Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[mikedov Regular Contributor]

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).

[xxJackxx Spyware Scolder]

---

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.*

[cyberwasp]

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!!!!!!!!!!

[SendOfJive Norton Fighter]

---

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.

[twixt Regular Contributor]

---

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...  

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... 

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. 

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. 

[mikedov Regular Contributor]

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.