Norton Internet Security / Norton AntiVirus

[Eenywebb]

Bjm's answer does more to raise frustration than solve the problem. The fact that the company is legally allowed not to achieve timely compatibility is not surprising given that corporate lawyers exist in order to protect corporations. The fact remains that many loyal consumers of Symantec products have been disappointed.

My biggest complaint is that Symantec chat support spent over 3 hours of my time (over several days) with full access to my computer and not only could not deal with this problem, but acknowledged at the end that they had been technically misinformed in the first place.

Nevertheless these forums are hopefully more focussed on solutions that complaints, but for that to occur it is a good idea for technical staff to participate.

[Eenywebb]

I am relatively new to using discussion forums, in part because the Symantec chat technical support was so useless, in part because this is more interesting. I do not alas have as much time to devote to this as I would like, and when the thread becomes so long it is particularly problematic. I wish I could somehow be notified when there is a true solution.

[jetkins]

---

panther68 wrote:

I do NOT like that they've placed the tabs along the top of the browser window.  I prefer them to be exactly where they were.  I won't say it's the worst decision Mozilla could have made, as there are others, as well, but it is, most definitely, among the top five.

---

There's an excellent discussion of the reasoning behind this change at http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/why-are-tabs-top

[Tony_Weiss Administrator]

I understand that this is a long thread to read, however I recommend that you read PieterV's post and Abhay's post, as they provide some excellent information on this topic. Thanks.

[jamason56]

Eenywebb - You can subscribe to this thread and be emailed everytime someone posts. It's not a sure bet that there will be a post that officially announces the 'fix' in this thread but the odds are good that someone will make such a post.

~ John

[LinYu2]

---

Tony_Weiss wrote:

I understand that this is a long thread to read, however I recommend that you read PieterV's post and Abhay's post, as they provide some excellent information on this topic. Thanks.

---

Tony,

I do not want to be or even sound paternalistic, but your last post leaves much to be desired. As we all know, everything has its own timing, and the posts from Abhay (edited by yourself) and PieterV were quite welcomed at the time they came out.

At this point in time, Symantec (and you, by association, as an administrator of these forums) completely lost the window of opportunity for timely addressing the concerns of all your customers who also use Firefox. What I mean is, at the time those two employees of Symantec's wrote their postings, they were well received because they showed that Symantec was paying at least some attention to the users and they helped to understand what the company was doing to resolve the problem.

That timing, however, is gone. Instead of coming here today and refer us to postings one week old, I would (I guess we all would) appreciate it if you had come with a clarification about this big confusion reportedly being spread by different people from within Symantec's customer services about the estimated date for a patch; and/or you could have come with an authoritative update on the progress being made on the issue. This, I believe, would go a long way towards soothing the wound that has been opened, not your sterile referral to old postings that, at this time, do not bring anything new to the discussion, other than adding to the already widespread aggravation among Symantec's customers.

I apologize for being so blunt, but judging from the apparent nonchalance (to say the least) with which it has addressed the issue so far, I think Symantec is NOT properly gauging the frustration it has created (or helped to create and let grow) in most of its loyal customers.

Best regards.

[bigdude]

I downlowded the new Firefox 4 as soon as it camoe out and have been frustrated eversince.  The fact is that we are not getting everything we paid for from Symantec.

Can we expect an extention, free of charge of our NIS subsription for the equilevant amount of time it takes to get NIS in sinc with Firefox 4? 

[jamason56]

LinYu2 - I agree with your assessment of Tony's post. I felt much the same way as you do after I read his post.

With no disrepect meant, I feel it was a cop out for Tony to refer to older posts without posting Symantec's lastest, official status of this issue, and almost condescending as well. I think the number of posts in this thread show how much interest, and frustration, there is by Symantec customers on this issue.

~ John

[Tony_Weiss Administrator]

Hi LinYu2, please see my comments in red in your below post.

---

LinYu2 wrote:

Tony,

I do not want to be or even sound paternalistic, but your last post leaves much to be desired. As we all know, everything has its own timing, and the posts from Abhay (edited by yourself) and PieterV were quite welcomed at the time they came out.

At this point in time, Symantec (and you, by association, as an administrator of these forums) completely lost the window of opportunity for timely addressing the concerns of all your customers who also use Firefox. What I mean is, at the time those two employees of Symantec's wrote their postings, they were well received because they showed that Symantec was paying at least some attention to the users and they helped to understand what the company was doing to resolve the problem.

TW: I apologize; I don't follow. The concerns before Abhay's post were that there was no status info about a FF4 patch. The concerns after Abhay's post were that Symantec is taking too long to update. And the concerns after Pieter's post is that the toolbar isn't working with Firefox 4. The purpose of my reply was to point new posters to the critical information that they may have missed, since it seemed that some complaints had regressed to the initial one (I also updated the first post with this information).

That timing, however, is gone.  Instead of coming here today and refer us to postings one week old, I would (I guess we all would) appreciate it if you had come with a clarification about this big confusion reportedly being spread by different people from within Symantec's customer services about the estimated date for a patch; TW: Do you mean this post? I believe we addressed that early on. However, to reiterate, the update will not be released tomorrow. Are there other examples of this confusion? Or just that one post? If so, I'd like to address them. and/or you could have come with an authoritative update on the progress being made on the issue. TW: Our team is continuing to test the patch. If more exciting progress were occurring, we would let you know. Of course, we'd like it to be "ready for prime-time" as soon as possible, but our enthusiasm about releasing it must be tempered with the realism of bugs and testing. I'm sure you understand. This, I believe, would go a long way towards soothing the wound that has been opened, not your sterile referral to old postings that, at this time, do not bring anything new to the discussion, other than adding to the already widespread aggravation among Symantec's customers.

TW: I am sorry if you feel we've handled this poorly. I think that there are a handful of very upset customers who are extremely vocal in their desire to get their Norton products fully compatible with Firefox 4 immediately. I think we've done well in communicating a timeframe for the update, and elaborating on why it is not released immediately following the FF4 release. However, I've seen no comments regarding Pieter's post (which has some excellent details and facts about the process), which lead me to believe that few people have taken the time to read it.

I apologize for being so blunt, but judging from the apparent nonchalance (to say the least) with which it has addressed the issue so far, I think Symantec is NOT properly gauging the frustration it has created (or helped to create and let grow) in most of its loyal customers.

TW: When I write that I understand your frustration, that is sincere. As many long-time forum users know, I am an advocate for customers and their issues with the products.  I understand that even the most critical customer just wants the problem to go away. And when a customer express vitriol toward our organization for a specific issue, I take it very seriously. However, I also expect some things of that customer as well -- articulation of the specific issue that is causing the frustration, digestion of the information that directly explains this issue (or at least discussion of that info), and the desire that ultimately we can resolve this issue to the mutual benefit of both groups.

A few questions:

1) Did Pieter and Abhay's posts sufficiently answer the critical questions on this thread/subject?

2) If not, which SPECIFIC questions remain?

3) Which posts after Pieter's explanation contain new questions that have yet to be answered? Links would be helpful.

4) For the unanswered questions in #3, are there any questions that you deem as vital for all customers, and the current cause of the deep frustration?

Best regards.

TW: And to you as well.

---

[LinYu2]

Tony,

Kudos!...

First of all, let me thank you for your elaborate and, I guess, laborious response... I'm sure I would not be deserving of as much time and effort from your part. Honestly.

This said, I am also sure you allow me to suggest here that, at times, not counting the apologies, you almost sounded like if we were in a court of law but, such as in a court of law, you did not have to apologize. I did it, for a reason, but you were not as much blunt, after all, as I may have been in my previous posting.

Now, about the confusion:

There is more than one post making reference to different estimated dates for the release of a patch, and assuming you are following this thread as closely as I am sure you have been, there is no need to waste any more precious time going back to them; suffice to say that three different date estimates have been floated around, all alleged to have been originated from within Symantec’s services.

If you also read my post as thoroughly as to enable you to deliver such a detailed response, you must have clearly understood that the core of my posting was the apparent "nonchalance" (that's the word I used) with which, it seemed to me, Symantec has been handling the frustrations of so many of its loyal customers.  Hence, my aggravation about what I perceived as being your waste of time on issues that had had their timing and were known to everybody, instead of addressing these newer, equally serious allegations about what I called "the confusion"...

At the bottom, I think, is this simple fact: From reading the first few pages of this thread, Symantec does not seem to have faced this issue, at the beginning, with the level of seriousness and respect its customers certainly deserved, under the circumstances. I spoke about a wound... And anything that may even resemble a continuation of that perceived initial attitude is bound to be felt like salt being rubbed against the wound.  This is how I sincerely felt.

You state that "the update will not be released tomorrow" and I take it as meaning March 31, 2011. But, somewhat curiously, you say nothing about the other reported dates and I gather that you consider the time frame you addressed "early on" still stands. Fair enough.  But would you agree that when different dates popped up, you or someone else from Symantec should have immediately stepped in and taken the time to get the record straight? I would say this would be much more effective at "soothing the wound" than just making a link to postings that, in all likelihood, were already known to everyone (bear in mind the kudos they received...)

An early apology would also have been as much welcomed as it would have been appropriate but, as far as I know, this was the first time in this thread that I saw the word spelled out by someone from Symantec... And I thank you for this.

Before I finish, let me just add that you may or may not want to make any additional comments to this "storm in a teapot" that I unwillingly may have caused.  On my part, while still standing behind everything I wrote before --  including my apologies  --  I hereby rest my case on this particular "side distraction" from the true reason underlying this thread and I promise to put it behind my back while still looking forward to the day Symantec will announce, not the fascinating, legendary "el dorado", but one simple and as much desired patch...

Best regards.