General discussion


Symantec: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly - or all of it?

By eikelein ·
In a TR blog on hoax debunking sites I found this remark:
. <quote>I have a love-hate affair with Symantec. I use their products
. but I?ve been burned by them several times lately.</quote>
The context of the remark makes me believe it was written by an IT manager or executive.

My questions:
- How often do you have to "be burned" to turn away from a supplier like Symantec?
- What are your experiences with Symantec products?
- What are your experiences with Symantec tech support?
- Other companies whose products left burn scars on you?
- What replacement products/suppliers do you choose or recommend?

My background for this: I see a lot of home computers where Symantec's Norton products are at least part of the various problems. My policy is to recommend removal and replacement with mainly free products (home and personal use!).

Please no discussions about free vs. for pay, my question is about Symantec and other "brand name" burn scars.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The biggest problem with the home Symantec

by jdclyde In reply to Symantec: The Good, the B ...

Is it starts out as a 30/60/90 day trial, and the owner never PAYS for it after the trial. They don't understand that it is NOT protecting them, or even that they NEED to be protected because MicroSoft isn't competent enough to find an exploit and REMOVE it from the OS.

It isn't the fault of Norton that the product isn't used properly.

The WORST product I have encountered is the McAfee security suite. That pig sucks up about 200 Megs of Ram. I have gotten paid to "fix" many systems, and all I do is remove that system and throw AVG/ZoneAlarm on.

Collapse -

on older versions -- yes

by The Scummy One In reply to The biggest problem with ...

but newer versions constantly tell you for 30 days, every day (or every boot) that you will be unprotected in xx days AND that over the last xx days xxxxxx amount of virus have been blocked.

The funny thing is, a couple of months ago I moved to AVG, and when it first ran, it found 2 virus on my system... Although both were marked as low danger.

The funniest par is that every day Symantec warned that it blocked 15,000 ++ virus over the last 2 weeks. What was funny, was it was disconnected from the LAN for a week, and I was only using it on TR for a week...
wondering where those 15,000 virus were coming from.

Collapse -

Thanks, but even if paid and up-to-date

by eikelein In reply to The biggest problem with ...

even when the customers have paid up and Norton AV claims to be okay and up to date.
But anyway, I do pretty much the same.

Collapse -

Symantec is not my first choice

by Tig2 In reply to Symantec: The Good, the B ...

I set up home users new equipment. I do a lot of that work. Symantec is the first thing I scrub. I follow that with all the other trial ware. I install AVG, Spybot S&D, Zone, and CCleaner. Then I schedule a 4 hour training with the end user.

I only need to get burned one time by a product before I am willing to chuck it. Symantec has been the source of enough trouble for me that I don't bother with it. I have heard numerous times that I should give them another chance but I have yet to see that they have quit being a problem.

Any product that can't uninstall without downloading a special uninstaller that doesn't work half the time is not worth using in my estimation.

Collapse -

Symantec Corporate

by Dumphrey In reply to Symantec: The Good, the B ...

products are better then their home counterparts. They tend to be more managable and less bloated. And Their central management system is actually quite good. All that being said, they make a specific tool for removing NOrton when it goes south and takes the OS with it. A "complete" removal tool. That says it all right there. Symantec support is the worst. With Cisco Barracuda, you call, talk to a call center operator, and they put you name in the call back que for tech help. (Cisco transfers you through immediately if you have a service outage). And I get called back in 10 to 45 min latter. The least amount of time I have spent on hold waiting for Symantec tech support was just over 2 hours.
Since I appreciate good tech help, and since we pay for that help, I have been replacing my Symantec software as able. No loger do we use Back-Up Exec, but we now use Retrospect. Norton AV will go bye bye as soon as our current license expires. No idea yet what I will replace it with, but probably Antivir or ESET.
In the last 2 years, Norton has had a bad update, or some other hicup and taken down either the full os (one time, safe boot worked thank god) or just created very weird issues (4 times). Also, on 2 occasions it let through some common trojans it should have caught right away. So in 2 years, I have seven issues, only five if you do not count infaction, that I lay at the feet of a buggy AV product.
We are licensed for their End-Point Security product, ie AV and firewall, but I refuse to install it on my network. I have seen to many issues with their firewall (admitedly on their home products)to want to torture myself that way. Besides, bundeling the Firewall and av togeter defeats layers and indepth security.

Collapse -

Symantec support

by Kjell_Andorsen In reply to Symantec Corporate

I couldn't agree wqith you more about the quality (or lack thereof) of Symantec's Tech support. If I take my hourly pay rate and multiply it by the number of hours I've spent with Symantec Tech support to get Backup Exec, Mail security or just their AV working it would probably come out to more than what we pay for the products themselves, and their products aren't cheap.

We've been steadily moving away from Symantec to other vendors because of this. We changed to Trend Micro for AV and Barracuda for mail security, and dealing with their Tech support has been a breeze by comparison.

Now I just need to find a good Backup vendor so I can ditch backupexec.

Collapse -

I am looking at

by Dumphrey In reply to Symantec support

EMC Retrospect for backup. Even with SQL, Exchange, and Bare Metal Restore options, the cost of a competative upgrade is only $200 more then renewing support on Backup Exec which has no bare metal restore.

Collapse -

Corp=good home=bad

by Forum Surfer In reply to Symantec: The Good, the B ...

At home, it's a very horrible product with terrible support...not to mention it takes up far too many resources. The corporate version works great and stops alot of stuff. It has a decent manangement console and great remote support when troubleshooting clients from the server level. Though there was one nastly little bug bug once that specifically targeted symantec customers and brought our network to crippling speeds...for less than one hour, and Symantec had a new virus definition file to curb it b4 the day was over. On the enterprise level, I'm impressed enough I'll stick with it until I convince the powers that be to purchase Cisco's newer products in this field.

That being said...I like Cisco's latest product better than anything (on the enterprise level) out there and Cisco always has excellent support providing that YOU know what you are doing.

At home, I always reccomend AVG or is free.

Collapse -

IS Ciscos

by Dumphrey In reply to Corp=good home=bad

product just an appliance or is it an appliance and a client software as well?

Collapse -

Appliance and Client software

by Forum Surfer In reply to IS Ciscos

As always, Cisco is pricey but you get what you pay for. Of course you also need a knowledgeable CCNA on staff or outsource the config...which will be expensive and hard when on the fly changes or troubleshooting is needed.

Related Discussions

Related Forums