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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|