Correlation between number of programs installed and performance ?
in [Windows Performance]
|
Prev: "0x73dd11c7" referenced memory at "0x000000004"
Next: Correlation between number of programs installed and performance?
From: Daave on 19 Jan 2010 18:09 Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything. Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost. Gerry wrote: > Leonard > > Why pay for what you can get for free. > > > > Leonard Grey wrote: >> I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes... >> >> For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton >> Haters Club. And for good reason. >> >> Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009. >> My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after >> Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical >> support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling >> - were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS >> 2009, but couldn't find any. >> And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced >> 7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed. >> >> I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those >> rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can >> take it. >> PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I >> made with respect to third-party firewalls. >> >> PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend >> any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own >> decision, is my view. >> --- >> Leonard Grey >> Errare humanum est >> >> Gerry wrote: >>> Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. >>> >>> The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance >>> implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier, >>> particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard >>> drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives >>> are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard drives are >>> commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in this link: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive
From: Gerry on 19 Jan 2010 20:10 The thought Leonard did not cross my mind. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Leonard Grey wrote: > Is that a statement about software, or are you inferring the reason I > got married? > --- > Leonard Grey > Errare humanum est > > Gerry wrote: >> Leonard >> >> Why pay for what you can get for free.
From: Gerry on 19 Jan 2010 20:12 Daave I may be a cynic but is that really free? -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daave wrote: > Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything. > > Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost. > > > Gerry wrote: >> Leonard >> >> Why pay for what you can get for free. >> >> >> >> Leonard Grey wrote: >>> I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes... >>> >>> For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton >>> Haters Club. And for good reason. >>> >>> Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security >>> 2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after >>> Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical >>> support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling >>> - were no longer problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS >>> 2009, but couldn't find any. >>> And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced >>> 7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed. >>> >>> I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those >>> rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can >>> take it. >>> PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I >>> made with respect to third-party firewalls. >>> >>> PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend >>> any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own >>> decision, is my view. >>> --- >>> Leonard Grey >>> Errare humanum est >>> >>> Gerry wrote: >>>> Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. >>>> >>>> The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance >>>> implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier, >>>> particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard >>>> drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard >>>> drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard >>>> drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in >>>> this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive
From: Daave on 19 Jan 2010 21:26 It depends on whether or not you plan on switching to an ISP that doesn't offer that particular program at no extra charge. So if I subscribe to Acme Internet and they offer me Internet service and Norton at no extra cost, it would cost me the same as if I chose not to use it. Of course, I could shop around and find another provider. So *if* I were able to find comparable service for less money but they didn't offer the "free" Norton program, it would then behoove me to use a program like Avira. But that wasn't my original scenario. :-) So if you like your ISP and have no intention on finding another, then yes, _for all intents and purposes_, Norton (if they offer it at no extra charge) would cost you the same amount as Avira. Calling it free is semantic (or Symantec!). Of course we all know that TINSTAAFL. Gerry wrote: > Daave > > I may be a cynic but is that really free? > > > > Daave wrote: >> Good point. As a home user, I certainly wouldn't pay anything. >> >> Then again, I would imagine some ISPs offer Norton at no extra cost. >> >> >> Gerry wrote: >>> Leonard >>> >>> Why pay for what you can get for free. >>> >>> >>> >>> Leonard Grey wrote: >>>> I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes... >>>> >>>> For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton >>>> Haters Club. And for good reason. >>>> >>>> Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security >>>> 2009. My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after >>>> Nutrisystem. Other things I hated about Symantec - technical >>>> support, heavy footprint, built-in advertising, trouble >>>> uninstalling - were no longer problems. I looked for things to >>>> hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any. >>>> And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced >>>> 7-year old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed. >>>> >>>> I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those >>>> rotton vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can >>>> take it. >>>> PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I >>>> made with respect to third-party firewalls. >>>> >>>> PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't >>>> recommend any software product to anyone. Everyone has to make >>>> their own decision, is my view. >>>> --- >>>> Leonard Grey >>>> Errare humanum est >>>> >>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>> Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. >>>>> >>>>> The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance >>>>> implication. It may indirectly make defragmentation easier, >>>>> particularly when the drive is first replaced. You can get hard >>>>> drives with slower read / write speeds. Commonly desktop hard >>>>> drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were less. Laptop hard >>>>> drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery. More in >>>>> this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive
From: smlunatick on 20 Jan 2010 16:12
On Jan 19, 8:36 pm, Leonard Grey <l.g...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > I never thought I would ever say this, but here goes... > > For years, I was a card-carrying (Gold Card) member of the Norton Haters > Club. And for good reason. > > Then, just for the heck of it, I tried Norton Internet Security 2009. > My, what a difference. Like Marie Osmond before and after Nutrisystem. > Other things I hated about Symantec - technical support, heavy > footprint, built-in advertising, trouble uninstalling - were no longer > problems. I looked for things to hate about NIS 2009, but couldn't find any. > > And, for the record, the software runs on my soon-to-be replaced 7-year > old P4 2.26GHz 1GB of RAM computer. I am impressed. > > I'm currently using NAV 2010, and really liking it. So let those rotton > vegetables fly in the general direction of my face...I can take it. > > PS #1: I'm using NAV instead of NIS because of a personal choice I made > with respect to third-party firewalls. > > PS #2: I may have converted to NAV personally, but I don't recommend any > software product to anyone. Everyone has to make their own decision, is > my view. > --- > Leonard Grey > Errare humanum est > > Gerry wrote: > > Like others I would dump Norton for a freeware option. > > > The capacity of the hard drive has no direct performance implication. It > > may indirectly make defragmentation easier, particularly when the drive > > is first replaced. You can get hard drives with slower read / write > > speeds. Commonly desktop hard drives are 7,200 RPM but older drives were > > less. Laptop hard drives are commonly 5,400 RPM to conserve the battery.. > > More in this link: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive I was a "platinum card carrying" loyal Norton user until Norton Internet Security 2009 "screwed" up my XP system last March. Norton "on-line" support agent then had the "gall" to "yank" all the Norton softwares with the NRT tool with out first uninstalling them. This then rendered my PC to a "paper weight" since XP was no longer working. Only a reinstall was able to fix this. Norton security software / anti-virus are "hi jack" software. These take over and forces your traffic thru the Norton "monitoring" system. Norton will not be returning to my systems for the foreseeable future. |