Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Anonymous on 9 Jan 2010 05:26 <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uifek51cmfklfug8dq3sbssn0mor9ok402(a)4ax.com... > > Symantec's 2009 of security products were rated "Product of > the Year 2009' at this independent AV Conparison site > > http://www.av-conparatives.org/conparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports > > OK MR Lipman YOUR TURN...... MY TURN..... It's not hard to get a great result from a paid review but it's hard to get a great result from a reader survey unless you bribe all the readers. 17,000 readers voted Eset Smart Security Suite into First Place and NOD32 into Second Place in the 2009 PC Authority Tech Awards last month, so shove your Symantec "Product of the Year 2009" up your big fat bum. -- AFL ROOLZ!
From: fat.charlie on 9 Jan 2010 12:03 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:26:29 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> wrote: > ><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uifek51cmfklfug8dq3sbssn0mor9ok402(a)4ax.com... >> >> Symantec's 2009 of security products were rated "Product of >> the Year 2009' at this independent AV Conparison site >> >> http://www.av-conparatives.org/conparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports >> >> OK MR Lipman YOUR TURN...... > > >MY TURN..... > >It's not hard to get a great result from a paid review but it's hard >to get a great result from a reader survey unless you bribe all the >readers. > >17,000 readers voted Eset Smart Security Suite into First Place and >NOD32 into Second Place in the 2009 PC Authority Tech Awards last >month, so shove your Symantec "Product of the Year 2009" up your >big fat bum. Ah gee....that last remark is gonna ruin my whole weekend...NOT! But it is quite typically what an 'anonymous' poster would submit. Listen folks..this is an age-old argument ( 'which AV is best' -or- 'Norton is bloatware' ) and it may well be the last surviving thread if and when Usenet finally dies. My purpose was not to perpetuate this AV pissing contest but simply to EXPOSE David Lipman for the charlatan he is. The subsequent facts that have been brought to light by myself about Norton 2009/2010 remain TRUE -and- unlike David's rants...100% SUBSTANTIATED. Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are SO MANY of them! Oh yeah and of course Symantec paid ALL these firms to LIE and risk their corporate reputations in the AV industry...sheesh! http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ "Norton AntiVirus is the world's best-selling security program" http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp - PCMag 'EDITOR'S CHOICE" is Norton Internet Security 2010 - "Last year Symantec pulled out all the stops to reduce Norton Internet Security's impact on system performance. This year's version of the suite, Norton Internet Security 2010 ($69.99 direct for 3 licenses), focuses both on improving the user's experience and raising overall protection. As we saw with our early look at the beta of Norton Internet Security 2010, the release version succeeds at both aims without sacrificing performance, securing its position as our Editors' Choice." http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html "In the 2010 version of its well-known antivirus program, Symantec continues to build on the unexpected progress it made last year. In addition to maintaining the quick load and scan times, and significantly smaller system footprint, Norton 2010 includes a behavioral detection engine based on both behavior and reputation" http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ <- "Fast loading new interface that is light on system resources" http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php "Gold-Rated - Top security product 2009" As I said regardless of hard cold facts and figures from professional security products testing agwencies there will still be criticism from myopic, small-minded, meglomaniacs who know-nothing and work hard to stay that way. Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare!
From: Leythos on 9 Jan 2010 16:01 In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security > product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are > SO MANY of them! > And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: fat.charlie on 9 Jan 2010 19:18 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:01:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security >> product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are >> SO MANY of them! >> > >And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. OK - post the links to all the negative reviews.Make sure yoyu find ALL the reviews since YOU SAY there more negative than positive reviews. Well.....it's 7:17 CST on Jan 9, 2009..tick tock, tick tock! > >How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? A simple question does not infer it's explicit truthfullness. Show us some PROOF that Virus Bulletin or say rthe ICSA are on Symantec's payroll. You don't even know where to begin do you?
From: Leythos on 9 Jan 2010 20:43
In article <cv6ik597r4asp3l932bm8r1afd2fpfqf5p(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:01:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, > >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > >> Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security > >> product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are > >> SO MANY of them! > >> > > > >And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. > > OK - post the links to all the negative reviews.Make sure yoyu find > ALL the reviews since YOU SAY there more negative than positive > reviews. Well.....it's 7:17 CST on Jan 9, 2009..tick tock, tick tock! > > > > >How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? > > A simple question does not infer it's explicit truthfullness. Show us > some PROOF that Virus Bulletin or say rthe ICSA are on Symantec's > payroll. You don't even know where to begin do you? Why not do a google (or other search provider) search for Symantec 2010 BAD or SYMANTEC 2010 PERFORMANCE PROBLEM or SYMANTEC 2010 FAILED TO DETECT? Are you such a stupid troll that you can't even use a search engine? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |