On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:02:59 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> FWIW, I see machines running NOD32 that are infected all the time. A scan
> with NAV clears it right up. But what the heck, if you like it and can live
> with less security, then go for it.
>
> To the others reading this post...there is nothing to support the claim that
> Norton products are
> "really bad"...as the OP claims to have learned after "redding reviws" and
> then "recomends" a product....evidently he can make recommendations on
> security solutions but has no idea on how to use a spell checker.
Interestingly, the NOD32 website (at least the Canadian one) is full of
grammatical and spelling errors too. I know this has nothing to do with
the product itself, but it sure makes a bad first impression and causes me
to question their attention to detail?
Regardless, Norton has never let us down. 2003 and 2004 were a little
rough on system resources, but that was dramatically improved in 2005.
For about 3 months we tried AVG, got infected with [what symantec calls]
W32.Spybot.Worm, AVG was completely unable to detect it but Norton's and
Kaspersky's online scanners picked it up right away.
We get infected emails on a daily basis, sometimes as many as 10 or 15 a
day during major outbreaks. In spite of that, none of the 3 machines we
use here has ever been compromised while running Norton.
Most of the complaints I have heard about Norton have to do with it's
interaction with other software, or install/uninstall problems. We've
never had any problems here with those things, so I can't complain.
--
Segovia
>> Stay informed about: Norton Antivirus has popup in right hand corner