Floating_Red wrote:
erik_carlstrom wrote:
Red,
Not understanding why you have automatic LiveUpdate disabled. Do you have pulse updates disabled as well? The intent of the 09 design is to get you your updates in small chunks to ensure that it uses as little CPU and bandwidth as possible.
That said, are you seeing the CPU usage during Idle time or when you are actively using the computer? We specifically created the idle time scans so that any actions we need to take that could take up high cpu usage would not interfere with your everyday activities. High cpu usage during idle time is not a bad thing. High cpu usage when your are actively using the machine is. which are you seeing?
Regarding the Automatic Norton LiveUpdate, I like to know what's been Installed on my P.C., so that is why I have it Disabled. If symantec could allow Users to just install Pulse Updates without anything else being Installed when having A.N.LU. On, I would have loved N.I.S. 2009, but I don't because of this - that, and the "Idle" Scanning happening. When Idle Time Scanning is Turned Off, it should remain Off and should not do a Scan at all. Do you understand what I mean? For example, symantec could list all the Tasks that are Background Tasks in the Options and have a Check Box next to each and the User could check the Processes they want to Run and un-check the Process they do not want to Run.
I am now seeing Idle Time Quick Scan happening every day now which is un-acceptable. I do Quick Scans and Full System Scans myself; Quick Scans are run on a Daily business [Manual] and Full System Scans at least Weekly, depending on the ThreatCon. For example, when I am using my computer, a Quick Idle Scan Starts and slows my computer, creating high C.P.U. Usage.
Up until just recently I had some similar beliefs as the original poster, and I always did all updates and full scans manually - for both performance reasons and because I didn't want the computer doing stuff that I hadn't told it to do, which kinds of creeps me out (or it used to).
However, and I hope this doesn't make me sound overzealous 
or something, since I recently installed Norton Internet Security 2009 I've begun to see some advantages to just letting the app do its thing as far as scans. However, at least for the time being, I still do manual updates - just a habit after the CPU-hogging of NIS 2007 that I was using previously - someday I might let NIS2009 do auto-updates too (I'm still getting warmed up to the idea).
I set NIS 2009 idle time to 30 minutes (I hope I'm referring to the correct thing here) and also I set the part where full-screen makes it go silent or whatever the correct term is, just based on my past experiences with earlier versions of NIS which would slow down the computer at inconvenient times when I was trying to work on some project or just surf or whatever. After using NIS 2009 for a while though, I'm slowly getting myself used to the idea that it's okay to let the Norton app run its processes when it deems it necessary.
The only disadvantage I can see, is that every time I see the HD light flickering now because of whatever it is that NIS is doing (after the computer has been idle for a while) - I wonder how much that extra HD activity is going to make my HD wear out sooner than it ordinarily would (I tend to keep my hardware for years, sometimes decades, far beyond what 'normal' people would consider to be obsolete, only replacing things when I can't readily get spare parts anymore) although I'm sure that silly HD-wearing-out thing is probably quite trivial and insignificant (and HDs are cheap these days anyway). Besides, the MS System Restore wakes up the HD once a day or so anyway to do its automatic restore point thingie (which I let it do because it's saved my behind a time or two), so I suppose the Norton scan stuff isn't that much different. As to Norton updates in the middle of the night, there aren't any, because I disconnect from the 'net when not actually online (yeah I have broadband internet, but, or perhaps because of having broadband, I'm paranoid).
I'm to the point now, since Norton Internet Security 2009 seems so well-behaved, that I don't mind the idea of it "thinking on its own" to some extent at least, because it saves me having to do a bunch of manual stuff (I used to always do manual scans, every day). If Norton Internet Security wants to work while I'm sound asleep, then so much the better - less for me to have to do later. 
Although I can understand why a person would want the option to choose how things operate on their computer. NIS 2009 really seems okay though, so far anyway. Never thought I would ever advocate letting my computer run on its own without my explicitly knowing what it's up to, but here I am... 
(That having been said, [off-topic but somewhat related] I can understand the original poster's points about not wanting things installed without user knowledge/consent - for instance I never let Microsoft do auto-updates anymore, after some earlier problems with that - I like to pick and choose what I need and what I don't need. But MS isn't Norton.)