Tech83 wrote:Hi! Metalhead82,
I mostly was refering to the elderly and children; if you feel comfortable insulting those age groups fine. To each his own.
Hi Tech83
I do not think that metalhead82 (or anyone else) would have been able to ascertain from your previous posts in this thread that you were referring to children and the elderly.
MetalHead82,
My apologizes on my prior statement; I admit it was being a jerk on my part.
Tech83 -
No reason for the apology; everybody is entitled to their own opinion here. I think that having a defrag reminder in a suite that constantly downloads definitions and generates multiple logs is a good thing.
Dbrisendine,
It does not excuse my rude and unprofessional attitude. :( And Metalhead82 as well as other forum readers do deserve an apology.
Please do not get me wrong I appreciate your statement, but as said earlier I was rude and unprofessional.
So I was looking at the description of all the other antivirus products symantec offers and the NIS 2010 is the only one that offers antispam features while the 360 and the regular antivirus do not offer antispam. But the 360 offers the backup and restore feature while all the others do not while still lacking optimization features so I guess they should rename it Norton 270 instead...
I just want to make it clear though that since 2009 I love their Antivirus feature. It did wonders curing a worm problem I had once. I just think that this optimization feature is misplaced and should be in another product. Its bad for SSDs which will die an early death if optimized frequently. I wish someone at Symantec will take note of this discussion and throw this feature into the 360 product instead to make all these folks who have no idea what it is to optimize a drive happy, and make guys like me who just want NIS without the bells and whistles happy...
Thanks.
davidm71 wrote:So I was looking at the description of all the other antivirus products symantec offers and the NIS 2010 is the only one that offers antispam features while the 360 and the regular antivirus do not offer antispam. But the 360 offers the backup and restore feature while all the others do not while still lacking optimization features so I guess they should rename it Norton 270 instead...
I just want to make it clear though that since 2009 I love their Antivirus feature. It did wonders curing a worm problem I had once. I just think that this optimization feature is misplaced and should be in another product. Its bad for SSDs which will die an early death if optimized frequently. I wish someone at Symantec will take note of this discussion and throw this feature into the 360 product instead to make all these folks who have no idea what it is to optimize a drive happy, and make guys like me who just want NIS without the bells and whistles happy...
Thanks.
Hi davidm71
Perhaps you missed it in the descriptions you were looking at but Norton 360 does have anti-spam.
davidm71:
As mdturner has pointed out, Norton 360 includes an antispam feature. You can read more over here:
http://www.symantec.com/norton/security_response/spam.jsp
I also copied the following from the webpage above:
Both Norton Internet Security™ and Norton 360™ offer antispam capability to automatically filter out annoying, dangerous or fraudulent emails from your inbox.
davidm71 wrote:
They should just change the name of the product to Nis Suite 2010 instead. Might as well throw in Norton utilities and have it make a cup of coffee too! They're probably trying to market against Ashampoo and Iolo which have a Swiss army knife set of features. I'm just in the opinion that an antivirus should use the least amount of system resources as possible.
Your hypothetical 'NIS 2010 + bonus Norton Utilities' product combination already exists as I bought this combo as a retail package a couple of weeks ago. Missing the coffee vouchers though!
If I install the Norton Utilities software do I now have three 'defrag' utilities looking after my disks?
metalhead82 wrote:Personally, I hold the opinion that this 'feature' shouldn't be in NIS or NAV either. There was a big debate about this in the Beta forums when 2010 was in beta.
Recent Windows operating systems, such as Vista and Windows 7, have automatic scheduled defragmentation which runs at a regular enough interval to keep the majority of systems happily fragmentation free and the disk performing at it's best.
I don't believe that an Antivirus program should be defragmenting my system everytime I install something. The name 'Optimiser' is stretching the truth a little too, all it does is calls 'defrag.exe c:', it doesn't do anything special, it runs a defrag....wow!
Yes, it can be disabled, but why on earth is it there in the first place in an Antivirus program? It's a feature which increases the cost of the product as someone has to spend time developing it and it's superfluous to users of Vista and Windows 7.
Remove it I say.
I agree with metalhead82, this so called optimizer should not be incorporated into NIS or NAV. With the introduction of superfluous junk like this there is a real danger of returning to the bloat that made people abandon Norton products in droves just a few years ago. Symantec, if you're listening, at least make this optimizer an option that users can choose to opt out of during the installation process.
Turbo wrote:-
With the introduction of superfluous junk like this there is a real danger of returning to the bloat that made people abandon Norton products in droves just a few years ago.
.......................................................................................................
Calling a Norton feature "Junk" is, in my opinion, highly insulting to the Symantec employees who work so hard to produce such an excellent product. Also, so many of us really appreciate this item, even if you do not.
How do you know if people were driven away and, if so, for what reason?
I think that it would be far better if you kept to known facts and express your opinions without degrading others.
drshlomo.
drshlomo, I'm very happy that you appreciate this item, but if you take the time to re-read this thread, you will quickly see that others do not appreciate it at all.
drshlomo wrote:
How do you know if people were driven away and, if so, for what reason?
It is common knowledge that Symantec lost a lot of business until they came out with the 2009 line of products, one of the reasons was bloat, which I specifically mentioned in my post, maybe you should read it again.
drshlomo wrote:
I think that it would be far better if you kept to known facts and express your opinions without degrading others.
Hey folks:
IMO, this thread should be marked closed as this point, as it is really counterproductive!
Enough.
drshlomo, Turbo is right about bloat driving people away from Norton along with poor performance and resource hogging, which is why they had to step up their act which they did with 2009. There is no denying that.
Norton should be kept as simple as possible, with a featureset that is relevant and necessary to an Antivirus or Internet Security program.
I also agree completely with Planktons comment:
Hey folks:
IMO, this thread should be marked closed as this point, as it is really counterproductive!
Enough.
I think everything has been said that needs to be, lets be adult and agree to disagree.
metalhead82 wrote:drshlomo, Turbo is right about bloat driving people away from Norton along with poor performance and resource hogging, which is why they had to step up their act which they did with 2009. There is no denying that.
Norton should be kept as simple as possible, with a featureset that is relevant and necessary to an Antivirus or Internet Security program.
I also agree completely with Planktons comment:
Hey folks:
IMO, this thread should be marked closed as this point, as it is really counterproductive!
Enough.
I think everything has been said that needs to be, lets be adult and agree to disagree.
Hi metalhead82
davidm71, as the originator of the thread, should ask for the thread to be closed by using the "report abuse to moderator" link.
metalhead82 wrote:
Norton should be kept as simple as possible, with a featureset that is relevant and necessary to an Antivirus or Internet Security program.
So far it seems the arguement has remained healthy and productive. I haven't noticed any name calling so I am not going to ask that the thread be shut down just becuase a different point of view is being expressed. I wonder if there is anyway we could put this to a poll or vote. Some forums allow polls. Not sure about this one.
But what I do know is this. NIS before 2009 was slow and had a reputation for being a hog and filled with bloat. Since then they have made an amazing product. Saved my behind last year when BD AV failed to resolve a security threat that I had. But I feel they took two steps back with the inclusion of the optimize feature. Was a good idea but thats not what an AV software is suppose to do.
Even last night NIS 2010 was thrashing my hard drive doing idle time scans while I was playing Batman Arkham despite puting that game's three executables on the silent mode list. I could tell becuase I ran Windows 7 Resource monitor and three different NIS services were running until I disabled idle time scanning. I like that feature but it was suppose to go silent while playing that game and it didn't.
So there you have it...
davidm71 -
Just FYI about the Idle Time scan - if you have never had a Idle Time Full System Scan, Norton will force that to run until complete (after so many interruptions that is). Once that is accomplished, Norton will happily obey the Silent mode. This is to insure the user's system has at least once been scanned completely.
Just thought I’d toss in this observation: After the optimizer feature ran, I went into XP’s own defrag program to analyze the results and found the organization of files far more compact, with no fragmented files apparent at all on the visual display, as compared to the way things look after I run Windows’ defrag program. I’ve read on this forum that Norton’s optimizer just starts up the Windows program, but the results on my system looked better for some reason.
dbrisendine wrote:davidm71 -
Just FYI about the Idle Time scan - if you have never had a Idle Time Full System Scan, Norton will force that to run until complete (after so many interruptions that is). Once that is accomplished, Norton will happily obey the Silent mode. This is to insure the user's system has at least once been scanned completely.
Or you can turn idle time scan completely and run the ful scans manually by yourself.