO YOUR RESEARCH! Norton is one of the worst packages to date. It does not do the job it promises, slows your machine down, etc, etc. find some objective research and make your own decision.
I spent hours sorting out when it failed to install. Emails from Symantec just gave automated ansers that didnt work. NO help line except premium rate number and eventually when it did install it slowed everything down so badly I uninstalled it. Avast is better and free!
I personally like it and have had no problems with it. I have been attacked on many occaisions and it has protected me on both of my machines. A good product in spite what others may say about the Norton products in the past.
I agree.While NIS is a tad large and clumsy compared to others you can trust it to get the job done.
After years of telling friends and family not to throw their money away on Norton--I tried this product out. I'm happy enough with the results to recommend to home users I know. A perk for ppl capable of forming their own opinions.
Wow, after receiving over 500 responses to their previous 'review' of Norton's Antivirus 2008, many of which questioned the articles pedigree (is it a product placement ad, blog starter, poor technical righting?), this site throws out another from the same author featuring the same software manufacturer. Even though a few more bullet points are added for product features in this article, no independent data are provided to support any claims made. The products merits, or lack thereof aside, TechRepublic needs to step aside from accepting (and paying for?) these types of uninformative 'reports'. If this continues, we can all just go to any product vendors website, cut and paste product details, reword slightly and call it a day. Take a look at the authors previous dissection of Nortons Antivirus 2008 and decide for yourself. What follows is my first response to this authors previous review: "Being new to professional IT, but having been meddling with computers since the early 80's, I've enjoyed reading others views on current issues that folks in this field deal with every day. As usual, I find the most value in the members responses to any particular topic or article, as it is there I can generally glean that most valuable information of all: Actual user knowledge of products and/or applications used in real world environments. From my perspective as an old 'newbie', this site did its members a disservice when it presented this topic in this manner. I read the authors 'concise summary of Norton AntiVirus' strengths and weaknesses', followed by the equally compelling 'comprehensive screenshot review of Norton AntiSpyware', and found nothing substantive at all. Like many respondents, I've sworn off Norton products, for much the same reasons listed. Also, as noted by more than a few, I would hope to find more editorial discretion regarding accepting this level of technical writing in the future. Although the 'review' certainly prompted responses, due primarily to the negative user experiences of the product and its previous versions, presenting it in such a vendor friendly and unhelpful manner was hopefully, just a glitch on TR's radar....Regards, Tb