NORTON Beta 2015 (version 22)

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
21
Sandro_cm wrote:
twixt wrote:

Please remember they only fired "ol'-cheapthink-breath" (the former CEO) on March 20th of this year.  It's going to take them a while to bring new hires (even if they're competent) up-to-speed.

Then there's the issue of whether or not Engineering or Marketing is going to be in charge of the new feature set.

If Marketing remains in charge - my guess is it's going to be same-old/same-old - probably with an even-more-infantile UI - that sacrifices functionality to look the same as the SmartPhone UI.  (blech!)

Furthermore, because Marketing probably won't admit its idiocy - there will not be a proper return to local control of the Vault for Identity Safe.

Hopefully, Engineering will take back control of the Product - and somebody with real-world-smarts will take over control of the NAV/NIS/N360 Product Line.  At that point, sanity may return.  I fervently hope so.  We will all have to wait and see.

This is your personal opinion and can also be shared by many.
Some would still have Widows 95 (would remain fossilized), others would opt for new technologies such as cloud storage and everything else...
IMO, smartphones are becoming like computers and not vice versa.
In the past BSOD, data loss and blocks of computers during startup was almost normal. Today these have become a rarity, So Welcome, New Technology!

Hi, Sandro_cm.  It's not as if there haven't been complaints about the new UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 21.  There has been a firestorm of complaints about usability - in comparison to the UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 19.

 

The UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 21 matches that used in typical SmartPhone apps - it is simply not appropriate for Desktop Apps - and to think otherwise is to fly in the face of common sense.  See the complaints in the following threads:

 

Thread 1:  http://community.norton.com/t5/Product-Suggestions/Please-Return-The-Local-Vault/td-p/978289

 

Thread 2:  http://community.norton.com/t5/Product-Suggestions/Suggestion-for-v21-vault/m-p/1017325

 

 

What is required here is some plain-old-common-sense.

 

I am not impressed by software developers who try to fit a hippo into a tutu.

 

And then, having Symantec's marketing department try to promote the idea that said hippo "gracefully" performs Swan Lake on ice skates - simply adds insult to injury.

 

IMO, there is absolutely no justification for UI changes that sacrifice usability for "trendy" or "hip".  This is just plain silly.

 

 

22

And here's a thread about N360's GUI.

 

http://community.norton.com/t5/Product-Suggestions/Suggesting-for-a-new-GUI-for-N360-v21/td-p/1015771

23
twixt wrote:
Hi, Sandro_cm.  It's not as if there haven't been complaints about the new UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 21.  There has been a firestorm of complaints about usability - in comparison to the UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 19.

The UI for Identity Safe used in NIS 21 matches that used in typical SmartPhone apps - it is simply not appropriate for Desktop Apps - and to think otherwise is to fly in the face of common sense.  See the complaints in the following threads:

Thread 1:  http://community.norton.com/t5/Product-Suggestions/Please-Return-The-Local-Vault/td-p/978289

Thread 2:  http://community.norton.com/t5/Product-Suggestions/Suggestion-for-v21-vault/m-p/1017325

What is required here is some plain-old-common-sense.

I am not impressed by software developers who try to fit a hippo into a tutu.

And then, having Symantec's marketing department try to promote the idea that said hippo "gracefully" performs Swan Lake on ice skates - simply adds insult to injury.

IMO, there is absolutely no justification for UI changes that sacrifice usability for "trendy" or "hip".  This is just plain silly.

As I said in my previous post, many might share your thought, I've read a lot about the complaints that users have reported about, isn't even necessary I read them again.
I agree that the UI of the ID Safe could be improved, allowing the user to be able to opt to save data local or in the cloud.
We should also consider that this methodology is new, and therefore one might expect that in future versions of NIS, it will be further simplified and improved.
I think the complaints from users are more due to a habit of how they have interacted in a certain way (for many years) with the old ID Safe, now they still cannot accept and/or familiarize with the new version which has been completely changed.
Even the way, how users react to this change, it seems to me entirely inappropriate.
I read post where this topic has been dealt with often offensive terms to Symantec, and I think this is unacceptable in a civilized world.
If I had even a doubt that Symantec is only here to make money and neglecting his customers, I'd be the first to turn to another software manufacturer.
I trust Symantec and how they work!

24

Sandro_cm wrote:

As I said in my previous post, many might share your thought, I've read a lot about the complaints that users have reported about, isn't even necessary I read them again.
I agree that the UI of the ID Safe could be improved, allowing the user to be able to opt to save data local or in the cloud.
We should also consider that this methodology is new, and therefore one might expect that in future versions of NIS, it will be further simplified and improved.
I think the complaints from users are more due to a habit of how they have interacted in a certain way (for many years) with the old ID Safe, now they still cannot accept and/or familiarize with the new version which has been completely changed.
Even the way, how users react to this change, it seems to me entirely inappropriate.
I read post where this topic has been dealt with often offensive terms to Symantec, and I think this is unacceptable in a civilized world.
If I had even a doubt that Symantec is only here to make money and neglecting his customers, I'd be the first to turn to another software manufacturer.
I trust Symantec and how they work!

 

My complaint about Symantec's handling of the GUI changes does not revolve around the changes themselves.  It revolves around the fact that IMO clarity and ease-of-use have decreased as a result of the changes - without any compensatory benefit in other directions.

 

Furthermore, these changes have been implemented without any evidence Symantec is investigating the perceived deficiencies - despite the huge numbers of people objecting over multiple thousands of posts over multiple threads in multiple forums.

 

 

Currently, the evidence is overwhelming that objections are being ignored.  I am in no way alone in this conclusion - it has been mentioned by many many others.

 

During the tenure of previous CEOs, Symantec have traditionally been much more responsive to customer complaints.  This recent change in Symantec's attitude towards its customers is not evolution - it is devolution.

 

IMO the "head in the sand" mentality that Symantec have been displaying since shortly after the previous CEO took over - is completely disrespectful to the user.

 

 

The careful attention to usability which Symantec traditionally displayed in the past - is simply missing.  I can't believe for a moment that any competent GUI interface usability testing was performed as part of development of the modifications for the current GUI.

 

IMO, the current changes are "not ready for prime time" - yet the product was released (and has remained unchanged) despite the abovementioned criticisms.  It is the lack of response to these criticisms which has led to the current state of affairs.

 

 

Symantec's current behaviour is not the behaviour of the Company upon which I based my original purchase decisions over many decades in the past.

 

I want the Company to return to operating as it did when I could confidently expect a Symantec Product to be:

 

a)  clearly functional

b)  operate as promised

c)  deliver the benefit I desire

 

without requiring me to:

 

a)  go through circuitous and unnecessarily-complex hoops with a GUI whose functionality I consider inferior to older examples

b)  sacrifice the option of continuing with V19 Identity-Vault backup technology - where an existing code-base already exists

c)  settle for a cloud-based security model that replaces what I had before - without recourse

 

 

To reiterate:

 

Much of the behaviour leading to the above-documented changes - is nothing other than just-plain-silly.  This needs to stop.

 

25

Until the complaints are exposed in an appropriate manner and without offending anyone, leaving inside the drawer words like "idiots, idiocy and beyond", we can say that we have already made progress.
After that, we'll have to wait to see how Symantec will address this matter in the future.
It is not my intention to go further about this topic.

26

Sorry folks, we're still finishing up some things with the products on the Beta download page. I do not recommend downloading or installing anything you might find on those sites yet. Things still are still being changed, and as you can see nothing has been announced yet. Don't worry - when something becomes available we will let you know. For now, please refrain from posting on the topic. Thanks.

 

Gayathri Rajendiran
Norton Forums Administrator
Symantec Corporation

27
ferenzzz wrote:

 

Any news when beta's gonna be released; NORTON Beta 2015 (version 22) ?

Hi ferenzzz:

 

The beta for Norton 2015 (v. 22.x) is now available for download from the <removed>.  The forum board for the Norton Security / Norton Security with Backup Public Beta also went online today.  At first glance, it appears that NIS and NAV have been rolled into a single product, Norton Security, while N360 will now be known as Norton Security with Backup.

 

Thanks to remco8264 for posting news about the beta here in the Tech Outpost board today.

-------------
MS Windows 32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox 30.0 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.5.0.28
HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS

28

imacri, thanks for the links. The Forum Beta section links have not been populated yet so you need the direct link you posted for now. I downloaded the Beta and will try it on my older Windows 7 system.

 

Jim

29
PhoneMan wrote:

 

The Forum Beta section links have not been populated yet so you need the direct link you posted for now.

Hi PhoneMan:

 

My apologies, and thanks for the update. I checked the Beta Forum board this morning and Symantec employees had already pinned three posts with instructions on how to participate in the Norton Security beta testing, and all the links were working correctly.  Symantec must have taken down the board since then - I noticed that remco8264's post in the Tech Outpost board has been removed as well.

 

Norton might have already uncovered a problem with the first beta release of v. 22.x so I'd suggest that users exercise caution if they download the beta version to their test machine from the direct link before the Beta Forum board is up and running again.

-------------
MS Windows 32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox 30.0 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.5.0.28
HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS