03-22-2011 05:16 PM
Ok, we got the answer - it will take a month for the Toolbar to work in Firefox 4.
What about 5, 6, and 7? They will be major releases in numbers, but minor in features, according to the roadmap. Any possibility of making it work sooner after release?
Thank you for your input. You don't need to post it in a third place, we can read it quite well in duplicate.
03-22-2011 05:42 PM
@Marcus You are missing the whole point. Nobody is telling Symantec/Norton to rush. They had the opportunity to develop and test for compatibility for months and months whilst FF 4 was in development. What were they doing during that period? Like someone else pointed out here, the FF add-ons developers, mostly amateurs, were able to get their products ready in time. If FF4 was a month-long project, it would have been a different matter.
I am terribly sorry, but there is no way I am going to wait until May, or possibly even longer, before I can start using FF4 together with Norton Toolbar. I need access to the Password Safe. IE9 has too many website incompatibility issues and as such is not a viable option. Luckily for me I am still within my 60 day period, so I am definitely asking for a refund.
Think about it. We are in March now. What on earth were the developers doing the whole time whilst FF4 was in development? I cannot believe an organisation as large as Symantec did this to it's users. We all pay to use this product. It's very easy to say "sorry, you have to wait until May," but it's not so easy for me to understand when I have spent my hard-earned money on something that is useless to me now.
03-22-2011 06:56 PM
I've been reading the posts associated with this topic and they kinds' gotten me riled up. Why're everyone gettin' so bent out of shape because the a toolbar update for FF v4 hasn't been released yet? I've even seen posts that're angry because the update wasn't released even for the Betas and RCs. Really??? First of all how can people expect a release before the final product is released? It's sinmple comon sense, people. (And I apologizeif I should happen to offend anybody who reaads this post. I'm not trying to offend, just trying to get people to think.) Symantec is "primo" when it comes to security. I, pursonally, prefer then to any other service- hands down. Security, of any type, is needed and it's gettin' to be that way on any and all levels. Considering thaqt fact and the price we pay. as long as it's for my good they can take the time needed to get the tool as close to perefect as they can make it. (Well, that's a conundrum. Considering how technology changes(case in point) that'll technically bever happen; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards perfection.) If tey'd come out with a final product, then and only then would the prior posts be justifiable.
People, it's like this, if you want it to work right then it has to be developed correctly- and that takes time. Think about all the rushed decisions we've ever made. Sometimes it's not that big of s deal while others there were consequences- either light or up into the extreme. I don't know about you all, but my info, whether private or not, needs to be secured until I decide to leak it. And I prefer those who are more tech savvy than myself to build and right the proper program(s) to do the job for me. If any of us were "techie" enough to write or build our own product that does the same as Symantec products, then we'd be self employed in this medium and not posting gibberish here. For example, if you take your car to a mechanic it's going to take awhile to make the proper repairs. Though there are quick fixes and faster work-arounds, but neither would suffice depending on how much you depend on your vehicle while doing what ever you do. And so a computer is a machine just like your computer. Both last only as long as you properly keep up the maintainance. To get it right, always involves thorough testing and possibly a bit of time. Like Toyota and the paddle issues they had. If they'd've been thorough then it would've prevented, not all, but possibly a large number of their recalls.
Now, to close, why do people think that it's okay to rush professionals- especially when dealing with life line products and procedures? Would you expect a doctor to rush or cut corners while doing open heart surgery on a loved one or even yourself? So ease up people. Those at Symantec are the professionals providing tools and services to protect our "lifeline"(pertinent info). Let's not rush the surgeons.
Marcos-(Spell check much?)
It is a futile argument to compare the Norton Security product to the service of a Doctor or surgeon. Apples to Oranges.
When a company is competing in the technology field it is imperative to provide prompt product development response to technology advancements…particularly when an upgrade renders an integral function of that company’s product USELESS.
It is reasonable to assume that a company as large as Symantec should have sufficient manpower allocated to keep up with the changing technologies. Further, the Firefox update was not a surprise. Symantec has had ample time to develop their product. They owe a duty to their customers to address this obvious flaw in their planning procedures.
03-22-2011 07:14 PM
This is normal business, Symantec never updates it's products on time for new Firefox releases, it's only after customer complains pile up that they start to develop a patch just like if they where a half man operation.
03-22-2011 08:45 PM
I've been reading the posts associated with this topic and they kinds' gotten me riled up. Why're everyone gettin' so bent out of shape because the a toolbar update for FF v4 hasn't been released yet?
Now listen, I've been a developer for over 30 years, and I was writing code back when "Windows 1.0" was still one of Bill Gates' dreams.
I'm also a huge Symantec fan. Hell, I sold my whole line of software back in 1992 to McAfee Associates, and I *still* used Norton Antivirus instead of McAfee :)
But, bottom line is....there's absolutely no excuse why Norton is telling us that it's going to be May before their toolbar works with FF 4. What, did it sneak up on them? For chrissakes, FF4 has been under development for over a year, with builds available to the general public for a long time. I'm pretty sure that if Symantec would have requested it, they could have easily gotten access to the nightly development builds.
This is along the same lines of those developers whose products took months and months to be compatible with Windows 7 when it came out. What, they didn't know it was coming for 2-3 years?
I'm a big Norton fan, as I said, but this "take until May" stuff is BS. Pure and simple.
03-22-2011 09:09 PM - edited 03-22-2011 09:46 PM
Cool, I'm aware of that. You are missing the point of my post, [...]With respect and deference..... I comprehend the content and the point of your posts and your comments. I simply do not agree. Symantec grants me a license to use their product. As I choose to run their product. I must defer to the product's EULA. As an aside....personally, I prefer Symantec takes all the time they need and devote what ever resources Symantec deems necessary. I'd rather have if done right vs fast....granted, by your comments... Symantec has had more than ample time. I simply do not agree. I believe the clock starts upon full release. Not before. I recall Symantec was criticized and maligned for pushing updates/patches on users. Now, Symantec is criticized for not pushing updates/patches. What's the rush? Maybe FF4/IE9 have bugs. Why would I upgrade to a browser so soon after it's full release. You can experience the bugs ... I'd rather wait for the dust to settle.Respectfully submitted to the Topic and the Communitybjm_
03-22-2011 10:11 PM
According to Mozilla, Firefox 4 has anti-phishing and anti-malware components, site identity, private browsing, content security, password manager and form-filler. Some folks seem to think that it is only the toolbar. There is a lot added to this Firefox that may never be compatible. It isn;t going to happen overnight.
03-22-2011 10:24 PM
Dude, I don't type much so excuse the grammatical errors. But, in spite of all my misspellings, you(along with others) seemed to get my point so I guess those errors were minor and you understood none the less. Or maybe I've offended some people and to that I , again, apologize. And when I made the comparison between a doctor's task and those of the programmers at Symantec, it was purely an analogy. Of course the process of saving a human life is far more delicate than a software update. The analogy was simply comparing the base methodology of the two- procedures to protect, serve , and enhance lives: one is organic and the other is man-made.....one world is cyber while the other is flesh-n-blood. I thought it was made clear when I'd referred to them both as "life lines". Again, I apologize for not being clearer.
I read my post again and became aware of how brash I've may've came off. And see how my bluntness possibly struck a nerve. I am, by no means, an expert or even a power user. I may be classified as a novice- even if that. I gain my knowledge of PCs and software through reading and simple trial an error. Then I take the base or core similarities and and build categorize the knowledge into analytical groups towards understanding or at least getting an idea. And Mr. MorganL, I've read of 11/12 doctors taking 18hrs operating on 1 patient and you're saying because Symantec has many engineers they should be able to process updates faster, to that I say you're possibly right and wrong. I mean, how many users of PCs can put one together- piece-by-piece, circuit-by-circuit? Soldering and all? I'm not trying to be long-winded or condescending, but being unable to afford a technician to work on my computer, I've had to learn how to do things myself. (I've learned to empathize with techs for why they charge so much for a minor home visit. Oh yeah, shout out to TomiRed. Thanks for pointing out the unneeded second post I did. Thanks, dude.) And, yet again, someone tell me the since in making incremental updates for this particular issue? Updates for the toolbar feature seems to be a more complex update in comparison virus definitions. I mean what's the point of finishing an update for an incomplete product? Between it's conseption up till it's completion, when through several betas and RCs,
Again, security software is a delicate tool. And a tool is only as good as the person(s) wielding it. Most of Symantec's products are used by power users and the clueless alike. So each update includes those that're needed and potentially along with customer requests that my be deemed warranted. So trying to satisfy the broad customer base may take some time because of what may and may not be added while yet still maintaining the products' base comprehensive use and need.
03-23-2011 12:33 AM
What about 5, 6, and 7? They will be major releases in numbers, but minor in features,
I suppose there's no way of knowing if these releases will break the toolbar or not. Perhaps not if the changes are only going to be minor as you say. Maybe what once would have been termed an update will now be called a release. I just don't know.
It does seem to be only major changes that necessitate an update to the toolbar. As far as I know, minor changes don't have any effect on it, so maybe the toolbar will remain working through those version numbers mentioned. It the changes are are going to be major enough to break the toolbar though, it could mean we're going to spend quite a while without it working .
Just wondering if Symantec should stop offering a toolbar with the functions is has (when working) if browser changes can't be kept up with for one reason or another. I read there are still good protections in place without it. If the feature isn't included, you know where you stand and can then look for other extensions/products that will add the missing features to the browser. They are available. The ones I use work with Chrome and Firefox and seem to keep working through browser upgrades.