topic IE64 and NIS in Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

IE64 and NIS

cyberwasp — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:50:57 GMT

I'm new to 64 bit and just found out there were two Internet Explorers. However orton Internet security Identity safe doesn't seem to install in IE64. Did I do something wrong or is norton still only 32bit. If not what do I have to do to get it to instll in the 64b IE. TIA

Re: IE64 and NIS

floplot — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:01:34 GMT

Hello cyberwasp

Welcome to Norton Community Forum

Norton Identity Safe only works in 32 bit.. Some things work in 64 bit I believe. Microsoft still recommends that you use IE in 32 bits. To find the solution to your problem with Identity Safe, please check out this link.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Internet-Explorer-64-bit-problems/m-p/523692#M169370

Thanks.

Re: IE64 and NIS

SendOfJive — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 19:28:38 GMT

Hi cyberwasp,

There are few reasons to use the 64-bit browser and many reasons not to:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2009/05/29/q-a-64-bit-internet-explorer.aspx

Re: IE64 and NIS

xxJackxx — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:19:13 GMT

SendOfJive wrote:
Hi cyberwasp,

There are few reasons to use the 64-bit browser and many reasons not to:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2009/05/29/q-a-64-bit-internet-explorer.aspx

That article is 2 1/2 years old. At this point there is a final version of 64 bit flash and other AV companies are supporting 64 bit IE which is now 5 years old. Norton is out of excuses for not keeping up.

Re: IE64 and NIS

lmacri — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:40:50 GMT

Hi cyberswap:

You may be interested in an article here on the Java support site which reads in part:

SUMMARY

64-bit Windows operating systems (which may be Windows 7, Vista or XP) come with a 32-bit Internet Explorer (IE) browser as the standard (default) for viewing web pages. These operating systems also include a 64-bit Internet Explorer browser, however using it is optional and it must be explicitly selected to view web pages. Note that because some web content may not work properly in a 64-bit browser, we recommend using the default 32-bit browser and downloading 32-bit Java.

The browsers currently supported by NIS are listed here under System Requirements.

-------------

Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 v. 18.6.0.29 * IE 9.0 * Firefox 8.0.0
HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS

Re: IE64 and NIS

SendOfJive — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:03:01 GMT

Hi xxxJackxxx,

It is not just a matter of supported add-ons, which despite the recent finalization of 64-bit Flash Player, is still an issue (Microsoft SIlverlight, for example, does not run in the 64-bit browser). The 64-bit browser is still not capable of handling JavaScript as well as the 32-bit version, making the 32-bit browser a better performer.

Re: IE64 and NIS

TomiRed — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:45:23 GMT

SendOfJive wrote:
Hi xxxJackxxx,

It is not just a matter of supported add-ons, which despite the recent finalization of 64-bit Flash Player, is still an issue (Microsoft SIlverlight, for example, does not run in the 64-bit browser). The 64-bit browser is still not capable of handling JavaScript as well as the 32-bit version, making the 32-bit browser a better performer.

Silverlight 5 supports 64 bit browsers.

Re: IE64 and NIS

xxJackxx — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:07:49 GMT

SendOfJive wrote:
Hi xxxJackxxx,

It is not just a matter of supported add-ons, which despite the recent finalization of 64-bit Flash Player, is still an issue (Microsoft SIlverlight, for example, does not run in the 64-bit browser). The 64-bit browser is still not capable of handling JavaScript as well as the 32-bit version, making the 32-bit browser a better performer.

As for supported add-ons, Norton is one of few that doesn't have any. I like Norton and would like to be using it while I am burning up a paid license for it but I will not excuse them for not supporting 64 bit because if they don't feel that anyone cares they will never make the effort. As for the javascript engine the IE team admitted to putting more effort into the 32 bit version but it is really hard to tell the difference. Milliseconds are imperceptible to most and I hate that the browser wars have become about that. I really don't feel that the 32 bit or 64 bit IE 9 is a finished product as the UI for both of them is unpolished and lacking. Overall I feel the 64 bit is more responsive despite its slower javascript engine. ASLR is much more effective on 64 bit software. From a security standpoint I do not understand why there is such resistance to the 64 bit versions. I guess it will go more mainstream when Firefox releases their 64 bit version in the near future.

I can also name a couple of other security suites that include antispam that is fully compatible with 64 bit Outlook. I know the response to that will be that everyone should use the 32 bit, but I can say from experience that the 64 bit version is way more responsive and there are not any add-ons for it that do not work that I will miss.

I am not trying to argue with you and you make some valid points, but when I see other vendors with less resources than Norton making the effort I think it is time for them to do the same. If Norton would release a suite for advanced users that fully supports 64 bit and gives me the ability to stop it from auto deleting false positives I would buy a multiple year license the day it was released.

Re: IE64 and NIS

dickevans — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:27:50 GMT

xxJackxx

I'm not seeing real 'resistance' to going x64. What I'm seeing is the budget required to upgrade over 1,800 computers. That's a lot of tax money and even more justification. Support will come and we will change but don't look for either in the next few months.

If Norton is to be profitable they must keep the bulk of their resources devoted to the areas that produce the bulk of their revenue. As the shift from x32 to x64 grows I'm sure they will move with the trend. It all takes time. The bigger the object the harder it is to get it moving. The same applies when you try to change the course of a moving object. A few million computers is a few hundred different languages shouldn't take any time at all to convert. Nor should the cost be of any great concern. In a perfect world.

[end of editorial]

Re: IE64 and NIS

Atomic_Blast — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:39:29 GMT

To xxJackxx:

You wrote:

I tend to agree with you.

IMHO, Symantec needs to use additional, targeted resources to bring all of this to fruition. Then again, if you stand back and look at the current Norton product lineup, I have to give them credit for trying to support so many different platforms and configurations with different needs. Quite difficult, but It can be done!

Atomic_Blast :)

Re: IE64 and NIS

mikedov — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:31:33 GMT

You do realize that the 64 bit version of Internet Explorer is not the default browser even on a 64 bit machine (the 32 bit version is the default).

Re: IE64 and NIS

xxJackxx — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:40:41 GMT

mikedov wrote:
You do realize that the 64 bit version of Internet Explorer is not the default browser even on a 64 bit machine (the 32 bit version is the default).

Not trying to be rude, I appreciate everyone's feedback but not everyone uses the default everything that is put before them. If Norton is only a product for users that only go with defaults maybe it is not the product for me.

I work for a software software company. It takes about 2 mouse clicks in any modern compiler to target a 64 bit platform and compile. I know in the end it is more complicated to offer a solution than that... but not much. Speckie is a spell checker for IE. It works on both 32 and 64 bit IE. It is free. I know Symantec has more resources then they do. I'm sure this is more of an issue of red tape than it is a technical limitation. I don't want everyone here to think I am trying to be difficult so I will close with this thought: *Put me down for a vote to support 64 bit.*

Re: IE64 and NIS

cyberwasp — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:28:30 GMT

I'm not a ,mainstream user but feel that if a company wants to make profits they should keep up with technology. Nowadays the average user goes to best buy and pays from $399 to $800 and gets a 64bit machine. So why not make a 64bit product to protect it with. It's like being given $2500,000.00 to buy a car and coming back with a 1970 vw bug.

Like I said I'm and average user but look at every piece of software I consider for my system for 64bit as I want it to run optimally for the money I put out.

Come on Symantec, get the cobwebs out of your PC's and start compiling in 64bit!!!!!!!!!!

Re: IE64 and NIS

SendOfJive — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:13:38 GMT

cyberwasp wrote:
Nowadays the average user goes to best buy and pays from $399 to $800 and gets a 64bit machine. So why not make a 64bit product to protect it with.

Norton products do run and protect perfectly well on 64-bit operating systems, so that is not the issue. They just do not offer add-on support for the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer. Microsoft itself recommends that users stay with the default 32-bit IE, which offers the technological advancements for better performance that Microsoft has chosen to leave out the the 64-bit version. Someday, probably soon, everything will be 64-bit. But for now, I find it hard to fault third-party companies for not devoting major resources to a browser that Microsoft itself has chosen not to outfit to be competitive with other browsers, and which Microsoft advises users to eschew in favor of the 32-bit version.

Re: IE64 and NIS

twixt — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:51:57 GMT

cyberwasp wrote:
I'm not a ,mainstream user but feel that if a company wants to make profits they should keep up with technology. Nowadays the average user goes to best buy and pays from $399 to $800 and gets a 64bit machine. So why not make a 64bit product to protect it with. It's like being given $2500,000.00 to buy a car and coming back with a 1970 vw bug.

Like I said I'm and average user but look at every piece of software I consider for my system for 64bit as I want it to run optimally for the money I put out.

Come on Symantec, get the cobwebs out of your PC's and start compiling in 64bit!!!!!!!!!!

Hi, cyberwasp. Some things to consider:

1. There have been 64-bit Versions of MSIE7, MSIE8 and MSIE9. None of them have been as bugfree, reliable or as fully-featured as their 32-bit cousins.

2. IMO, the reason for the above is obvious. 32-bit X86 computing is mature. 64-bit X64 computing is becoming mature. As a result, MS is using one of its most fiddly, most demanding, most tricky applications to actually become proficient at writing workable, reliable and efficient 64-bit code. (Which also means debugging its 64-bit Compilers as a parallel development to having its programmers learn to write the aforementioned efficient and effective 64-bit code.)

3. Because MS is not yet fully adept at writing 64-bit code which is truly as bugfree and as reliable as its 32-bit code - and its 64-bit Compilers are not yet as effective at optimizing 64-bit code as its 32-bit Compilers - MS is forced by the intrusion of painful reality upon the 32bit/64bit hype to recommend the use of 32-bit versions of its most-demanding programs. This means Office and MSIE. And thus, we have the situation we currently experience.

4. The release of the 64-bit Version of MSIE9 is obviously a testbed for the cross-development of related 64-bit code for all the rest of the subsystems required to fully-support the MSIE environment - with all the features we currently enjoy in the X86 version. Furthermore, I expect the learning from MSIE9 will inevitably be incorporated into Office. Thusly, at that point we will finally have a version of Outlook that can actually run reliably and with decent speed - at least on machines with 6-12MB of RAM or better... :smileywink:

5. However, for MS to come out and say "We've released the 64-bit Version of MSIE9 so all the world can become guinea pigs for 64-bit code development and optimization - and we're sorry if things don't work right for you in the 64-bit environment, it's just how things are at the moment." would have the MS Legal Department in conniptions and frothing at the mouth. So, don't be surprised if that Press Release is not forthcoming... :smileysurprised:

6. Consequently, with the existence of the 64-bit Version of MSIE9 as the abovementioned de-facto test ground - development has finally started for 64-bit plugins, extensions, and companion software for MSIE. From a development POV it seems logical to me that Adobe Flash support was required to be the first X64 app to be successfully integrated with MSIE in X64 mode - since that is the single most-frequently-used addon for MSIE. Furthermore, the X64 version of Flash had to exist and be proven reliable before AntiVirus providers could develop companion code to ensure that Flash security weaknesses could be monitored and corrected in the X64 environment.

7. With that hurdle now successfully crossed - the rest of the various communities that provide MSIE-compatible addons have a stable and workable environment they can test their X64-compatible versions against - with the browser operating as most people actually use it in the real world.

8. IMO, Adobe had to be first - and everyone needed to see the X64 version of Flash running stably and reliably on X64 MSIE - before it was fiscally prudent for any of the other companies to authorize Development Funding for X64 versions of all the other pieces of software that are needed to make MSIE X64 a completely-supported environment.

9. Thus we come to the reason for the existence of this thread. :smileyvery-happy:

Whatchabet that X64 support for MSIE (and possibly FireFox) is a checkmark-item for the development of NIS 2013?

How many of you would bet that it's not? Huh? Huh? <poke><prod><poke>...

Thusly, the words "All in good time, me hearties. All in good time." seem apropos. :smileytongue:

Re: IE64 and NIS

mikedov — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:44:13 GMT

Last I heard the Metro version is fully 64 bit but unfortunately won't be able to run plugins cause Microsoft does not allow it.