Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Norton Corporate / Symantec Corporate

This article is definitely not NPOV, it is an outright bash against Norton AV. It would be similar to me doing an article on Bush and just putting in: Current president of the United States. Many Americans think he's a moron.

In addition to this, the article fails to:

Describe the product. Might as well be talking of an OS (may God help us from something like Norton OS)

Fails to mention the Corporate Edition, which incidentally is much better (the difference might be analogous to the Windows95 and Windows NT branches for Windows).

States that 9.0 is the latest version of Corporate, when it is in fact 10.1.

NPOV?

From the entry as it stands: Despite its widespread adoption, it carries a reputation within the computer enthusiast community as slow and inefficient. It is also notorious for being almost impossible to completely uninstall. Some ignorant but well-meaning editor will probably come along and "clean this up" or "NPOV" it before too long, which is unfortunate, as it is entirely to the point. I have worked with computers on a professional basis for over 20 years, and we deal with (among other programs) NAV on a daily basis. It really is slow (compare with, for example, VET or Trend Micro IS) and horribly cumbersome to configure. It really is inefficient - every week we get machines come in for repair that are infected with viruses despite having NAV installed and (in most cases) fully up-to-date. I have no idea why NAV misses so many viruses (including well-known old ones that you'd expect any AV package to deal with competently) but there is not the slightest doubt that it is the least effective of the common AV programs. (Possibly because it is so common: I suspect that virus writers target NAV first when they are disabling AV software simply because it is the market leader.) Whatever the reason, there is no doubt of the consequence.

As for removal, this is a serious problem. The uninstall feature sometimes works OK, sometimes doesn't. Uninstall is possible roughly 2 times out of 3. If it won't uninstall, then you have to do it by hand, and that is a horribly time-consuming task requiring manual deletion of lots of different files and an exhaustive search through the registry with many edits. It is beyond the capacity of most average computer users.

In short, the entry as it stands is much too short, but perfectly accurate. Tannin 20:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would come to confirm that. Norton has always been a bad anti-virus and even tho the most recent rumors are that versions 2004 and 2005 are no longer as bad, I have plenty of first hand experience of this anti-virus and accompaning firewall of locking out the user, but giving access to trojans and viruses, preventing hardware drivers such as for BlueTooth connections or Webcams from functioning and not even notincing an EICAR stuck right under it's nose.

In short I've never seen this anti-virus or the firewall do anything at all, other than being capable of updating itself. I have had several clients wanting specifically to have Norton Anti-virus and firewall installed on their computers, claiming it is the best. As far as I can tell, it is absolutely the worst there is and the people who sell it should be sent to jail for this obvious scam called Norton Anti-virus. My last time, version 2005, was fully configured to be stand-alone protected inside a network protected with an additional firewall, clean install of windows XP and it took two days of not even a screen connected to it... TWO DAYS to get it so baddly infected with viruses it brought down the entire T1 network. --DustWolf 19:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Despite its widespread adoption, it carries a reputation within the computer enthusiast community as slow and inefficient. It is also notorious for being almost impossible to completely uninstall. This does not match my experience, and i am also a computer professional. But for wikipedia the point is that it is unsoruced and sounds POV. Can't we provide a link to an online review or user site where thsi view is expressed, so that there is evidence for the prevelance of this reputation? if there is a source for thsoe who hold the contrary opnion, that should also be provided. Ideally, citeable evidence on the realtave number of people who hold such views should be provided, but this might be harder to find. As it stands, the article is not NPOV. I would prefer not to slap the tag on it, but if I must.... DES 6 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

No one having seen fit to clean this up by sourcing it and providing contrary views (and yes, some do exist) I have put the NPOV tag on this. DES 8 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

I've put a link in to a ZD-Net review where the reviewer praises it, but user contributed reviews have on average panned it. My experience has been that professional reviewers tend to like it, but most other users don't. I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to be. JulesH 9 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Also added a link I just found to a PC Plus (UK magazine) review that describes it as "memory hungry". JulesH 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

The article doesn't say what it IS. I mean, it's a computer product, obviously, but if someone came here without knowing what NAV does, would they be enlightened? Joyous 23:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

What is Norton Ghost?

Norton Ghost is a program that makes a bit-for-bit copy of the hard drive as an image file. Very useful for backups.

Has this page ever mentioned the general hacker/cracker opinion of Norton? Most such people (so called "white-hat" and "black-hat" alike) consider Norton a joke. There are even t-shirts, "not even norton can protect you now." (no caps) ZelmersZoetrop

Really? Can you link to the picture or add it to the section of the article about the criticism of NAV? Oh yeah btw if someone goes on http://pack.google.com you can get NAV for free with a 6 month subscription. Clearly, Symantec is getting more despreate... --__-- The pointer outer 23:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute revival

I am considering a removal of the section critizing Norton Anti-Virus. It is not neutral in POV and its removal should strongly be considered. IMO, Norton is the best antivirus sofware, no matter what anyone says. Andros 1337 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But your opinion on NAV being the best anti virus software is just your POV and it is not neutral, which results in your willingness to remove the section that points to the negative aspects of the software. Moreover, how many alternative anti-virus software have you trialed on extended period to result in that conclusion? I believe it is necessary to leave it there for now, seeing from the excessive amount of complaints seen on the software. --Kucing 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think to clear it up, we should include Symantec AntiVirus, which is the corporate version. It takes less resources and is much cleaner and streamlined. 70.111.224.253 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I actually did that, but didn't delve too much as I am really really tired. But yes, the Corporate version is much much better. IMO, NAV is still much better than the POS it replaced on my computers: McAffee. I used McAffee for say ... 1 month? It replaced my mixed CPAV/ViruScan environment when NATAS befell me back in '94. Hey, ViruScan was from XTree ... dating back to '89 or something and put more of a fight than CPAV. Wow. Anyway ... McAffee got rid of NATAS ... only to crap itself with a simple DIR II virus. Sooooo... it seems like my AV would crap with the virus list that my good ol' ViruScan would kill. So ... asking back then for opinions, I switched to NAV because it was the best. It isn't the best, but definitely not the worst. That honour, I leave to McAffee. 07:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

not quite+name fix

There is a correction needed in this article. there are actually 3 products that get a update on a daily basis. they are Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 10.0x, Norton AntiVirus 2006, and Norton Internet Security 2006. However, all other products are provided every wednesday,(except when there is a serious virus outbreak, which in the terms of Norton is NEVER) making Norton Antivirus the worst antivirus program around. Also, as mentioned, Norton antivirus and Symantec antivirus are the same. I am considering changing it so it would show "Norton(Symantec) Antivirus" Name fix please! The pointer outer 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• EDIT- who put Norton AntiVirus in the list of controversial topics? o_O The pointer outer 04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Not Good Virus Protection

Norton Antivirus should be classified as a virus. Look at the evidence in the article:

Uses up system resources

Slows performance

Costs the user money with no real benefits

Difficult to remove

Cause system crashes

HappyVR 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"should be classified as a virus" - I completely agree.

I work with virus-laden computers daily. Many have NAV installed, and still got infected. The only worse protection is that provided by AOL. Norton is buggy, difficult to uninstall, and subscription extensions are iffy at best. Peter Norton would be ashamed at what Symantec has done to his name.

1) any virus program with background protection, or any program that runs in the background for that matter, is going to use up system resources... duh.

2) really? because mine works fine. try getting more RAM or a better CPU

3) oh no, supscription services cost MONEY? oh, and having anti-virus protection is a big benefit

4) there's this nifty little program called the uninstaller. it comes with pretty much any open-source and commercial software that was installed with an installer. when you run it, it removes the program from your computer. I've uninstalled Norton before, and it works.

5) system crashes are more complicated then many would have you to believe. your computer doesn't crash just because of one program (especially commercial), it is a variety of factors. Trying to say "Norton caused my system to crash" can be a blanket statement.

Antivirus software isn't designed to override common sense. If by "virus-laden" you mean up to and even exceeding 100 instances of malware (not including adware), then of course the antivirus isn't going to work, half of those viruses have probably been coded to disable most popular antivirus programs, and even if the programs have self-protection, with enough viruses it can get screwed.

Also, the "one provided with AOL" is McAfee. Yes, the same full-featured McAfee that most Norton haters claim to love. So now that you have just completely denounced the two biggest and most popular anti-virus software packages, what's left? Your Free AVG? Hah, right. TheRaven7 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Norton AntiVirus is itself a Virus

If you choose not to update your subscription, after 90 days you get a pop-up reminder which is (a) always on top and (b) won't go away. If you contact Symantec customer service, they acknowledge this as "a design feature" and a "friendly reminder". This occurs despite deselecting the alerts box under Options. They also freely acknowledge that the only way to get rid of this pop-up, which effectively disables your computer by permanently obscuring nearly 1/4 of the screen, is to pay Symantec further money to upgrade or update subscription, or to uninstall software one has purchased the full rights to use.

Information at Symantec's knowledge base confirms this, listing ways to get rid of the box, all of which require exchange of money. This can be found at - Symantec Knowledge Base

This is menace-ware and should be stopped, or at least publicised. DividedSelf 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so what you're saying is that you DON'T want to renew but at the same time DON'T want to uninstall? The reminder is there for people who don't keep up with it normally and tells them they need to renew. If you don't want to renew, I don't see the point in keeping the damn software on your computer. You might want to consider uninstalling software you don't use instead of keeping it on your harddrive and complaining about "fair-use", and you may discover extra harddrive space popping up. TheRaven7 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Get Intelligent Updater definitions free, easy

http://www.gwy.org/nav.html

It automatically gets the latest Intelligent Updater (read: daily updates) and installs it, regardless of subscription status.

The application has been updated 22 May 2006 to be nearly silent (no pop-up window for IU) and potentially faster than LiveUpdate.

Crythias 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The minute this becomes at all widespread Symantec will simply stop putting the definitions on a public FTP server.Tjb891 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but as it is, the Intelligent Updater has always been freely available, whether via ftp or web. wget can get a public www link as easy as ftp. Now, if they determine a different self-extracting-archive function or encrypt their archives, there might be an issue. However, it might break LiveUpdate, and that wouldn't necessarily be fun. Another thing to note is that the update program above doesn't kill the annoying popups "Your subscription has expired." Crythias 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

someone put this topic as controversial, but did not explain why. The function of the talk pages are for this purpose. what's the controversy? The pointer outer 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

o nvm T_T The pointer outer 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Status Added

This article takes a very negative look at Norton AV, and doesn't talk much about its technical aspects. I am not one to defend Norton AV, but this article is certainly in need of a revamp. :: Colin Keigher 09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Colin- saying that it takes a negative look at NAV is your opinion, though. I recommend that everybody agrees first before we put it as a negative POV. The pointer outer 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I carried out some minor changes on the article. They are only suggested, and I make no attempt to change the other disputable comments. --JohnWest 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is an absolute mess

Before I go further I'd like to state for the record that I have major bias when it comes to Symantec Corporation. I frankly find them as "evil" as many do Microsoft. I could go on for 10 paragraphs on the subject but it's not a appropriate here.

I've stopped using Symantec products and wouldn't use them again even if they were given to me for free.

So now that you know that I feel that Symantec sucks (to put it mildly) let me comment on this article.

This article needs to be thrown-out and redone from scratch. It's a mess. It's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. To say it doesn't have a "neutral point of view" is a gross understament.

It's a Norton bash-fest! 3/4 of it is nothing but criicism of the product. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that include some criticisim surrounding the topic of the article, but they put it under a "criticism" heading near the end and it doesn't dominate the article.

This is one of the most inappropriate and biased Wikipedia articles I've come across in recent times.

There's no question that this article doesn't have a NPOV.

And criticism aside, I don't consider Norton AntiVirus to be Symantec's "Flagship" product. The first (Peter) Norton product was Norton Utilities back in the DOS days. The current version is now part of Norton Systemworks. Norton Systemworks also includes Norton Antivirus. Therefore it seems to me that Norton SystemWorks is more of a "flagship" product than Norton AntiVirus.

--angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is 3/4 criticism, but that's due to the nature of the product, isn't it? People should be aware of widespread problems with a product; otherwise the article is just a press release ignoring the bad. Since there are so many important flaws in Norton, the article is weighed toward the bad. And certainly anyone from Symantec is free to add positive aspects that make their product distinctive. I doubt a rewrite would change matters; users would just add the negative aspects back into the article. I am amused that the article doesn't even mention that the Norton website is usually unresponsive, rendering necessary fixes undownloadable. Nor does it mention the prevalence of false positives. These are both important, yet unmentioned, leading me to believe that the article is not unwarrantedly negative. (I do, however, believe that calling Norton a "virus," as on the talk page, is a step too far; Norton is easy to uninstall, far easier than many other legitimate pieces of software. The article itself doesn't say call it this, nor should it ever.) Calbaer 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's biased. People should be aware of the disadvantages of a product, yes, but they should also be aware of the advantages too. I don't see anything here about the advantages of Norton, do you? An encyclopedia should show all the avaliable information about a product, not just the bad stuff. I've never seen a history section so short! -Netdroid9

Biased?

I do not understand how the comment is biased at all because it actually states the truth. Norton AntiVirus does have the reputation of being a resource intensive utility, even when running in the background. It actually has a 13% impact on a system's performance. In all of my years using the program I have only seen about two or three occasions where NAV actually removes a virus.

Reporting that a lot of people hate a product/company and then outlining their reasons why in an article about the said product isn't NPOV. But directly criticising it from the article is. Could we put some more pro (rather than anti) and more product info in? --IceflamePhoenix 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting in "pro" material in an article doesn't make it more neutral! Suppose you're discussing the Holocaust: I don't think there are very many positive comments to find about the Holocaust.

The thing is that reviews of Norton AntiVirus are very often negative and those in the computer/IT industry really do hate the program. Rather than adding material for a different point of view, you should back up the point of view already expressed. Find citations for the non-neutral statements. --Stellis 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article criticizes NAV extensivly. It is important to have this section in the article to insure that this information is told to others. However, it should not equal more than half of it. It should be brought down to 15% of the article or less. I agree that NAV is flawed, but the article should not speak excessivly of that. More information about the product will be necessary to make this poorly written article as neutral as it needs to be.

~ Wow, this article is really exaggerating the flaws of NAV, even of those present in other anti-virus softwares. The FBI/CIA dispute is linked to many other anti-virus companies whom have also pledged to not detect it. The so-called ineffectual customer service section in the article. So, the paragraph supports this by talking about a flaw in the programming?? and then cite references to the symantec support site which says what the solution is and then cites a reference to a relatively short thread in a forum of two users talking about how they had a bad experience with symantec. right, so with that, it proves that theres is bad customer service and that the software has a non-existent flaw. The Firewall & Alerts section is not really a fair argument since it is true that the windows firewall and Norton anti-virus will conflict and therefore one has to be deactivated. The fact that the user has disabled the windows firewall and forgets to re-enable it after their free trial has expired sounds more like whining than a supported criticism. And finally with that opening statement in Resource usage, the fact that its not supported at all and sounds like an opinion than any Symantec basher could say, i would really like to see sources backing this up. Otherwise, its just speculation based on everyone's opinions and experience. It's true that the Criticisms section does not have a NPOV. It is not a matter of fact that there are so many things wrong with NAV. Many things were clearly exaggerated and unsupported. Proper citations are definitely needed.

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

"The neutrality of this section is disputed." This is exactly what to expect in a section named "Criticisms". The section is a place for negitive comments. To neutralize the entire article, this section needs to be smaller and other sections enlarged.

OS X

I'm surprised that there's no mention of the complete ludicracy of trying to Norton trying to sell AntiVirus software for OS X, which when I heard last had just 2 very harmless viruses. It would be interesting if someone could research the thinking behind Norton doing this.

Norton Anti-Virus Useless Feature

I've used NAV before and all I can say is it is useless and that can actually infect your system rather than benefit it. I've tested it before on items I KNOW are absolute viruses, trojans, etc and it registers them as not being a threat. I updated them to see if it would make a difference and it does not. I've tested it on UCM, UCRPM, CRMP, and a few other things including a worm, a trojan, and a system virus. Same results. Not detected. I feel that it's often useless detection features should be included. -VonV

I must, say, you are completley right. Having used NAV before, it actually did more harm than good. For example, who would have known that Mozilla Firefox was "theifware"? After that, I uninstaled it, but couldn't. SO I had to go to regedit, manually delete everysingle key, and delete every single folder the damn thing created. IT's also the only security company I know who actually gives instructions to manually uninstall the thing, but they really couldn't make a batch file to run in safe mode that could! The pointer outer 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Screw Norton Anti-Bandwidth. Stupid program hogging tons of memory to sit around and do nothing but tell you to update and renew your subscription. I've taken this off many computers and added nod-32 and problem solved. Well almost. Norton creates so many remnants of itself throughout the computer that often times you have to back up precious data and re-format, its rooted in that deep.

Wonderful

I would like to whole heartedly thank the author for putting into writing my own strong feelings towards Norton Antivirus (and also the current crop of McAfee AV products). I can't remember what lead me to search Norton Antivirus on wikipedia, but to say I felt a warm fuzzy feeling upon reading the article would be a huge understatement. Thank you.

Regarding uninstallation, I keep a link to the Symantec Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT.exe) at the top of my personal 'website' (my list of things not to forget - at http://www2.css-networks.com)

NPOV Status for section removed; readded for good reason

The NPOV tag that was removed has been readded due to what the user had pointed out...

However, I do know that there should be a section devoted to the pros

Until that section is added and some balance is added to the existing section, the NPOV tag should stay on. :: Colin Keigher 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's not like Windows ME has anything good about it in its article...and it is considered fairly NPOV. DolphinCompSci 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is NPOV because the article is almost entirely devoted to how awful the product is. There is a two sentence history and then the rest of the article talks about how awful the program is. On top of this there is no sources and most of it is written as heresy and opinion. Phrases like "it carries a reputation within parts of the computer enthusiast community as being slow and inefficient", "Users experiencing the bug report being offered multiple ineffective labor-intensive attempts to work around the problem", and "the problem was caused by Symantec's buggy code " are obviously NPOV and just the opinion of the writer. Until a valid source (not two people complaining on a message board) is used the article will be NPOV. I moved the NPOV tag and added a source tag to the top of the article. Dominic 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article is rubbish. There is almost nothing about the product or how it works, etc. but almost all criticism here with no sources to back it up (however correct they may be), so therefore the authors who contributed to this mess are obviously biased. Regardless of how bad the product is, this should simply be an article on the product and varied points addressed in a NPOV, with clear sources to back up the claims. I would definitely support a complete rewrite. See What Is A Good Article for more info. Smoothy 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Norton AntiVirus rewrite plan - an attempt to revive a horribly written article from scratch

A consensus must first be reached on how this shall be done, but it could be easier by brainstorming some topics and ideas for the fresh-from-start article of Norton AntiVirus.

History

A decent amount of non-biased history about the life-span of NAV.

Features

A section describing it's possibilities (features), NOT only what's unique with NAV.

Criticism

An acceptable amount of criticism, cause and effects, FULLY SOURCED. However, until that occurs, this controversial section should be deleted or left blank until such time vs. subjecting the world to unsourced opinions and flames as we wait...

Future

The future of NAV, upcoming versions, news and interesting facts people would be find rewarding to know about.

<c o n t i n u e d....>

Shandris^{the azylean} 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article now is far far far better. Good work, although we do need more content. Can probably remove the "Neutrality" tag now, as it's more NPOV than ever before. Smoothy 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section revisited

Removed it as the first two have nothing to do with Norton, but are to do with the company (and the FBI/CIA thing is not Symantec-exclusive). The last one refers to Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition (this article is about the product named Norton Antivirus, look at the title). The section titled "Slow Response to viruses" is the ONLY thing that vaguely resembles a valid criticism, but needs reworking. Criticisms should be discussed here first, confined to valid points and kept short. Again, see What Is A Good Article for more info. Smoothy 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The first two are directly related to the performance of the software due to decisions made by the company and therefore are valid complaints. The article is about Norton Antivirus. Corporate Edition is an edition of Norton Antivirus. All the points are valid and I'm replacing them. Some guy 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Corporate Edition is NOT an edition of Norton Antivirus. You need to get your facts straight as it's a different product. Once again, it is NOT related to the performance of the software rather more related to the company decision as a while. Please discuss any changes BEFORE you add them. Removing Smoothy 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added them bak on the grounds that they're all valid and have to do with norton antivirus. Please explain, Smoothy, how Norton antivirus corporate edition isn't norton antivirus. you didn't discuss removing the criticisms before going ahead and doing it. If it's reverted, rather than starting an edit war, I'm going to get an RFC
    • Please discuss them before you remove them, then. And the versions should be covered in the same article, are there different articles for all the, what, eight versions of Windows XP? And since you somehow don't understand this, let me explain how company policy affects the software:
      • Ineffective Customer Service: Norton refuses to fix a bug in the software. Thus, the software is unusable for some people. This is a flaw in the software. Norton's refusal to fix it has a direct effect on the program and consumer experience with it.
      • FBI/CIA Cooperation: Norton chooses to cooperate with the FBI/CIA's Magic Lantern program. As a result, the software is modified, and consumers are suspect to probing by the government. This is again a direct effect on the consumer due to changes in the software.

Both of those obviously affect the performance and experience of the software. They are influenced by company decisions but the result is a software thing and should be covered in the article. Some guy 08:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You placed them in the article that someone else had already edited so you should've discussed placing them back in before actually placing them back in. There is no such product as Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, only SYMANTEC Antivirus Corporate Edition, which is a different product, therefore should only be fleetingly mentioned in this article. Your two points are points that clearly should be in the Symantec article, not this article on Norton as it affects the company more than one specific product, therefore it's not valid (especially as Symantec aren't the only ones who have done these things, are you going to put the same text in for McAfee, Kaspersky, etc. articles?).Smoothy 11:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd, it doesn't mean it's not valid. As for the Corporate Edition, I guess you're right about that, but that doesn't give you the right to repeatedly remove the criticism section. And what is this about someone else editing the article and me discussing it first? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if someone's doing a rewrite, you don't have to obtain permission to make an edit, it's a wiki. Some guy 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this is obviously going nowhere I have put up an RfC--Acebrock 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some guy, exactly the same reason why you can't tell me I can't edit the criticisms Smoothy 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm trying to apply your own rules against you. You think you have the right to revert without discussing first but we don't? That's ridiculous. You aren't special or important. Some guy 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this article

I work in PC tech support. At a rough guess, 60% of those who contact me, need assistance due to the way that Norton products have afflicted their machine.

The most common complaints I receive:

- Customer's PC has slowed down to a crawl. Almost always due to Norton Antivirus.
- Customer's PC has lost network connectivity, or has developed other minor faults. Almost always due to Norton Internet Security.
- Customer has bought another antivirus product which will not function until Norton Antivirus is removed, and Norton Antivirus will not remove itself.

This article is by no means biased. It is telling the truth. --Intimidated^talk 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms revisited

There seems to be a revert war between User:Smoothy and lots of other people. This is unfortunate, as most people here seem to want the criticism section to stay. However, I will agree that a "pro" section is necessary, one based on professional reviews, most of which seem to be positive (especially with regards to the user interface). Also, the criticisms section is incomplete, as many issues are unaddressed due to lack of citations, likely because neither product criticism/bashing nor long-term usage is a forte of commercial magazines. Here are some of the issues that NAV allegedly has that are not mentioned in the current article:

• Norton website: History of spotty responsiveness ^{My experience}
• False positives: Large tarballs often deemed as contaminated ^{My experience}
• False negatives: Many viruses not caught
• Spyware effectiveness and support: Spyware tool criticized for effectiveness and dropped
• Resource usage: Slow and inefficient
• Uninstall: Difficult to uninstall ^{Contrary to my experience with 2004 edition}
• Recurrent subscription extension reminders: Reminders many times a day, in spite of requests to not remind for two weeks ^{My experience}
• Firewall: Firewall either ineffective, nonexistent, or dropped upon virus subscription expiration
• Default timed scan: By default the software runs a scan of the computer on Friday nights (Unaware users would likely not leave their computers on. Aware users might prefer a different night, due to the wasted energy of having a Windows client machine on all weekend.) ^{My experience}

Any sourced mention of these would greatly improve the article, even though they would enrage those who seem to think that a sizeable "criticisms" section is, by definition, POV. Reasonable people should not confuse a neutral point of view with a misinterpreted concept of equal time (in which the opportunity for access becomes the "necessity" of a differing viewpoint). Calbaer 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

The criticisms section appears to be adequately sourced and topical. I recommend moving it toward the bottom part of the article. Durova 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems on-topic. For the FBI/CIA sub-section's sources, I have commented out the link to http://www.sfbg.com/News/36/12/prof.html, wince this is currently a 404 error, and I have replaced the link to Slashdot with the article at The Register that Slashdot was linking to. -- AJR | Talk 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms seem on topic and sourced. Its not violating NPOV to include criticisms. -- AmitDeshwar 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)