Where Do I Start

Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.

Not sure where to start myself. What I can say is that some of your issues are known issues for which there are workarounds which have been posted in this forum. The question is what you really want at this point. It is not possible to seek to resolve issues in my opinion whilst Norton 360 is not loaded and McAfee is. Are you wanting to reinstall Norton 360?

Thank you for your reply, cgoldman. I sincerely appreciate your interest and your desire to help. Had I not discovered and posted my dissatisfaction in this forum, would help have been available to me? What about the possibly hundreds of thousands, (most likely more), of people wondering why their email accounts no longer work after seeing their security software tell them their mail servers have invalid certificates? What should they do? Update the copy of the malware and adware software they didn't think they'd need anymore only to discover that they're 'unable to connect to the server' to do it? That's what people are told to do ad nauseaum by the consultants they work with, their IT departments, and in every newspaper column aimed at technology and in every magazine with the word, 'PC' in the title. People are told that certificates being unsigned or out of date and being unable to update their other security software are very BAD things! Not issues for which there are workarounds! Then they run virus scans using the same software causing the 'known issues'. Cgoldman, the only reason I even found this forum was because I googled 'Norton 360 complaints' to find out how many other people are beta-testing Symantec's software for them. And paying to do so....

 

Which issues are they that there are known workarounds for? The certificate verification issue? Should this have ever been an issue in a CONSUMER PRODUCT?! As a systems design and software engineer for the last 18 years, I can unequivocably tell you the answer is no. Much less an issue in someone's security suite. Is there a known workaround for the technical support issue(s)? Obviously if I can get help here, it is one, but again, cgoldman, I didn't find this forum seeking support. I'd exhausted every possible avenue available to me as a consumer in an attempt to get help for the issues I was having. If their off-shore call center can't solve the problem by telling you to simply, "Push the red 'fix' button", Symantec doesn't care if you get help or not!

 

That's what, pardon the expression, pissed me off! They didn't care if I was having issues or not! I understand that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' security suite. We live in an unperfect world with morons and moronettes seeking to displace your security every time something new and improved is in place to protect it. But there's a huge disparity between a product that just doesn't work very well and a product that is so poorly written that it should never have been put in a glossy box or on a shiny web page and sold to consumers. Norton 360 Ver. 2 is one of the latter. Google the same thing I did and see how many pages there are... there are a lot of people looking for assistance and help. And they most likely don't know to hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete to find out why they're having memory issues all of a sudden. But yeah man... Norton 360 sure makes you feel you need it! All the while it's because of Norton 360 that you need it! And I'm no attorney, but something tells me that this is not only unethical, (Ethics are taught in software design), but borders on illegal.

 

Thank you again for your kind offer to help, cgoldman. As I said, it is appreciated. All I want at this point is my money refunded to me and I'm not even asking to be paid for my time beta-testing their software. Or my time trying to 'fix known issues'. ALL known issues should be clearly stated at the point of sale! Why would I possibly wish to reinstall it, cgoldman? I have a brand new and clean install of my operating system. I've installed my office suite and my creative suite. And whether or not it works perfectly, I've installed a security suite.

 

At least it works.

 

Tom Wylde

 

 

One final question... why is it that Norton 360 is so closely integrated with Microsoft's Windows operating system that it needs a separate program to uninstall it? Shouldn't the uninstall option do this?

 

And let me just say that the only reason a program will keep your closed programs open, for all intents and purposes, is because it uses so much of your systems resources that by keeping your used programs in memory, you can be assured of their opening again. This is a common tool used in the basic beta-testing of new software code.

 

Bet you don't have a workaround for that.

Message Edited by TomWylde on 09-06-2008 08:43 AM
Message Edited by TomWylde on 09-06-2008 08:44 AM

I'm going to take most of your questions as rhetorical if you dont mind. I actually have some sympathy for some of your remarks. I myself was a "sufferer" before I found this forum. In fact, as it happens, I had the memory issue (now known here as "zombie" process) and information which I believed would enable Symantec to resolve the same if only I could get to the right person. Once I did the workaround was out within minutes. So now u see me as a guru for my efforts in assisting to highlight some issues and hopefully in assisting others.

 

However,is Symantec any worse than others? (also rhetorical btw, lol -g )

 

Well if you have seen and worked with Vista .. I hopefully should not need to say any more.

 

On more practical issues, I understand Symantec offer a 60 day refund. You might care to check their website and also speak with Customer Services in your Country.

 

The Norton Removal Tool is not manditory. Norton 360 can be removed adequately without using NRT. However, complainents that find there way in this forum are usually the exception, and in those circumstances we tend to suggest starting with a cleaner environment before reinstalling Norton and hence the use of the Norton Removal Tool.

 

Your presumption in your pen-ultimate paragraph is entirely incorrect and indeed the workaround to the zombie issue shows this.The failure of certain programs to close and to remain in memory in consequence of Norton 360 was entirely unintentional and a bug that was clearly not picked up in beta or otherwise must have been overlooked.

Thanks once again for your reply, cgoldman.

 

Presumption in my penultimate paragragh? I failed to see any presumption anywhere, much less most of my questions being rhetorical, anywhere. In my next to last, (literal definition of penultimate), paragraph, I stated my disgust, anger and frustration with a corporation releasing a shoddy made product to the public.

 

I've read your thread regarding the 'zombie' effect. I never stated or meant to imply that it was intentional. I simply stated it should never have, along with several other bugs, made it to a consumer product. My actual surprise at it being 'overlooked' before the products release, not once, but in a second version, as well? It's inexcusable! Completely inexcusable! That's the point I was trying to make... this is a simple beta process. It should never have been over-looked!

 

I read through the list of known bugs and fixes before I ever uninstalled Norton 360 to begin with. None of the listed bugs and fixes addressed my problems with the software product enough to warrant my keeping on my PC.

 

I even attempted to keep my sarcasm level down to a low roar in my last post, sir, (assuming here...). I didn't want you to think I wasn't sincerely appreciative of your offer to help.

 

If I reinstall Norton 360, can you assure me that the issues I had with the product will be gone? That the icon will load letting me know I'm protected, (this function never worked-old Win install or new install)? That my system will REMAIN protected without random warnings that my system is unprotected? That I'll be able to update ANY software product through their own ftp? That my email will be protected AND uninterrupted? That programs I use will NOT remain in random access memory further slowing my system? Can you guarantee these things, cgoldman? Any security software coder should be able to. Are you a Symantec employee? 

 

As for your question, 'is Symantec any worse than the others?' This product? Yes. In general? Nah... they all suck. lol...In 18 years of sitting down to a computer monitor all day, I haven't seen one that doesn't! But c'mon, c... this one has most of 'em all beat, including Norton AV 2006. Even you, as a 'Guru', have to agree with that.

 

I remember days of being able to call and actually speak with Peter Norton. Or Mike Messouri. In fact, it was a virus on my first 8088 that could activate cache ram, (before there was 'RAM'' as we know it today), causing it to actually short the chip, thus killing your motherboard that fascinated me enough to go into the computer industry to begin with. (University of Illinois, Class of '93 Computer Science major. I also worked on a class software project with a guy named Marc Andreessen called 'Mosaic'-later Netscape).  In the days when a PC cost upward of 4K, this wasn't a simple problem-neither a fast or inexpensive repair. Peter had seen it in the wild only 4 times before. Norton was an approachable company then. But as I said, it was basically Norton and working with Peter and Mike that took me into school for the computer sciences, so I've always had a soft spot for Symantec products, (the same as I've always detested Internet Explorer... lol.)

 

If you can guarantee that I'll be able to use this product I've purchased as intended and as it's advertised, I'll re-install it. And perhaps between yourself and I, we can write a comprehensive list of 'Known Bugs and Fixes' and talk Symantec into putting it somewhere for everyone to read.

 

Thanks again, C...

 

 

OK, 1 by 1 then.

 

This was your penultimate paragraph

 

"And let me just say that the only reason a program will keep your closed programs open, for all intents and purposes, is because it uses so much of your systems resources that by keeping your used programs in memory, you can be assured of their opening again. This is a common tool used in the basic beta-testing of new software code."

 

The presumption I suggest is that you are implying that Norton 360 is intentionally keeping closed programs open. It was not intentional, it was a bug. 2nd presumption is that a program that remains in memory is assured of opening again. Wrong, because in fact many such programs which suffered from the zombie effect failed to open again, which is how some users came to recognise that they had an issue in the 1st place. 3rd your presumption that this is a common tool used in basic beta-testing. Since with modesty I was independently considered to be the largest beta tester in the UK of commercial software, I have some little experience to contest your statement.

 

 

Now for the unanswered questions.

 

Had I not discovered and posted my dissatisfaction in this forum, would help have been available to me?

Answer is yes if you had contacted Symantec technical support or even perhaps the supplier of your software, or any one of the other non Symantec forums that deals with tech support.

 

 

What about the possibly hundreds of thousands, (most likely more), of people wondering why their email accounts no longer work after seeing their security software tell them their mail servers have invalid certificates?

Well I have no evidence to support that there are possibly hundred of thousands or more people with this problem. In fact I do not accept that this is a problem. You have not presented any evidence that this is a general problem or listed the steps to reproduce this issue.

 

What should they do?

Well they can enter a chat session with technical support for a starter. They can even post in a relevant thread here.

 

Update the copy of the malware and adware software they didn't think they'd need anymore only to discover that they're 'unable to connect to the server' to do it?

I do not consider this a question, but a suggestion perhaps from you to the 100,000 people!

 

Which issues are they that there are known workarounds for?

There are workarounds for the zombie issue and workarounds for some shutdown issues. However, I am not prepared to waste my time listing all the workarounds in the forum. I want to resolve peoples problem.

 

The certificate verification issue?

This is not a question but perhaps your suggestion as to what workarounds have been made.

 

Should this have ever been an issue in a CONSUMER PRODUCT?!

"this" is undefined and therefore I do not consider this a full question. If you mean to imply that there never should have been a certificate verification issue in a consumer product, then you may be correct. However, I do not accept that Norton 360 has a general certificate verification issue.

 

Is there a known workaround for the technical support issue(s)?

There are various solution for consumers experiencing difficulty in creating chat and remote session. However, we did not explore your specific technical support issue.

 

Now to address your new questions.

 

My actual surprise at it being 'overlooked' before the products release, not once, but in a second version, as well?

Again this is a statement by you and not a question.

 

If I reinstall Norton 360, can you assure me that the issues I had with the product will be gone? 

I am under no obligation to you whatsoever. I could give you assurances but to what value. Rather, I can say that I give you no assurance whatsoever that your issues will be gone. In the first place I do not fully even understand your issues and secondly I am here only to help. I dont issue guarantees. What you should look at, I suggest, is the number of forum posts and the number of posters who have had their problem resolved. There is a fair chance that your problems could be resolved in some part.

 

That my system will REMAIN protected without random warnings that my system is unprotected?

Incomplete sentence construction. But I understand what you wish to ask. The answer is no, because there are some warnings (not random) which are incorrect warnings and have been advised in these forums as cosmetic errors.

 

That I'll be able to update ANY software product through their own ftp?

As above, but also NO because some software products may have no update facility or any update facility may not be provided by that product manufacturers ftp site.

 

I'm going to stop here now, because I do not feel there is value in answering these sought of questions. They do not help to address any specific problem. Other contributors may well comment of course.

 

Message Edited by cgoldman on 09-07-2008 12:03 AM

First of all, I've thanked you sincerely for your assistance and genuine desire to help, cgoldman. It's very kind of you and I have neither the time or the inclination to argue any points with you, whether it be the definition of 'penultimate', who is the better coder or tester or the fact that you've told me their are workarounds, but I've yet to see ONE or as much as a link to one.

 

The tech support in my experience has been a joke. I'd be happy to post the contents of both my emails to Symantec and my open session with the chat support but again, to what end... a resolution? Most likely not. As for my mention of others having the problem, do you think I made that (or any other!) statement without verifying it first? Google 'trouble with Norton 360'. See for yourself how many instances there are! And these are the people actively searching the internet for help! They OBVIOUSLY didn't get it where they were supposed to!

 

"Answer is yes if you had contacted Symantec technical support or even perhaps the supplier of your software, or any one of the other non Symantec forums that deals with tech support."-Um, been there, done that. It was a massive waste of my time.

 

"The presumption I suggest is that you are implying that Norton 360 is intentionally keeping closed programs open."  Well, you know what happens when we assume... I implied that a common tool of beta testing is to leave other programs in memory while working on the code. This a point in coding a program before it's ever made available to the public for beta testing. And I stated it should never have been made a consumer product before that coding was finished! If you're unsure, ask. Oh wait... that's what I actually said.

 

Why would someone have to go to a NON-Symantec forum for help? They paid good money for Norton 360 and it comes with tech support!

 

"However, I am not prepared to waste my time listing all the workarounds in the forum. I want to resolve peoples problem." Do you read what you write? It's sentences like this that make it so hard for people to actually GET resolutions to their problems!! Or aren't the workarounds the actual resolutions? I'm confused now...

 

Mr. Goldman, (a presumption on my part), I know you're only here to help people. I have no doubt of that. I even applaud your taking the time and spending the energy to help other people. It's very kind. A lot of people wouldn't have spent the time seeking out the answers to the 'zombie' problem, or the 'certification verification' issue, et. al. If you want to argue on the semantics of sentence construction when my sentences are clearly written and obvious, I can jump right into the mix there, (and actually, within the paragraph as written, the sentences were complete and proper-read up on paragraph construction).

 

But that's NOT what I'm here for! I'm not debating your intelligence or lack of same. I'm debating the release of a product that's so buggy and flawed that it should be illegal! I came here and complained about the product but rec'd NO links to fixes or even workarounds themselves here. Instead my thread has become a power stuggle over my intellect and the semantics of my sentence structure??!! I'm not buying into it, sir, or ma'am.

 

You're obviously not prepared to list workarounds in the forum. You'd rather help resolve people's problems. Their personal problems? Their grammatical errors? If you're not prepared to list workarounds in the forum, what problem's are you speaking of?

 

Again, no help to my last post. I started this thread and it's obviously not going in a direction that's beneficial for anyone, so I'll end it here. In fact, it's gotten more detrimental than beneficial, and I sincerely don't wish for anyone else having  issues and stumbling upon this site as I did to be steered away. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the mods can remove it.

 

Perhaps then you can return to helping others with the 'sought' of questions they have.

 

sort (sôrt)

n.
1. A group of persons or things of the same general character; a kind.
2. Character or nature: books of all sorts.
3. One that exemplifies the characteristics of or serves a similar function to another: "A large dinner-party ... made a sort of general introduction for her to the society of the neighbourhood" George Eliot.
4. A person; an individual: The clerk is a decent sort.
5. A way of acting or behaving.
6. sorts Printing One of the characters in a font of type.
7. An act or instance of sorting: did a sort on the columns of data.
tr.v. sort·ed, sort·ing, sorts
1. To arrange according to class, kind, or size; classify. See Synonyms at arrange.
2. To separate from others: sort out the wheat from the chaff.
3. To clarify by going over mentally: She tried to sort out her problems.
 
 

Sought

Seek\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Sought; p. pr. & vb. n. Seeking.] [OE, seken, AS. s?can, s?cean; akin to OS. s?kian, LG. s["o]ken, D. zoeken, OHG. suohhan, G. suchen, Icel. s?kja, Sw. s["o]ka, Dan. s["o]ge, Goth. s?kjan, and E. sake. Cf. Beseech, Ransack, Sagacious, Sake, Soc.]

 

1. To go in search of; to look for; to search for; to try to find.
The man saked him, saying, What seekest thou? And he said, I seek my brethren. --Gen. xxxvii. 15,16.

 

2. To inquire for; to ask for; to solicit; to beseech.
Others, tempting him, sought of him a sign. --Luke xi. 16.

 

3. To try to acquire or gain; to strive after; to aim at; as, to seek wealth or fame; to seek one's life.
4. To try to reach or come to; to go to; to resort to.

 

Seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal. --Amos v. 5.

 

Since great Ulysses sought the Phrygian plains. --Pope.
('sought' is actually a past particple of 'seek'-T.W.) 

 
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
penultimate A noun   penult, penultima, penultimate
    the next to last syllable in a word     Category Tree:B adjective   penultimate, next-to-last
    next to the last; "the author inadvertently reveals the murderer in the penultimate chapter"; "the figures in the next-to-last column"
Thanks anyway.
Much peace.
Tom Wylde