FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee

This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.

1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.).
2) BlackICE PC Protection v3.6 (Intrusion detection software. Very easy to install, configure and use. It automatically detects hacker attacks and blocks all traffic from them. Again, no problems and low CPU utilization).
3) AdSubtract Proxy server v3.0 (Special software that can block pop-ups, banner adds, contextual ads, ad-server and profiling cookies, windows messenger pop-ups, animations, background sounds, flash, and external JavaScript. It also seems to thwart some html basked viruses and spyware as a result).
4) A hardware firewall (the more protection the better, I say).

There are also some corrections to be made to the comments thus far.

Microsoft's SP2 security features are designed for 3rd party applications like anti-virus, firewall, etc. software to be able to turn off and on. That is a Microsoft feature. Unfortunately it also allows viruses and spyware to do the same thing. This is the main reason I wouldn't recommend relying on Microsoft's SP2 security feature to protect you.

One other note: I don't personally believe that firewall software that monitors programs running on your machine and prompt you if they should be accessing the internet are very secure or reliable. The problem with them is that they rely on the user to make this decision, "should this program or that be allowed to access the internet?" The problem with this is most users cannot answer that question if they are unfamiliar with the program in question. Worst yet, most users would just answer yes thinking that must be a part of the program I'm currently using.

In order for these firewall programs to be reliable, they really need to have a list of programs that should be blocked and that list needs to be constantly updated, just like virus lists for anti-virus programs.

"Dan" wrote in message ...
You are most welcome. Please feel free to share the stories with others and
warn them of the dangers of McAfee, Symantec, AOL and other programs that
disregard Windows by installing a bunch of unneeded junk to the computers as
well as trashing the registry. As I have tried to show here, it is not
always Microsoft who is responsible. Sometimes it is the fault of other
companies. Have a great night!

"mattlubic" wrote in message
...
: Dan! Thank you, thank you, thank you! ! !
:
: I was experiencing so many problems I was about to trash my machine and
load
: a disk-shaped hand grenade into the CD slot! Figured out it was Symantec's
: stuff causing it all! Unloaded all their stuff and now everything runs
great!
:
: Thanks for the tip!
:
: "Dan" wrote:
:
: Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
:
: http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/
:
:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...0&sid=96089681
:
: Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
: advantage of released information in above article.
:
:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1740&ncid=1729
:
: Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
Norton)
: products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
users to
: rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
means to
: protect themselves in the on-line world.
:
:
:

Dan wrote:

You are most welcome. Please feel free to share the stories with others and
warn them of the dangers of McAfee, Symantec, AOL and other programs that
disregard Windows by installing a bunch of unneeded junk to the computers as
well as trashing the registry. As I have tried to show here, it is not
always Microsoft who is responsible. Sometimes it is the fault of other
companies. Have a great night!

Words to live by.

Ken

"Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
...

This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.

1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that
was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.).

[...]
That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added
anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every
version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes.
Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.

I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest
accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
[...]

I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
*always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
saying about newer versions now.

Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.

The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
they come preinstalled.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
...

"Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
...

This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.

1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
fatware that
was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
utilization.).

[...]
That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
the added
anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
every
version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
processes.
Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.

I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
greatest
accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
WXP.
[...]

These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
was using MSDOS 6.22.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
| *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
| has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
| Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
| the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
| that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
|
| Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
| became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
| automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
| with the OS.
|
| The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
| is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
| that they come preinstalled.
|
|
| "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
| ...
||
|| "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
|| ...
||
|| This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
||
|| 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
|| fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
|| CPU utilization.).
||
|| [...]
|| That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
|| the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
|| included with every version since and including 2002 that has
|| plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
|| all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
|| have no idea.
||
|| I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
|| greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
|| properly with WXP. [...]

Rick Chauvin wrote:
1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
CPU utilization.).
=== Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.


[...]
That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
idea.
=== Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
in, ...



I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
properly with WXP. [...]
=== Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
track of who might be getting in who's way.

Pop
--
-----
How long did the 100 Year War Last?

These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
was using MSDOS 6.22.

I gave up on Norton antivirus back in the Windows 3.1 days. It
caused more problems than any virus. McAfee was better, but it got
worse. The last version I bought was so bad, I had to uninstall
it. It was causing my mouse to freeze every few seconds as it
sucked up all the resources of my CPU. I switched to InnoculateIT,
and later to AVG, and both of those products gave me no conflicts
and didn't hog resources.

I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
: ...
:
: This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
:
: 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
:
: [...]
: That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
:
: I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.
: [...]
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

BTW, does anyone know how much a retail full copy of MS-DOS 6.22 costs and
where I can buy it safely? I want to explore MS-DOS more in my search for a
true maintenance operating system to present to Microsoft on Chris Quirke,
MVP and Gary S. Terhune MVP's advice. Thanks in advance for all of your
help.

"BBUNNY" wrote in message
...
: These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
: back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
: was using MSDOS 6.22.
:
: Gary S. Terhune wrote:
: | I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: | *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
: | has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
: | Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
: | the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
: | that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
: |
: | Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
: | became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
: | automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
: | with the OS.
: |
: | The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
: | is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
: | that they come preinstalled.
: |
: |
: | "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
: | ...
: ||
: || "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
: || ...
: ||
: || This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: ||
: || 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: || fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: || CPU utilization.).
: ||
: || [...]
: || That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: || the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: || included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: || plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: || all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
: || have no idea.
: ||
: || I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: || greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: || properly with WXP. [...]
:
:
:

AVG all the way! :

"Al Smith" wrote in message
...
: These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
: back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
: was using MSDOS 6.22.
:
: I gave up on Norton antivirus back in the Windows 3.1 days. It
: caused more problems than any virus. McAfee was better, but it got
: worse. The last version I bought was so bad, I had to uninstall
: it. It was causing my mouse to freeze every few seconds as it
: sucked up all the resources of my CPU. I switched to InnoculateIT,
: and later to AVG, and both of those products gave me no conflicts
: and didn't hog resources.

Pop, did you ever try to remove Symantec products in order to try a
competitor's product like Computer Associates E-Trust EZARMOR? It is really
difficult and with Norton (Symantec) System Works 2005 you have several
hundred registry entries that you have to manually delete in order to fully
clean a registry. It is not automatic. Trust me because I have done it and
I like computers but it is not fun staring at the screen in order to remove
several hundred registry entries because a behemoth company like Symantec
that screws individual consumers does not care about the little guy (or girl)
and just wants to screw the consumer. Sure their corporate editions may be
great (???) I don't know about the corporate editions because I never used
them. I like to go on first-hand knowledge and not always what I learn from
texts, magazines, the internet, the government, etc. Have a great day and
please reconsider your position because I feel your knowledge is flawed but I
anxiously await your rebuttal. I Yield The Floor to You, Pop with a willing
and gracious heart. Godspeed!!

"Pop" wrote in message
...
: Rick Chauvin wrote:
: 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: CPU utilization.).
: === Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.
:
:
: [...]
: That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
: millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
: extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
: idea.
: === Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
: boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
: develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
: in, ...
:
:
:
: I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: properly with WXP. [...]
: === Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
: heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
: track of who might be getting in who's way.
:
: Pop
: --
: -----
: How long did the 100 Year War Last?
:
:

Dan wrote:
AVG all the way! :

Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

I previously stated how I did not like how Avast scans all the time. It
takes up too many system resources in my opinion. However, you do have a
good point and I will give you that. Personally, I think CA E-Trust
Antivirus is best although you do have to pay for it. As it is said "you
(usually) get what you pay for" I added the (usually) because I know it is
not always the case. :

"Ad" wrote in message
...
: Dan wrote:
: AVG all the way! :
:
: Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
: supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.
:
:
: ---
: avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
: Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
: Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
: avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
: http://www.avast.com
:
:
:

I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more problems than they fixed.


"Dan" wrote in message ...
I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
: ...
:
: This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
:
: 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
:
: [...]
: That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
:
: I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.

As you yourself have said Drew that you are using version Symantec version
2002. Why should a user have to use such an old antivirus product to get
protection. When your subscription runs out, how do you plan on unistalling
Symantec (Norton) 2002 product? Do you have the expertise to remove the
associated registry entries? I agree with Gary S. Terhune, that EZARMOR by
E-Trust Computer Associates is a great antivirus and firewall product.

"Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
...
I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...

00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
Center\SymWSC.exe
00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe

With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the above
listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager program.
This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces of mail,
browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and running a few
games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way, my PC is an AMD
Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with 8Mb cache (not the
fastest machine, but no slouch either).

Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing altogether.
These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any PC sluggish. I
do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the automated stuff is turned
off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle bin, etc.). I only use a few of
the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag floppies and memory cards (none
of the other defrag tools will do floppies or memory cards and that includes
Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk which I tried).

Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've not
got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version, and none
since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the Virus update
tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept failing to update for
no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been perfect.

Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so. The
"innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused more
problems than they fixed.


"Dan" wrote in message
...
I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for
my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which
is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message
: ...
:
: This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
:
: 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
:
: [...]
: That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
:
: I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.