Direct From TechProGuild

You are certainly correct on all of your asumptions with symantec software. I have had more problems with Norton than any other virus software, I have told all of my customers to stay away from Norton. It has done nothing but cost them more money in the long run. So with me I prefer McAfee. Anything is better then Norton's.

Paula
Computer tutor & Web Site Design
www.ctweb2001.com

We ran Norton Internet Security throughout our network to take advantage of different types of protection bundled in one package. This helped as it was single point updating. We began encountering problems with Live Update and following Symantec's support links led to a vicious circle and never resolved the problem. After reinstalling and going through the zillion trips to Live Update to install the layers of updates since our version came out, it would work for a while. The last straw was the program giving the Subscription Expired message when indeed it had not and the program not recognizing renewals done online. Symantec?s support on these issues was nonexistent and several unanswered emails led me to uninstall Norton from everything. I too installed AVG but my comfort level is marginal and there seems to be some overhead with it. When I see Symantec acknowledge their problems and third party reviewers say it has been fixed, I may revisit the possibility of giving it another chance.

It's not just you John, I have had exactly the same experience and have
also started recommending AVG for home users. I also have used Trend's
online scanner but since it installs an active X control it doesn't
work with some browsers. I haven't been a fan of Symantec for a couple
of years, but McAfee and Trend have also gotten pretty bad with their
purchased solutions.  The biggest thing they need is a live help
desk.  They make it so easy for you to order and give your credit
card info and practically impossible to reverse the same when their
software won't install. They also have all gotten to where the software
severely impacts system performance.  The biggest comment I get
from customers when they replace one of the above with AVG is "Gosh for
some reason my computer is a lot faster".

I started in this business in the early eighties and bought every book
published under Peter Norton's name. The current programs bearing his
name bear little resemblance to the utilities that created the
reputation they are coasting on. Peter Norton deserves better.

Dear John,

I have been a systems administrator for over 6 years and I have been using Symantec software for a good amount of time now.  My experience has been that the corporate anti virus NAVCE is much easier to manage thatn the home user equivalents.

That being said you must also have a technical support contract and call the support folks with a case and ask the guys on the front line which build number to use.  They will tell you the good build numbers.  They will even setup a download of the good builds for you to use. When I have stayed on the recomended only builds they are pretty rock solid.

Not much help for the home user front but I thought I would add some information to the mix.

No you are not alone in becoming disillusioned with it. Too many bugs, and it costs too much.

I have several computers at home and currently run Norton / Symantec on all of them and have had

various problems related to having Norton / Symantec installed. And their tech support sucks. When my

Symantec subscriptions expire, I'm going to try something else, like maybe MS OneCare and see if it's

any better.

John H

Michigan

Your not alone! For the last few years I have been advising against all Symantec Products except Anti-Virus. And since the release of Norton Anti-Virus 2005 I have been plagued with various problems as well. I now recommend AVG or Avast for home users. I also recommend AVG for my small business customers as the price is for a 2yr license it is a great deal and seems to do as good as Norton.

Longtime TechRepublic members will remember Jack Wallen,
Jr.  The self-described ?poster boy for the
Linux revolution?, Jack was the Senior Editor on TechProGuild who was in charge
of Linux content for the site. Jack lived and breathed Linux. So much so that at
one point, he crashed the entire TechRepublic office with one measly Linux box. But that?s another story?

Jack has had a long and winding road since leaving TechRepublic,
but now he?s back in his original form. Jack first started with TechRepublic by
writing a Linux column called ?Get Jack?d? that discussed using Linux as a Microsoft
alternative. Then he wrote and
edited Linux content for the site. Now he?s back on TechRepublic once again with
?Get Jack?d?,
but this time in the form of a TechRepublic Blog.

Whether you?re a Linux fanatic yourself, just learning Linux,
or are just looking for a unique point of view, Jack?s blog is the place to start.
Welcome back, Jack!  

I have been using Symantec products for about 7 years now in a networked environment of about 500 nodes.  I use Corporate Edition Anti-Virus, which has been quirky at times in terms of communication between the server and clients, but overall I am very satisfied with the product with regard to ease of deployment, updates, and reliability.  I also use Brightmail for anti-spam and find it to work quite well, as it has dramatically reduced the amount of junk that makes it to users' mailboxes.  I have not had many false positives either.  I know user experience ultimately drives user opinion and my experience with Symantec's products has been very good.

I have had similar experiences with Symantec, specially System Works. The startup time on the machine became terrible. I finally un-installed it and the workstation never quite worked right after that. I cleaned the registry, I optimized and everything.

I finally did what you did, and re-installed XP. I now use just Symantec anti-virus and Microsoft Defender for Spyware. OneCare looks like a good answer for those that don't want to deal with multiple vendors.

I've seen a lot of the same issues, I've seen where they would try to update the software to a newer version and kablewy master, system dead as a door nail, no restarting, reformat time.  I just think that this bloated software is written into too many registry entries and the like and is like a big octopus that is taking the ship down (kind of like the kraken on the new Dead man's chest Pirate Movie).  Anyhow, I think Peter Norton was a Genius but ever since he sold the utilities, it has gone downhill from there.

I thought I was the only one!  I had always thought that Symantec
was the way to go until I had problems with some adware at home. 
SystemWorks kept identifying problems and then to solve them I had to
look them up on their Web site.  For each problem there was a
complicated set of manual instructions to eradicate the problem. 
However, in each case after going through the instructions
step-by-step, the problems could not be fixed.

I tried a eval version of TrendMicro and all was taken care of...except
I still had the incidious SystemWorks to deal with.  It took a lot
of different tries but I am now rid of SystemWorks.  I've been
using Trend ever since and it has been very nice - easy to use and
effective.

I've noticed a tendency for Symantec software issues myself -- but McAfee appears to be worse, which is a sad thing for someone who saw it become the premiere (FREE) antivirus product at one point. Now it's a swamp -- even experts can't understand where the dialogs are coming from and they're so busy trying to sell you a new subscription at every bootup that protectiong your system falls by the wayside.

As to Symantec, I've re-installed LiveUpdate any number of times, and get weird errors saying my Outbreak Alert engine is broken -- never anywhere where I could FIX it... Internet Security will suddenly decide to block an application without warning and without any visible recourse to get things going again... Normal users are up the creek without a paddle, since most of them have no idea what the warning dialogs mean in the first place -- I know you've seen end users click through an important dialog box because it contained gobbledygook... a serious issue when that gobbledygook is a warning that the user needs to deny a threat access to their system. An application that every user should know and use must be SIMPLE, or it is a waste of time to install it! If it takes a tech to find the buried menu that restores access to Donkey Kong, it's easier to uninstall the antivirus app (and the firewall) in the user's mind...

Well,  it seems many people feel the same about Symantec.

I have had some clients question why I don't like Symantec stuff.  They think NAV is the best!

They have very little knowledge of how it will actually slow down your system.

Like many people I have used many types of software.  I use to be a huge fan of Powerquest for there Partition magic and Drive Image.  Since Symantec bought them, I haven't purchased or plan on purchasing an upgrade.  I am afraid to see how Symantec has f**cked it up.

I once heard someone say;

"Symantec, where good software goes to die!"

When you think about it's true.

John

Same problem System works was slowing and locking my machine up constantly, and thier tech support sucks. I to switched to AVG

I recently purchased two Toshiba Satellite laptops that came with the McAfee suite preloaded.  My main problem with McAfee is that it blocked a link that I have on my Web site:  a link to the Red Cross to donate.  If I accessed my Web site from other locations (not running McAfee), the link showed; it showed in FrontPage while editing the site; but McAfee blocked the link from appearing.  I completely uninstalled all McAfee components and installed Symantec System Works and Internet Security.  This has completely solved all those problems and has not slowed my computer down at all.

I agree with you. I have found similar issues with McAfee on home users' systems. AVG has been the answer for 3 years for my home users. No problems and no virus infections on machines which were attacked often before.

The question is whether Microsoft's OneCare will actually protect the users' computer system. I do not trust that it will.

John;

I am not much of a blogger but I cannot agree with you more, Symantec
seems like they are on a crusade to slow every machine down to a snails
pace.  Recently I have noticed increasing issues with the retail
version of the NAV client, the corporate client does not see to have
the same level of issues, additionally I advise all my clients to stay
as far away from system works as possible all it does is cause
issues.  I too have stared moving to the Trend and CA products and
away from the integrated firewall/security products as they just seem
to wreak havoc on system stability and speed.

John, I hate to agree with you but I must there is definitely a problem with Symantec's software. I presently have a older licensed copy of System Work and Internet Security on my laptop and my laptop is extremely slow now. And sometimes it just pauses in the middle of a process and I have wait until it finish doing whatever it needs to do at the time.

R. Clement

As a small biz IT consultant myself, I dread seeing Symantec on new custopmer's machines. I often run into probelems like you describe.  And you didn't even go into how hard it can be to uninstall Symantec software or how flakey their software firewalls can be.  My customers have paid me for hours of work just because of buggy, intrusive Symantec software.

John, your experiences with Systemworks turning systems into dogs mirrors my experience pretty much to the letter. My laptop turned into such a dog that I ended up ripping Systemworks out and replacing it with Trend Micro's Internet Security suite. I've completely sworn off of Symantec products as a security solution. The supposed rewards are simply not worth the pain.

We provide IT support for approximately 50 small businesses and I've experienced exactly the same issues.  Internet Security causing major problems with file/print sharing to the point where we just disable it.... realtime monitoring and scanning not detecting trojans....liveupdate rendering the pc almost useless until it's complete.. etc.  Similarly, we now advise people to install AVG and have found this to work very well without the high overhead on performance that symantec has.

I have not had to much trouble with Symantic anti-virus software other than as time goes on, it is much harder to handle, but that is they way it is with all software now-a-days (more viruses, malware, etc and no manuals). But I have had problems with licensing issue with Symantic after they purchase Backup Exec. After 6 months, I have still not heard back from them, even though they have sent me updates to download and the software works fine. They maybe bit off to much to chew, and hopefully things will settle.

Symantec's software used to be great. I was using Norton Utilities to fix MS-DOS 4 PC's and thought it was a life-saver. But, over the last two years I have reluctantly stopped using all their software. PC's were being crippled by the software, the firewall was incredibly over-zealous, SystemWorks was impacting system performance so much that it became a liability rather then an asset, and to cap it all, Symantec Client Security. which I had installed on my workplace network was allowing trojans through in email attachtments. A phone call to Symantec's Technical Support was no use - I was told that I should expect a certain amount of stuff to get through.

It will be a very long time before I allow any Symantec/Norton software within throwing distance of any PC I am responsible for. They used to produce excellent software, but not anymore. I was amazed by the recent news article in which Symantec 'threw down the gauntlet' to Microsoft concerning the possibility that MS might be producing competitive security software. I thought - well, after your very poor performance, I would be willing to try anything, and Symantec should definitely not brag about their 'percieved' superiority. Just because they ahve a lot of experinece in the field, does not mean that that experience is proving useful to their end users. Quite the opposite I would say.

Trying to find product updates at the Symantec enterprise support site has become darn near impossible - WAY TOO MANY PRODUCTS AND VERSIONS.

Don't even get me started on Symantec Mail Security and its grabage web interface.

Well, Well, Well !!!

I am glad to know that someone with a voice larger than mine may be recognizing an issue that I have noticed since '94 when I uninstalled NAV and vowed that no program would tell me that my actions amounted to "a virus like activity" that had to be blocked.

I have been repairing systems for the general public professionally for the last six years and have found that every system "protected by NAV" that came in either had trojan?s that had to be removed manually or other viruses that went undetected or disabled / damaged NAV protection, with the latter requiring specialized removal tools or manual un-installation from the file system and registry.

Most people want to user their systems and be protected but don?t know where to look for solutions to problems like these thus they end up paying for NAV and then system service from a local tech. Given the cost of the program and incidental costs (the tech & Trend) ROI is close to buying a new system.

Trend Micro?s program has consistently cost less; protected better and interfered with the user less than any AV I have run across. It is well known that something, NAV, AVG?. is better than nothing - until it fails.

As you stated the old Norton Utilities was a must. Professionally developed tools of a quality that is rarely seen today. I can not speak too much to the SystemWorks other than it is overhead that has never impressed me.

Why has it taken so long for people to notice? Probably because that is the wake that Peter Norton created when he originally released Norton Utilities.

I also have had all of the problems mentioned above.

I maintain about 150 computers.

After spending way to much time trying to fix NAV problems, I decided to give NOD32 a chance and have never looked back. Installing NAV takes atleast 10 mins or more once fully updated. Installing NOD32 fully updated takes about 3 mins(including 1 reboot).

I also will never recommend any Symantec products to anyone because your going to be wasting your time.

From an insider point of view Symantec is more interested in
using cash funds to buy out good software than to put it back into R&D of
what they already have.  I have friends
that work for Symantec that will NOT use NAVCE software till they upgraded the engines,
and update cycles are to save in bandwidth cost not to provide the fastest
updates. NAVCE  is a good example of bad
code, after install Windows kernel no longer had sufficient IRP?s to use for
other programs unless you altered IRPStackSize value size due to there hoggish use on resources making other services or
programs fail. Simply put the have milked the programs till they were dry and
now they are forced to update the products quickly and consequently with many
errors. Also build on generic libraries that that create bloat code, and very
little to no custom tight code. As for myself I have given up on Symantec long
ago, a little spark of hope with NAV2006 but we will let time tell if they keep
up with the house duties of keeping it updated. Till then I will not recommend NAV
or NAVCE.

I don't think you are alone. I've been working on PCs now for nearly 10 years. And, like you, I have seen a trend almost exactly like yours where the Symantec software just doesn't work right. My main problem with Symantec software is the Internet Security Suite. I've often noticed that customers computers seem to take anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes or longer to boot.  In each instance, I have found that while there may be some malware lurking about or a Trojan Horse in the startup, when you remove the Norton Internet Security, the computer will reboot in far less time than before, even with the viruses and so forth on the system.

I

I have been servicing computers for end users and some small business owners for nearly 10 years now. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that there are some serious problems arising. And they seem to have been showing up with regularity for about the past four years or so.

I used it regularly until I noticed viruses and trojan horse infections cropping up on PCs protected by Norton Antivirus.  The Symantec web site provided fixes for those but never incorporated them into their software.  I found that a little strange.

Like you, I now recommend AVG for my customers.  I also use Trend Micro's Housecall online scanning regularly.  I also discovered recently another program that works well for removing malware and has partnered with the AVG folks. That's EWIDO antimalware.  Since I've started using them problems have been diminished noticably.

Thank you for finally bringing this problem out in the open.  I now have some ammunition that can help my customers understand when I tell them about an antivirus program that is better than Symantecs increasingly problematic software.

Dennis Fivecoate, Owner, Home Technology Services, Rapid City, SD

About Symantec,indeed they have to do something about their software.They 've  been times when i have had to uninstall the anti-virus because it was slowing down the system.Every time i install a fresh copy of the Windows operating system,it will only last a few weeks before this norton Anti-virus slows it down.Besides it does not remove all the viruses,fine it would detect them but still fail to remove them from the system.I got advice from a collegue to switch to AVG and apperently its been doing fine so far with no problems or slowing down the system.Am glad that someone has opened up for me to believe my claims are not really baseless. 

You're not alone! I even had problems with Symantic programs back in
the days of DOS! The
Norton software box always makes enclosed programs sound so-o-o sexy,
and I'm always tempted, but I have been bit too many times. Whenever my
clients (mostly individuals or small businesses) have stability
problems, I nearly always find that the solution is to uninstall a
Symantec program and strip the Registry of anything relating to Norton
or Symantec. It's unfortunate, because once-upon-a-time, Norton
Utilites were quite useful, but now....

Last week, I talked about my growing
dissatisfaction with Symantec products and the increasing number of
problems that I?ve had to fix for consulting customers because of them. I kind
of thought that maybe I was alone in that feeling so I asked you what you
thought. The response was overwhelming.

Inside of a week, I had close to 150 responses. Normally
when you produce an opinion expressing like or dislike for a product, you can
expect an even distribution of responses. You?re either the smartest guy on the
planet or your parentage is called into question. It?s not uncommon for me to
be called a Microsoft Shill one week and a Microsoft Basher the next. That?s
just part of the territory, but you just expect a balanced response.

In the case of the Symantec blog, I only counted 2
pro-Symantec responses. That?s a 98.7% disapproval rating. Worse than President
Bush?s and Hillary Clinton?s combined. In almost every other case, TechRepublic
IT Pros all expressed similar problems, frustrations and concerns that I had
posted. In a way, it was relieving and refreshing.

I was also pretty concerned ? for Symantec?s sake at least.
I wonder if they have any idea that there is this much outrage out there for
their products? I can?t believe than an organization would be so sold on their
own sales literature that they wouldn?t be aware of these many problems and
this much disdain.

Thinking it only fair, I?ve dropped several emails to
Symantec PR people to find someone I can talk to about these perceptions. I
figured I?d present them an open forum to address the concerns and try to
account for it all. So far, I haven?t heard anything back. When I do, I?ll let
you know.

It also raises another question. Windows XP and Microsoft
products in general have this reputation
of being unstable and unreliable. I wonder how much of that is inherent
in
Microsoft software itself and how much is caused by ?utilities? like
those from
Symantec that are supposed to be fixing problems rather than causing
them? Does Microsoft take the blame for other people?s
shoddy work? I?m beginning to wonder.

No, it's slowly happening to me too. I've used Norton and Symantec forever.
I still have the Disks that they originally came out with and every other Disk and CD since.
However now we're seeing a different Symantec.
One that is trying to do too many things at the same time.
If your expertise is viruses then they should concentrate on being the best at that and leave the worm and Trojan business to someone else.

As an Anti Virus, they were great, but now as a general blanket for just about every type of security breach you an think of, they are tripping all over themselves and making us suffer in the process.
The more I go the more disillusioned I become and saddened, because the day will come when we will part ways. I will want an Anti Virus, whereas they will insist on being Anti-Everything.

I don't care how good they are, they can't get away from the fact that "You can't be all things to all people".

Although heaven knows they are trying".
They should stick to what made them great in the first place, as an Anti Virus Program.
I've already got a firewall, why would I want two, and the same can be said of just about every type of possible affliction for Computer.
This then is where the real problem lies with Symantec, the fact that they are trying to essentially rule the roost and we won't let them. I use Symantec, my Windows Firewall, Ad Aware and Spy Bot and I've never had any problems.
It should also be mentioned that in an effort to cover all the bases, Symantec has indeed become a "Very" top heavy program that "must" controlled by the user, or it will eventually slow down your Computer.
Not a good sign for a Company with reputation of Symantec.
I hope they put out an Anti Virus only program because what they have now is incredibly overweight and far too controlling. You can't even remove it from your taskbar? They've gone too far.
Regards
Aaron

I've been miffed with Symantec for some time.  Their programs are incredible resource hogs. Of course they have no exclusive on that.  Mcafee is just as bad for performance degradation.  If you want to put an afterburner on your system, give NOD32 a try.  It is super fast, written in assembler and has the smallest footprint of any AV program.

In addition, when you try to get a message to Symantec that their products are sucking worse all the time, you must first deal with their tech support.  While they are polite, they can't get off the diagnostic flow chart to do something as simple as "take a message to the product manager."  I'm eliminating Symantec as each expiration date comes up and never been happier.

Regards,

RH Walter

Cincinnati

I have had an ongoing issue with my Symatics software since this spring.  All though I have live update on I do not recieve updates.  I have Systemworks, Goback, and Personal Firewall.  After many online chat sessions with some guy in India.  I down loaded three programs. msifix, symnrt, and symmsicleup.  Theese progams only work after you go through the normal program removal in the control panel.  I can reload the system works and get an update, but It says to go back and check for more.  When I do that it tells me that live update is already running.  I try to do a kill on the process and It won't alow as it is owned by the system not the user.

I will be running out on my suscription in October and will look some where else for my protection, I have used Nortons since 2001 and was very happy till all of this started

I would like to know how many other people have this problem, it all started after I did an udate from Microsoft.

I saw the article about locking the good guys out, and where Symentic was raising alarms but that does't do us poor users any good!

I also agree with most respondents complaints about Symantec's Norton. We have been servicing computers 20 years now. We never recommended System Works - it was obvious after one bad experience several years ago - but we always did recommend NAV2003, 2004, 2005 etc. However, Norton even spoiled this with NAV2006. The integrated firewall product, Internet Security is so bloated and shouldn't be run on anything but the latest spec. machines because of the dramatic way it slows them. Last week we even found the product let in the Sasser Worm and Winshost.exe Trojan for one poor client wondering why their PC was running so slow.

It is clear to us that Norton is now more concerned with upping the yearly cost of subscriptions and in our opinion these fees are now way OTT for the service they are meant to do. Our attitude is the same for McAfee's Integrated/Firewall products and we have tried and tested F-Secure, Panda, Computer Associates too. We are currently re-evaluating our strategy because we have to make a profit after all - that said though, I can personally see the merits in the free AVG product from the client's view if not ours !

We also have experienced enormous problems with Symantec, especially Internet Security 2006.  Eventually an admission of problems was forthcoming, along with the recomendation to revert to the 2005 version!  I gather that they have added so much into the 2006 software that they can no longer work out what's going wrong!  Apparently their ground-up rebuild due later this year will fix everything.  Until then, I'm sterring my users well away from Symantec. 

I had been a big fan of Norton products and when they were bought by Symantec I continued my loyalty with Symantec. But, Symantec's products have deteriorated over the years and I think their Live Update is the worst. And their customer service and knowledge base is absolutely PATHETIC.

I would recommend NOD32 anti-virus to any one who cares to listen. It's the fastest and the most effective against all viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, worms......the works......So go for NOD32 and don't buy Symantec.

Your opinion is right. I have experienced similar issues. So we are not alone. Thanks.

Chris. Foya

I've not used Norton products since Windows95 when I found that software developed by a firm they had bought and slapped the Norton name on conflicted with their AV software and downed my machines. I did a lot of research and chose F-Secure, with whom I've been since. There are many other players with a better AV-detection success rate than Norton, such as TrendMicro, Sophos, NOD32, Kaspersky Labs, etc.

I'm a pro audio consultant and build custom computer workstations for studios and audio clients.  I too have become disillusioned with the Symantec group of security products.  System Works and Norton Internet security are usually too intrusive and can cause performance issues (of some sort), even on some of the top machines I build for clients.  I usually just install the antivirus alone (ce) to keep the computers running as lean as possible, and instruct clients to keep their audio computers off the internet completely if possible.

I would be interested in hearing what lean-running alternatives for anti-virus protection there is out there that also does the job of keeping the unwanteds away.

David

Couldn't agree more about Symantec. I've been using PCAnywhere and Winfax for over ten years as well as Norton AntiVirus and Internet Security. Up to the 2005 edition there was never (or very rarely) any problems but Internet Security 2006 is a rear pain. I managed to load it in the end a few months ago but have had to relaod it due to mega computer crash (Windows XP Pro). It refuses to load, system errors, 9999.171, fatal errors etc. I do wonder if there's any conflict with Windows Service Packs? Anyway, unless anybody can assure me and tell me how to fix the problems (as I'm not very computer literate by comparison to all on this site) I'm going to look elsewhere for virus software. George B. (it.marketing@itmagazine.uk.com) - IT stands for Industrial Technology, nothing to do with computers. It's engineering design.

Over the weekend, August 12th precisely, PC
computing turned 25 years old. On that date back in 1981, IBM shipped the first
IBM PC. Microcomputers had already been around for several years, but the IBM
PC ?legitimatized? computers in the workplace. Apple, Radio Shack, and others
were starting to make small inroads into business with their offerings, but it
wasn?t until the PC arrived that they really took off.

CNN.COM
ran an article discussing the 25th anniversary of the PC.
CNN.COM certainly isn?t a tech site per se, but I was still a bit taken aback
by one paragraph in the article:

?A floppy disk is a
thin, plastic disk that was coated with a magnetic substance used to store
data. Earliest disks were 8 inches wide, more efficient disks shrunk to 5 1/4
inches, then 3 1/2 inches. Unlike a CDs or DVDs of today, the disks were
floppy, or flexible.?

I find it hard to believe that that many people would be that
unfamiliar with what a floppy disk was that CNN felt the need to devote an
entire paragraph to it. Floppy drives still appear on some systems, and most
people would have either grown up with them if they were under 25 or used them
at some point if they were over 25.

It would be interesting to think what things would be like
now if IBM hadn?t entered the microcomputer market. Compaq likely never have
been formed because its sole purpose was to clone the successful PC. Michael
Dell never would have been because he started out selling gray market PCs out
of the back of his dorm room. Bill Gates would still be in New Mexico with a
small business working out of store front selling languages. Linux may never
have existed because Linus Torvalds created it as a clone of a Unix-based OS
for a PC-compatible.

It?s conceivable that we?d still have the Mac. Apple was
influenced by the PC, but not all that much. Tandy/Radio Shack may have stayed
in the market place longer. Because they were starting to leverage Unix on
their business PCs such as the Model II and the Tandy 6000, Tandy may have lead
the charge to bring Unix into the forefront of small computers

The Internet had already been in existence for over 10
years, so we may still have been surfing the Internet. Except rather than doing
it on IBM compatibles running Microsoft Windows, we may have been doing it on
Tandy-compatibles running some flavor of Unix. Or, it would be a Utopia for 5%
of the current market because we?d all be using Macs.

A company I did some consulting for was using original IBM
PCs as late as 1992. I should have salvaged one of the machines because they
wound up tossing the last one in the dumpster by 1994. I couldn?t see taking up
the room at the house with one though. I still had boxes of 5 1/4? floppies
around and my trusty Tandy 1000 to run them on. Even that computer is old
enough to drink now.

But as for the PC generation, it enters another quarter
century. With all of the changes in the last 25 years, it?s hard to imagine
what it?s going to be like at the end of 50 years.

What a wealth of knowledge.  Thank you John and everyone for their input.  I'm definitely not a techie, but I love reading this stuff.  I'm just a regular person who uses the computer and internet a lot, and I want to know what makes my computer tick and why it's not working...wich seems like my computer falls apart on me all too often.  But, ever so slowly I am figuring things out and connecting those dots. 

I agree with Norton though.  I used 2004 and I liked it at first, but it was downhill after that.  It was easy to use was why I liked using it.  I feared trying something else cause I knew how Norton functioned.  I think that happens a lot with users that aren't very technical, to go with what is easiest.  But when I bought a new computer it was bye bey to Norton, I had read too many bad reviews about Symantec and Norton that I switched to McAfee.  I have a 2.8GHz with 1GB of SDRAM and yet it's still taking several minutes to load.  I'm thinking of dumping my McAfee for AVG. 

Thanks again for all the input.

Every computer that I work on that is running very slow or has virus problems has Norton running.  As soon as I remove it, the problem goes away.  I suggest that they use AVG and ZoneAlarm.  AVG finds and removes viruses and trojans that Norton and McAfee ignore.  Then I make sure that they install and run Spybot and Adaware.  Their computers speed up instantly.  I usually don't get any calls back from them, although they do send their friends my way.  There are so many better products than Norton, and most of them are free.

Wonderful.

I don't feel like the world's dummy anymore.   I tried for 4 days to get NAV Systemworks installed on my system and when I finally did it screwed things up so badly that even though I'd paid for it and attempted for another 4 days to get a refund......I just deleted the thing.  They have my money and I have no AV from them.  I think it might be worth it.

Insert comment text here 11:48, 15-Aug-06

Looks like John's article's opened up a can of worms. Bit late, to be sure, as all, 'cluding self, already been there and opted out quite some years back. No need to be so modest about it either. Those who can't do it, should get off the pot.

Article and comments brought back some blissful memories of good ol' bloat-less days and of my superhero, Peter Norton, a REAL programmer - and human being. Saved my behind many a time. Whatever happened to him?

He made the  MegaHard programmers look like a bunch of scatterbrains (tho' I expect it was, and is, the pressure to get to market).

Things haven't changed, either. If they had, all you folks 'd be out of a job! And what a disaster that
would be for the GNP! 100,000 Win XP newsgroups out of work; instant Global depression! AIDS and Malaria cures delayed by 20 years; millions dead. In that sense, anyway, TG for BG and MS.

And along came Symantec (ugh!) - and now, Google and DeskTop Search.  Oh well...

Norton's 'FileFind' and 'FastFind' were probably the first to incorporate 'Indexing' for instant results.
I was fascinated w/ this at the time and ultimately, in my own simple way, improved on this a hair by doing all sorts of tricks w/ the DOS FIND, etc. cmnds to achieve similar-to-Google-results, organization and
speed - but, I thought, in a less messy, less-resource-hungry, far less-intrusive, no-shades-of-big-brother
manner.

Now there's another story waiting to be told. Nowadays, it's hard to tell who's better at big-brothering,
WinTel of GoogTel.

Had Peter not treated it as merely a benign utility, developed it one step further into a proper search engine and GUI'd it (as he did partially w/ some of his other stuff), we might all be searching via 'Poogle' today.

Was unable to read ALL the comments but already 'Justin John' and 'pickleman' have hit the nail square on the head (along w/ many others) - and with a bit of Nostalgia thrown in. No sense belaboring the point
any further.

So, Roger, Roger and Roger on all that, gents! It was a really enjoyable read; one of the best to appear
in this wonderful publication.

J.

I have been using Systemworks almost daily since it came out and have never experienced the problems you'se guys are experiencing. It "works fine, lasts a long time" with me.

Jan Mark Shane