Prev: Does Win 7 professional allow you to install XP Pro or not?
Next: Bigger PS for XPS 9000?
From: William R. Walsh on 9 Dec 2009 09:55
Hi!

> Somebody (Federal Trade Commission?) needs to go after
> McAfee, Symantec and all the rest for their sharp practice
> of installing 30-day free trials.

Somebody else needs to go after the press and those irresponsible
enough to promote these very products. I haven't seen McAfee in a
while, so maybe it's gotten better.

Norton is just as bad as ever. Last night I had a computer in for
service because its owner finally noticed one spyware program and
didn't want to bother with removing it. And yes, this is the typical
computer user that had committed all the typical Sins Of Computing
That Will Lead To A Virus Or Something Nasty.

Weeeell...after removing approximately ~130 different spyware variants
(!!!!), ~150 virus infested files (with almost as many different
viruses), two keyloggers and one of something that looked like a mild
rootkit...I was curious as to why the installed copy of Norton anti-
virus hadn't worked to do *anything*. It certainly should have, at
least by all indications. However, it was turned off and could not be
turned on, which would explain why it hadn't acted automatically. The
UI appeared to work as normal, however.

I puzzled over this for a while until it popped up a dialog reporting
that it hadn't been "activated".

The polite-but-not-totally-accurate way to describe my feelings at
this point would be to say that I was unimpressed. I already don't
care for software activation as a whole, and anti-virus software
especially should never have been "blessed" with such a "feature". If
it had to do anything, it ought to at least continue defending the
system upon which it is installed while possibly suggesting that the
end user ought to do something, and if they don't, maybe consider
reducing the functionality of the UI or something. But DO NOT kill the
functionality of the product completely!

I so love the Norton Removal Tool. It's too bad that software can't be
soundly kicked and otherwise exposed to the fruits of my temper. I
hope I don't meet any Norton/Symantec developers because they will not
like the result.

I left a note with the system saying that my recommendation would be
to choose any of a few good choices for AV software and that the owner
should get their $ for Norton 2010 back.

William
From: Daddy on 9 Dec 2009 11:06
William R. Walsh wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Somebody (Federal Trade Commission?) needs to go after
>> McAfee, Symantec and all the rest for their sharp practice
>> of installing 30-day free trials.
>
> Somebody else needs to go after the press and those irresponsible
> enough to promote these very products. I haven't seen McAfee in a
> while, so maybe it's gotten better.
>
> Norton is just as bad as ever. Last night I had a computer in for
> service because its owner finally noticed one spyware program and
> didn't want to bother with removing it. And yes, this is the typical
> computer user that had committed all the typical Sins Of Computing
> That Will Lead To A Virus Or Something Nasty.
>
> Weeeell...after removing approximately ~130 different spyware variants
> (!!!!), ~150 virus infested files (with almost as many different
> viruses), two keyloggers and one of something that looked like a mild
> rootkit...I was curious as to why the installed copy of Norton anti-
> virus hadn't worked to do *anything*. It certainly should have, at
> least by all indications. However, it was turned off and could not be
> turned on, which would explain why it hadn't acted automatically. The
> UI appeared to work as normal, however.
>
> I puzzled over this for a while until it popped up a dialog reporting
> that it hadn't been "activated".
>
> The polite-but-not-totally-accurate way to describe my feelings at
> this point would be to say that I was unimpressed. I already don't
> care for software activation as a whole, and anti-virus software
> especially should never have been "blessed" with such a "feature". If
> it had to do anything, it ought to at least continue defending the
> system upon which it is installed while possibly suggesting that the
> end user ought to do something, and if they don't, maybe consider
> reducing the functionality of the UI or something. But DO NOT kill the
> functionality of the product completely!
>
> I so love the Norton Removal Tool. It's too bad that software can't be
> soundly kicked and otherwise exposed to the fruits of my temper. I
> hope I don't meet any Norton/Symantec developers because they will not
> like the result.
>
> I left a note with the system saying that my recommendation would be
> to choose any of a few good choices for AV software and that the owner
> should get their $ for Norton 2010 back.
>
> William

After being a card-carrying Norton-hater for several years, I installed
NIS 2009 (now NIS 2010) and the results, surprisingly enough, are
outstanding! NIS is quick, reliable and - get this - the support is
much, much improved over the way it was in the bad old days. It
installed and uninstalled cleanly and gracefully. It doesn't try to take
over my computer. I was really surprised.

Your customer is to blame for his or her troubles. No security software
- no software of any kind - can stand up to an inept user. And security
software is only one component in a full defense against against malware.

I know it's not 'cool' to defend NIS, but I don't let myself fall into
that trap.

Daddy
From: William R. Walsh on 9 Dec 2009 11:54
Hi!

> Your customer is to blame for his or her troubles.

I never said otherwise. However, it is arguable that said troubles
might have been a lot less severe were the Norton anti-virus program
doing its job instead of deciding that it hadn't been activated.

That is what I was saying.

I don't defend inept users. My "real job" involves administering a
network of approximately 30 users and it comes from all ends--users,
software vendors, hardware vendors, support staff. Of all of them, the
users can be the worst, and I know I don't have it nearly as bad as
other system administrators do. Once you've seen the truly category-
and-reason defying things that users will try, it's disheartening to
say the least. You really *do* wonder how they get through their day-
to-day existence at times.

(Please note that none of the above is meant to sound as though I
don't understand the concept of everyone not knowing everything. Nor
is it intended to imply that I think everyone should know how to
program a computer in their sleep, in seven different languages or
that they should even care about the numerous, precision components
inside a computer that make it work. I enjoy helping people, that's
why I'm on these groups anyway. Sometimes you really wish a little bit
of clue would come flying in from somewhere, though...)

> I know it's not 'cool' to defend NIS, but I don't let myself fall
> into that trap.

I've said it somewhere, earlier, that later versions of the Norton
Anti-Virus software seemed to be improving with regard to
installation, removal and overall "bulk" of the software. I'd still
hesitate to recommend it, however. It'll take a while for the horror
show of previous releases to wear off.

I would not recommend Norton Internet Security or Norton 360. Both are
good theories that fall down in practice--they're just too complex and
try too hard to do too much.

William
From: Daddy on 9 Dec 2009 14:07
William R. Walsh wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Your customer is to blame for his or her troubles.
>
> I never said otherwise. However, it is arguable that said troubles
> might have been a lot less severe were the Norton anti-virus program
> doing its job instead of deciding that it hadn't been activated.
>
> That is what I was saying.
>
> I don't defend inept users. My "real job" involves administering a
> network of approximately 30 users and it comes from all ends--users,
> software vendors, hardware vendors, support staff. Of all of them, the
> users can be the worst, and I know I don't have it nearly as bad as
> other system administrators do. Once you've seen the truly category-
> and-reason defying things that users will try, it's disheartening to
> say the least. You really *do* wonder how they get through their day-
> to-day existence at times.
>
> (Please note that none of the above is meant to sound as though I
> don't understand the concept of everyone not knowing everything. Nor
> is it intended to imply that I think everyone should know how to
> program a computer in their sleep, in seven different languages or
> that they should even care about the numerous, precision components
> inside a computer that make it work. I enjoy helping people, that's
> why I'm on these groups anyway. Sometimes you really wish a little bit
> of clue would come flying in from somewhere, though...)
>
>> I know it's not 'cool' to defend NIS, but I don't let myself fall
>> into that trap.
>
> I've said it somewhere, earlier, that later versions of the Norton
> Anti-Virus software seemed to be improving with regard to
> installation, removal and overall "bulk" of the software. I'd still
> hesitate to recommend it, however. It'll take a while for the horror
> show of previous releases to wear off.
>
> I would not recommend Norton Internet Security or Norton 360. Both are
> good theories that fall down in practice--they're just too complex and
> try too hard to do too much.
>
> William


Something I've learned about software applications: Just because this
year's model is great doesn't mean next year's model won't suck. If NIS
2011 shows signs of sucking, I'll dump it faster than a sumo wrestler
with diarrhea.

Daddy
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Does Win 7 professional allow you to install XP Pro or not?
Next: Bigger PS for XPS 9000?