Remove "advertising" features like the vulnerable protection link and the monthly report
Message Edited by Wikipedian on 11-17-2009 04:20 AM
'Vulnerability Protection' - this isn't a feature; currently this information belongs on a web page right next to the Malware/Virus/Spyware threat list that the Norton software advises that it is protecting me against. As a user I don't care what you are protecting me against; I bought your software with the expectation that your software will address and adequately resolve, in conjunction with any malware I may have, any of the software/operating system/malware vulnerabilities I may have with my system. When I click on 'Vulnerability Protection' I expect to be notified of any updates to the programs that I have installed and a link to the vendor's site that will resolve the issue. So this is a fail on the current NIS 2010 versions behalf (17.1.0.19).
Norton should create an 'Online Resources' link under the 'Help and Support' menu and index this information accordingly. If Norton would like to integrate this function as a feature, then take a look at what other Internet Security vendors offer in terms of program 'vulnerabilities'; at least they'll only list what applications you have installed and what the current recommended version of that program is, along with a direct link to the program vendor's web site...
The same applies to the 'Norton Insight Network' feature. Again, I'd push for this feature to reside under the 'Online Resources' link. As it stands, I can't believe that Norton have committed development resources to create an animation and a local arbitary loop counter into your existing product to update the 'File Count' into this feature.Sorry, but a critical measure, the 'Computer Count', according to the Help file is missing from this feature...
I agree. I'd like to see some of these suggestions incorporated into the current NIS 2010 product, rather than waiting another year for the 2011 release.
Don't think so......definitely be included in NIS2011....it cost too much to add stuff into NIS2010...moreover most users has already paid for NIS2010...it will be too much of addition that is not feasible for Symantec.
I agree. I'd like to see some of these suggestions incorporated into the current NIS 2010 product, rather than waiting another year for the 2011 release.
Don't think so......definitely be included in NIS2011....it cost too much to add stuff into NIS2010...moreover most users has already paid for NIS2010...it will be too much of addition that is not feasible for Symantec.
Sorry Sea_Monster
I'd like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that it will 'definitely be included in NIS2011'. Unless you can confirm that you are a Norton employee and that you 'are in the know' then what you've posted is simply speculation...
People buy a product not just when it first comes out, but throughout the whole year. Subscription starts when product is activated. The patches that come thru, I don't think are just fixes to a product, but should include improvements also. If people have to wait till next year to see improvements or better options, this is how Symantec will lose customers because some of the other products already offer the desired improvements.
"People buy a product not just when it first comes out, but throughout the whole year. Subscription starts when product is activated. The patches that come thru, I don't think are just fixes to a product, but should include improvements also. If people have to wait till next year to see improvements or better options, this is how Symantec will lose customers because some of the other products already offer the desired improvements."
I tend to agree with you. However, software development is far from easy, especially from a QA standpoint. Sometimes, more lead time is needed to incorporate enhancements into the product. The most important thing is that the "bugs" be corrected first. Once the actual product has been proven stable, consideration can be given to improved features. NIS is a complex product and while I have my own list of things that I would like changed, it is best, IMO, to have something that is rock-solid.
1. "Download Insight" and "Safe Web" features to Opera! It's big shame that Symantec support only IE and FF.
2. There should be option in settings, example "Unrated object" and choices "Allow/Ask/Deny". So when i have selected "Ask" and firewall is in automatic mode NIS decide program setting automatically but when NIS detect unrated object it ask from user that "what i should do". Now NIS just allow program execution and that is not good thing at all.
I for one would first like to congratulate symantec on a job very well done with NIS 2010. I installed it on one of my two home computers about 5 days ago and love it! No problems at all. I was worried at first about my computer because I was never able to get NIS 2009 and IE8 to work together (ccsvchst.exe would lock up on restarts), but that is in the past now that NIS 2010 is out. IE8 and NIS 2010 are working beautifully together (hope I didn't just jinx it though ).
The one improvement that would be great to implement in the 2011 version is a feature that physically blocks you from going to sites marked with yellow exclamation points or red x's by norton safeweb (with the option to disable this feature in the settings). Currently, NIS will only prevent you from entering a site if it detects phishing, while sites marked with red x's are allowed to load with just a pop-up being showed to the user.
The only other thing I would like to mention is the ongoing fight to get toolbar support for more browsers like Chrome and Opera. In my opinion, even though this would be very nice to have (especially chrome ), it doesn't necessarily need to be a #1 priority until we see another browser reach at least 10% market share. That would be a good sign for symantec that not having support for whichever browser that is could actually result in a loss of potential customers.
- Options being provided about which Background Tasks that you want to Run, e.g. Pulse Updates and no other Task should Run; there should be options for all Background Tasks either next to them or in the Settings, not really bothered where the Options are located.
- Norton Safe Web Ratings on Search Results.
- Being able to Run a Full System Scan from the Right-Click Menu.
- Full System Scan being Completed in Safe Mode recorded by the Security History.
- What Virus Definitions you have installed being displayed in the Security History, like the I.P.S. and W.P.D. are.
I would like to see during the installation process some choices for the user to set or have some say in how strong they want something like Sonar to behave. Having to wait until the program is installed is many times too late to set your preferences. I have been seeing this with all the complaints about Sonar 2 now in the 2010 products and how it is eating up new exe files and programs. I have this concern about this Sonar 2 eating up very old programs too and old online computer games just because not that many people who use the old programs may be using Symantec products also. The installation might take a bit longer, but then it could be some what tweaked before all your programs which are safe are gone. Seeing all these problems with Sonar 2 is what is delaying me from wanting to try 2010 products.
- Options being provided about which Background Tasks that you want to Run, e.g. Pulse Updates and no other Task should Run; there should be options for all Background Tasks either next to them or in the Settings, not really bothered where the Options are located.
- Norton Safe Web Ratings on Images' Search Results.
- Being able to Run a Full System Scan from the Right-Click Menu.
- Full System Scan being Completed in Safe Mode recorded by the Security History.
- What Virus Definitions you have installed being displayed in the Security History, like the I.P.S. and W.P.D. are.
Correction in Red.
---------------------------------------------
I'd also like to see all "Warning" and "Caution" Web Sites being Blocked, regardless of if they are Phishing Web Sites or not, as well as all Web Sites that haven't been Tested yet, a.k.a. Suspicious Web Sites, being Blocked.
Message Edited by Floating_Red on 11-23-2009 10:38 PM
Number one on my wish list would be more control of SONAR.
The topic has been seriously beaten in at least one other thread, but SONAR is frustrating in its present form. The intent to protect the user is good, but the inability to effectively override is not. I'm confident that Symantec can find a way to resolve this.
It's quite simple to create a 'Backup' of the Data, transfer it to a Removeable device and then Restore Data from that.
It works ok with/between NIS 2010 and N360.
But could there be an Option when restoring the Data, to " Merge" the data with what is already in the Identity Safe ?
At the moment the only option is to Overwrites any Data which is already there.
This would save time and trouble.
That's a good question and raises another one.
What does "overwrite" mean, in this context. Clearly, if my old file had an entry for zipado.com and my new file had an entry for zipado.com, the old one would replace the new one. But what if my new file had an entry for hippydaze.net and my old file had no entry for hippydaze.net -- does that mean I would get to keep hippydaze.net?
Or does "overwrite" actually mean "replace"; another linguistic marvel that confuses more than helps. I know that when microsoft warns that if I copy a folder over an existing folder of the same name, that data might get replaced, it means only that same named files will be affected, unique files will have no problem.
What does "overwrite" mean, in this context. Clearly, if my old file had an entry for zipado.com and my new file had an entry for zipado.com, the old one would replace the new one. But what if my new file had an entry for hippydaze.net and my old file had no entry for hippydaze.net -- does that mean I would get to keep hippydaze.net?
Or does "overwrite" actually mean "replace"; another linguistic marvel that confuses more than helps. I know that when microsoft warns that if I copy a folder over an existing folder of the same name, that data might get replaced, it means only that same named files will be affected, unique files will have no problem.
mij [XP3 and Vista2, IE 8, Firefox 3.5.5 and 3.6.2, NSW 12 Basic, NIS2010 (17.1.0.19); No other active securityware] From Dictionary.com: Update: to incorporate new or more accurate information; Upgrade: a new versionviz
Or perhaps I should have said that at the moment, all current data is deleted and replaced with the new data.
Bone,
I wasn't talking about your clarity, but Symantec's.
Is that what you were told, that all current data is deleted and replaced with the data from the backup folder? So even non-conflicting data would be removed? If so, that is both sad and silly of Symantec.
Is that what you were told, that all current data is deleted and replaced with the data from the backup folder? So even non-conflicting data would be removed? If so, that is both sad and silly of Symantec.
The popup seems pretty explicit; it's going to replace [all] existing data with data stored in the backup. I assume that's because the data resides in a single file that is just overwriting the existing file, without regard to content.
I don't use Identity Safe (I have another product I've used for years), but your suggestion for a "merge" option is logical. As mij noted, that's the norm elsewhere.
Speaking of Identity Safe backups, I think the Backup function should be far more obvious and accessible to Joe User. Having it hidden away in the Settings dialog pretty much guarantees that 99% of users will never take a backup. (End users don't touch settings; they scare them.)
Heck, I make a point of going through the settings of every knew piece of software I install, and even I missed it (and would have been crying if not for my own external backups).
I suggest it be placed on the main Cards & Log-ins drop-down menu, or at the very least added to the Manage sub-menu.
).
), it doesn't necessarily need to be a #1 priority until we see another browser reach at least 10% market share. That would be a good sign for symantec that not having support for whichever browser that is could actually result in a loss of potential customers. 