A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Performance and Maintainance of XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old January 20th 10, 12:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?

Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.


Ads
  #17  
Old January 20th 10, 12:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?

Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.


  #18  
Old January 20th 10, 02:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

The thought Leonard did not cross my mind.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Leonard Grey wrote:
Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.

  #19  
Old January 20th 10, 02:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

The thought Leonard did not cross my mind.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Leonard Grey wrote:
Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I
got married?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.

  #20  
Old January 20th 10, 02:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


  #21  
Old January 20th 10, 02:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling
- were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS
2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend
any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own
decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


  #22  
Old January 20th 10, 03:26 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

It depends on whether or not you plan on switching to an ISP that
doesn't offer that particular program at no extra charge.

So if I subscribe to Acme Internet and they offer me Internet service
and Norton at no extra cost, it would cost me the same as if I chose not
to use it.

Of course, I could shop around and find another provider. So *if* I were
able to find comparable service for less money but they didn't offer the
"free" Norton program, it would then behoove me to use a program like
Avira. But that wasn't my original scenario. :-)

So if you like your ISP and have no intention on finding another, then
yes, _for all intents and purposes_, Norton (if they offer it at no
extra charge) would cost you the same amount as Avira. Calling it free
is semantic (or Symantec!). Of course we all know that TINSTAAFL.



Gerry wrote:
Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?



Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble
uninstalling - were no longer problems. I looked for things to
hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't
recommend any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make
their own decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive



  #23  
Old January 20th 10, 03:26 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?

It depends on whether or not you plan on switching to an ISP that
doesn't offer that particular program at no extra charge.

So if I subscribe to Acme Internet and they offer me Internet service
and Norton at no extra cost, it would cost me the same as if I chose not
to use it.

Of course, I could shop around and find another provider. So *if* I were
able to find comparable service for less money but they didn't offer the
"free" Norton program, it would then behoove me to use a program like
Avira. But that wasn't my original scenario. :-)

So if you like your ISP and have no intention on finding another, then
yes, _for all intents and purposes_, Norton (if they offer it at no
extra charge) would cost you the same amount as Avira. Calling it free
is semantic (or Symantec!). Of course we all know that TINSTAAFL.



Gerry wrote:
Daave

I may be a cynic but is that really free?



Daave wrote:
Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything.

Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost.


Gerry wrote:
Leonard

Why pay for what you can get for free.



Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton
Haters Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security
2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after
Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical
support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble
uninstalling - were no longer problems. I looked for things to
hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.
And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced
7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those
rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can
take it.
PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I
made with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't
recommend any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make
their own decision, is my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.

The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance
implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier,
particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard
drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard
drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard
drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive



  #24  
Old January 20th 10, 10:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
smlunatick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,866
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?

On Jan 19, 8:36*pm, Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters
Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.

And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year
old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton
vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it.

PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made
with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any
software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is
my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.


The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery..
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


I was a "platinum card carrying" loyal Norton user until Norton
Internet Security 2009 "screwed" up my XP system last March. Norton
"on-line" support agent then had the "gall" to "yank" all the Norton
softwares with the NRT tool with out first uninstalling them. This
then rendered my PC to a "paper weight" since XP was no longer
working. Only a reinstall was able to fix this.

Norton security software / anti-virus are "hi jack" software. These
take over and forces your traffic thru the Norton "monitoring" system.

Norton will not be returning to my systems for the foreseeable future.
  #25  
Old January 20th 10, 10:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
smlunatick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,866
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?

On Jan 19, 8:36*pm, Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters
Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.

And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year
old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton
vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it.

PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made
with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any
software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is
my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.


The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery..
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


I was a "platinum card carrying" loyal Norton user until Norton
Internet Security 2009 "screwed" up my XP system last March. Norton
"on-line" support agent then had the "gall" to "yank" all the Norton
softwares with the NRT tool with out first uninstalling them. This
then rendered my PC to a "paper weight" since XP was no longer
working. Only a reinstall was able to fix this.

Norton security software / anti-virus are "hi jack" software. These
take over and forces your traffic thru the Norton "monitoring" system.

Norton will not be returning to my systems for the foreseeable future.
  #26  
Old January 25th 10, 11:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Anteaus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,330
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performan

Not able to comment on NAV 2009, but anything described as an "Internet
Security Suite" is, in my experience, bound to be a source of trouble. This
doesn't only apply to Norton, but NIS and 360 are definitely ones to avoid.

Sadly, many of the alternative offerings are now sprouting Internet filters,
content and search controls, gimmicky firewalls, invasive browser/office
plugins, etc etc. Presumably because they see that as the way to compete with
the brand-leaders. Instead it's likely to lead to their products being
equally as bad as those of the brand-leaders.

"smlunatick" wrote:

On Jan 19, 8:36 pm, Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters
Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.

And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year
old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton
vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it.

PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made
with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any
software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is
my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.


The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery..
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


I was a "platinum card carrying" loyal Norton user until Norton
Internet Security 2009 "screwed" up my XP system last March. Norton
"on-line" support agent then had the "gall" to "yank" all the Norton
softwares with the NRT tool with out first uninstalling them. This
then rendered my PC to a "paper weight" since XP was no longer
working. Only a reinstall was able to fix this.

Norton security software / anti-virus are "hi jack" software. These
take over and forces your traffic thru the Norton "monitoring" system.

Norton will not be returning to my systems for the foreseeable future.
.

  #27  
Old January 25th 10, 11:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
Anteaus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,330
Default Correlation between number of programs installed and performan

Not able to comment on NAV 2009, but anything described as an "Internet
Security Suite" is, in my experience, bound to be a source of trouble. This
doesn't only apply to Norton, but NIS and 360 are definitely ones to avoid.

Sadly, many of the alternative offerings are now sprouting Internet filters,
content and search controls, gimmicky firewalls, invasive browser/office
plugins, etc etc. Presumably because they see that as the way to compete with
the brand-leaders. Instead it's likely to lead to their products being
equally as bad as those of the brand-leaders.

"smlunatick" wrote:

On Jan 19, 8:36 pm, Leonard Grey wrote:
I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes...

For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters
Club. And for good reason.

Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009.
My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem.
Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy
footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer
problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any.

And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year
old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed.

I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton
vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it.

PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made
with respect to third-party firewalls.

PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any
software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is
my view.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option.


The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It
may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive
is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write
speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were
less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery..
More in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


I was a "platinum card carrying" loyal Norton user until Norton
Internet Security 2009 "screwed" up my XP system last March. Norton
"on-line" support agent then had the "gall" to "yank" all the Norton
softwares with the NRT tool with out first uninstalling them. This
then rendered my PC to a "paper weight" since XP was no longer
working. Only a reinstall was able to fix this.

Norton security software / anti-virus are "hi jack" software. These
take over and forces your traffic thru the Norton "monitoring" system.

Norton will not be returning to my systems for the foreseeable future.
.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.