Product Suggestions

[LeppeRMessiaH]

Other antivirus software (like Avira, Avast and Comodo) are keeping the configuration data in files  (INIs and not only) that are located in the All Users\Application Data folder so the user can backup them and use them again in case of a new install or format instead of reconfiguring the program. Kaspersky even has this option built in the Settings menu, you can save and restore a configuration file that is encrypted and cannot be edited in case that's the Symantec's fear.

I took a look inside the registry and also found nothing.

[cycle]

I would like the ability to save NIS settings to file which can then be used to reset both the PC they were created on and also used on other PC's as I have both a desktop and a laptop and configure the hard disc layouts similarly. The items saved should include as a minimum: Directories excluded from Scans Directories excluded from Autoprotect and Sonar Files excluded from Signature MS Office automatic scan

[yowanvista Contributor]

We really need this feature, can't the Devs do something about it. At least add it in NIS2012

[JohnnyDingo]

I just installed Norton 5 and couldn't believe this wasn't available.

Please add!

[crisoco8722]

---

LeppeRMessiaH wrote:

Other antivirus software (like Avira, Avast and Comodo) are keeping the configuration data in files  (INIs and not only) that are located in the All Users\Application Data folder so the user can backup them and use them again in case of a new install or format instead of reconfiguring the program. Kaspersky even has this option built in the Settings menu, you can save and restore a configuration file that is encrypted and cannot be edited in case that's the Symantec's fear.

I took a look inside the registry and also found nothing.

---

Norton Internet security 2012

When are Norton going to recognise what a difficult task it is to completely uninstall a security suite and then re-establish all the user configuration settings.

I think it is quite rediculous when I have to take a screen shot of every section of the user interface, carefully save it in Word document and then have to cross check each setting when re-establishing the program.

I realise it may be a difficult task to implement but bearing in mind the amount of configurable options it is absolutely necessary.

[spoz]

Well, here's an even more obvious failure in NIS, to the detriment of all us faithful users. ...

I just installed NIS on my wife's PC, and now see a major failure with the whole "install on up to 3 PCs" thing, and Norton Management.  Namely, all my customized settings on my PC are precisely what I want on hers, since I'm the local sysadmin ... but I see no way to facilitate that easily.

Why isn't THAT built into Norton Management, i.e. transporting SETTINGS across devices?

Symantec should be embarrassed about this!  It's a gross imposition on users.

[StefCoulombe]

In all fairness, there aren't *that* many options to set; you don't need a screenshot of each window, you just need a pen and paper--or better yet, you just need to think about what you're doing, understand the options, and make decisions accordingly.  Given all the time that people put into customizing (and re-customizing) other aspects of their computerized existence, an extra five minutes every year or so when you have to re-install isn't really that bad.  ;p

I like the idea of having the option, but we needn't demonize Norton for *every* little thing.  (However, I understand the need to vent when frustrated, too--I've done it myself, I'm sorry to say.)  ;p

[jedinc]

I just installed NORTON NIS 2013 only to find that all of my username and passwords have been wiped out as well as my settings.  This was not necessary, the files could have been backed up and instructions given for re-installation of them.  In fact I am not sure that I have found a way to reinstall and reuse them, without going to each site and typing in each username/password.  If so, Norton has not made me very happy.   As far as I can see this version is presenting a difficult learning process.  I have been using Norton products for many years, and this is the biggest mistake yet.

[spoz]

With all due respect, you really don't get it.  Perhaps you don't really use the full depth and breadth of NIS?

In the first case, rest assured that there are "*that* many" options to set - and it takes much longer than five minutes.  Over the years, I have customized pretty much every facet of NIS, as any advanced user might.  To have to go in and recreate all that environment, from "Antivirus and Sonar Exclusions" down to user-specified programs in "Silent Mode", it takes a heck of lot longer than five minutes - and pen and paper don't cut it, rest assured!  Go and look some time - check each of the four tabs and each of their four (five in the case of "General") selections, and each of the 3-10 items in each selection ... are you getting this math?  It's a big number!

Regardless, whether there were two options or, as in the case of NIS, several hundred, the principle remains: smart software retains your settings over update/upgrade installations.  Period.

NIS is one of the most useful and necessary components in my computer-sanity arsenal.  I tout its praises far and wide.  I would never "demonize" Norton - I've been a Symantec shareholder for over a decade!  However, I also will call a spade a spade, and for Symantec to not migrate user-selected options properly is just simply lazy, careless, shoddy programming.

There is no excuse for it.

The intention is not in any way to vent, as that doesn't help the share price.  The intention is to get Symantec to continue to remove impediments to carefree use of the premier security program available.  Just consider the [awful] state of the NIS predecessors some five years ago, and the huge leap forward to the current release!  They can make magic, when they put their minds to it.  Or they can be lazy.

As a shareholder, and as a user [from the days when I was a beta tester for Norton Utilities on Windows 95], I want to see Symantec stay above the crowd, not watch them get lazy.

---

StefCoulombe wrote:

In all fairness, there aren't *that* many options to set; you don't need a screenshot of each window, you just need a pen and paper--or better yet, you just need to think about what you're doing, understand the options, and make decisions accordingly.  Given all the time that people put into customizing (and re-customizing) other aspects of their computerized existence, an extra five minutes every year or so when you have to re-install isn't really that bad.  ;p

I like the idea of having the option, but we needn't demonize Norton for *every* little thing.  (However, I understand the need to vent when frustrated, too--I've done it myself, I'm sorry to say.)  ;p

---

[StefCoulombe]

Fair enough.  I did not mean to belittle your concerns, but rather to deal with one of my own (the general downward spiral in user awareness in regards to the software that they depend on).  I *do* personalize my own security software (NIS and 360), and I agree that it is frustrating to make certain adjustments only to have to reinstall (and re-adjust)--however, I still figure that a yearly (or so) upgrade is a good opportunity to encourage users to re-evaluate their setting preferences.  (And I personally prefer the pen-and-paper method even when making certain changes to my Office preferences, as I have never found the MS "save your settings" function to work satisfactorily.  Even with a hundred-some-odd checkpoints, a quick "five-minute" checklist can do it for me.)

Normally, I don't "defend" software that I find to be lazy or deficient (at least, not *where* I find it to be so).

So, I see your point--and I understand your point of view.  Smart software *should* retain settings over upgrades.  I agree.  However, for the sake of the other 99% (*) of users, it isn't that bad to "encourage" personal decision making on occasion.  (If it is just a matter of programmer laziness, then indeed, shame on them.)

(*)  97% of all statistics are made up on the spot, of course.  ;p

(Still, though, no offense intended.)