If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
When or if I can no longer renew my virus list update subscription, I will simply uninstall NAV and install something else. I do have the expertise to remove the associated registry entries, and have done so in the past with this version to assist other's with problems they encountered.
I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the moment. "Dan" wrote in message ... 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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
"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 Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went back and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only when it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003, 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later versions. I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and remember why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if you gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it. Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there. I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever ...I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my firewalls trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain rude! Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is constantly prompting for online connections for this or that. To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners. ...no thanks, notta. ...this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all: 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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules. It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation & maintenance Apps/Services. eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule" changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a user's incorrect rule decisions. "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message ... "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 Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went back and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only when it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003, 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later versions. I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and remember why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if you gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it. Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there. I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my firewalls trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain rude! Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is constantly prompting for online connections for this or that. To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners. ..no thanks, notta. ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all: 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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
I remember Gary Terhune saying he liked NA 2000 and later versions had
trouble. Perhaps he will reply. I think you must give firewalls some trust but just for the heck of it. I have ZA PRO. always notify me in 98SE and in XP PRO. CA EZARMOR is always notifying me as well. It is a price I pay for peace of mind. Sure you may have more services running in EZARMOR but it completely removes itself when you unistall it and it also removes the associated registry keys. Symantec (Norton) products do not remove the associated registry keys. In the 98(98SE) newsgroup people are constantly having problems and a majority of them can be tracked to using Symantec (Norton) SystemWorks, RealPlayer, Quicktime, and AOL. "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message ... : "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 : : Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went back : and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only when : it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003, : 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is : much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later versions. : : I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it : has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and remember : why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if you : gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it. : : Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there. : I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my : computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever : ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my firewalls : trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing : whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain rude! : Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is constantly : prompting for online connections for this or that. : To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners. : ..no thanks, notta. : ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all: : : : : : 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 : : : |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Exactly, R. McCarty, on my dual-boot 98SE and XP PRO. ZoneAlarm PRO. has the
box checked by default to allow the user not to ask again and I always am unchecking this box. It gets kind of tiring after a while. Also, ZoneAlarm Pro. later versions are being written in a sloppy manner because it allows 2 tvdumpflags=10 in the autoexec.bat. This seems like sloppy programming to me and I have edited the autoexec.bat to remove one of the tvdumpflags=10 in the past and the software firewall works fine. I recently upgraded ZA PRO. to the latest version and voila I now have 2 tvdumpflags=10. I do not know why ZoneAlarm has these isssues but I am a member of the ZoneAlarm newsgroup and so I am tempted to write about it to complain. Have a nice day. I am considering switching 98SE to complete EZARMOR with antivirus and fireawall and dump ZA Pro. after my subscription runs out and also dump the free AntiVir program which is good but sometimes gives false positives. It gave a false positive in regards to CWShredder 2.x by Intermute and I wrote to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to complain and it turned out to be a false positive. Have a great day! "R. McCarty" wrote in message ink.net... : Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from : the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules. : It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation & : maintenance Apps/Services. : eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as : opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule" : changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a : user's incorrect rule decisions. : : "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message : ... : "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 : : Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went : back : and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only : when : it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003, : 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is : much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later : versions. : : I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it : has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and : remember : why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if : you : gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it. : : Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there. : I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my : computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever : ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my : firewalls : trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing : whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain : rude! : Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is : constantly : prompting for online connections for this or that. : To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners. : ..no thanks, notta. : ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all: : : : : : 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 : : : : : |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
"I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on
sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the moment." Well I don't have a problem with that and I hope your system continues running well. Have a nice day! "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message ... When or if I can no longer renew my virus list update subscription, I will simply uninstall NAV and install something else. I do have the expertise to remove the associated registry entries, and have done so in the past with this version to assist other's with problems they encountered. I don't have any issues with the preferences of others. I do plan on sticking with my current choice since it works perfectly for me at the moment. "Dan" wrote in message ... 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Further MS Baseline Security Analyzer issues ... | bluddihun | Security and Administration with Windows XP | 2 | May 1st 05 02:55 PM |
Discovered Security Vunerability in WinXP SP2 | Steve H | Windows Service Pack 2 | 9 | January 26th 05 07:17 AM |
WinXP SP2, IE6 SP2 security flaw with password protected web sites | Mark | General XP issues or comments | 0 | December 30th 04 11:53 PM |
XP / NTSF ...security descriptor / MFT error... | RJK | General XP issues or comments | 3 | November 11th 04 06:59 PM |
'spare' SP2 stuff after uninstall | k2lim | Windows Service Pack 2 | 3 | October 7th 04 04:26 PM |