Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: fat.charlie on 9 Jan 2010 21:28 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:43:41 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <cv6ik597r4asp3l932bm8r1afd2fpfqf5p(a)4ax.com>, >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:01:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, >> >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security >> >> product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are >> >> SO MANY of them! >> >> >> > >> >And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. >> >> OK - post the links to all the negative reviews.Make sure yoyu find >> ALL the reviews since YOU SAY there more negative than positive >> reviews. Well.....it's 7:17 CST on Jan 9, 2009..tick tock, tick tock! >> >> > >> >How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? >> >> A simple question does not infer it's explicit truthfullness. Show us >> some PROOF that Virus Bulletin or say rthe ICSA are on Symantec's >> payroll. You don't even know where to begin do you? > >Why not do a google (or other search provider) search for Symantec 2010 >BAD or SYMANTEC 2010 PERFORMANCE PROBLEM or SYMANTEC 2010 FAILED TO >DETECT? > >Are you such a stupid troll that you can't even use a search engine? IOW you are put of ammo.
From: Leythos on 9 Jan 2010 21:29 In article <loeik5lvci0jk0qa8en9ga6hjk6stmvoi6(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:43:41 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <cv6ik597r4asp3l932bm8r1afd2fpfqf5p(a)4ax.com>, > >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > >> > >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:01:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, > >> >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... > >> >> Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security > >> >> product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are > >> >> SO MANY of them! > >> >> > >> > > >> >And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. > >> > >> OK - post the links to all the negative reviews.Make sure yoyu find > >> ALL the reviews since YOU SAY there more negative than positive > >> reviews. Well.....it's 7:17 CST on Jan 9, 2009..tick tock, tick tock! > >> > >> > > >> >How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? > >> > >> A simple question does not infer it's explicit truthfullness. Show us > >> some PROOF that Virus Bulletin or say rthe ICSA are on Symantec's > >> payroll. You don't even know where to begin do you? > > > >Why not do a google (or other search provider) search for Symantec 2010 > >BAD or SYMANTEC 2010 PERFORMANCE PROBLEM or SYMANTEC 2010 FAILED TO > >DETECT? > > > >Are you such a stupid troll that you can't even use a search engine? > > IOW you are put of ammo. I guess you just proved that you're not interested in Truth, that you ARE A TROLL, and that you can't learn. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: FromTheRafters on 9 Jan 2010 22:02 <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com... Without visiting the links... > http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ > "Norton AntiVirus is the world's best-selling security program" Best selling is not a good indicator IMO. > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp > - PCMag 'EDITOR'S CHOICE" is Norton Internet Security 2010 - > "Last year Symantec pulled out all the stops to reduce Norton Internet > Security's impact on system performance. This year's version of the > suite, Norton Internet Security 2010 ($69.99 direct for 3 licenses), > focuses both on improving the user's experience and raising overall > protection. As we saw with our early look at the beta of Norton > Internet Security 2010, the release version succeeds at both aims > without sacrificing performance, securing its position as our Editors' > Choice." I dislike suites just as a matter of principle. > http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html > "In the 2010 version of its well-known antivirus program, Symantec > continues to build on the unexpected progress it made last year. In > addition to maintaining the quick load and scan times, and > significantly smaller system footprint, Norton 2010 includes a > behavioral detection engine based on both behavior and reputation" I did hear that Norton improved the scanning speed of their anti-virus engine. Again, speed is not a good indicator IMO. In fact, there is *always* a compromise between speed and accuracy. > http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ <- > "Fast loading new interface that is light on system resources" ....which is a *good* thing, but again - suites - well..they try to do too much for the user and usually end up being mediocre if taken all together. Better to opt for several best of class programs of your own choosing. > http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php > "Gold-Rated - Top security product 2009" Well, that blurb doesn't tell me much. Guess I'll have to visit to see if they are basing their opinion on more than the effectiveness of the AV component (regardless of speed).
From: fat.charlie on 9 Jan 2010 22:06 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 21:29:51 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <loeik5lvci0jk0qa8en9ga6hjk6stmvoi6(a)4ax.com>, >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:43:41 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <cv6ik597r4asp3l932bm8r1afd2fpfqf5p(a)4ax.com>, >> >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:01:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> >> Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security >> >> >> product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are >> >> >> SO MANY of them! >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >And yet there are as many, if not more, negative reviews. >> >> >> >> OK - post the links to all the negative reviews.Make sure yoyu find >> >> ALL the reviews since YOU SAY there more negative than positive >> >> reviews. Well.....it's 7:17 CST on Jan 9, 2009..tick tock, tick tock! >> >> >> >> > >> >> >How many of the "positive" reviews were compensated in some manner? >> >> >> >> A simple question does not infer it's explicit truthfullness. Show us >> >> some PROOF that Virus Bulletin or say rthe ICSA are on Symantec's >> >> payroll. You don't even know where to begin do you? >> > >> >Why not do a google (or other search provider) search for Symantec 2010 >> >BAD or SYMANTEC 2010 PERFORMANCE PROBLEM or SYMANTEC 2010 FAILED TO >> >DETECT? >> > >> >Are you such a stupid troll that you can't even use a search engine? >> >> IOW you are put of ammo. > >I guess you just proved that you're not interested in Truth, that you >ARE A TROLL, and that you can't learn. Is name-calling what you are all about? I POSTED links ro to my so-called 'trolling'. All you post is bad-mouthing trash. Bet you're caucasion as well? Right? Hmm.....??
From: Charlie on 9 Jan 2010 22:29
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:02:44 -0500, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: ><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com... > >Without visiting the links... > >> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ >> "Norton AntiVirus is the world's best-selling security program" > >Best selling is not a good indicator IMO. > >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp >> - PCMag 'EDITOR'S CHOICE" is Norton Internet Security 2010 - >> "Last year Symantec pulled out all the stops to reduce Norton Internet >> Security's impact on system performance. This year's version of the >> suite, Norton Internet Security 2010 ($69.99 direct for 3 licenses), >> focuses both on improving the user's experience and raising overall >> protection. As we saw with our early look at the beta of Norton >> Internet Security 2010, the release version succeeds at both aims >> without sacrificing performance, securing its position as our Editors' >> Choice." > >I dislike suites just as a matter of principle. > >> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html >> "In the 2010 version of its well-known antivirus program, Symantec >> continues to build on the unexpected progress it made last year. In >> addition to maintaining the quick load and scan times, and >> significantly smaller system footprint, Norton 2010 includes a >> behavioral detection engine based on both behavior and reputation" > >I did hear that Norton improved the scanning speed of their anti-virus >engine. > >Again, speed is not a good indicator IMO. > >In fact, there is *always* a compromise between speed and accuracy. > >> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ <- >> "Fast loading new interface that is light on system resources" > >...which is a *good* thing, but again - suites - well..they try to do >too much for the user and usually end up being mediocre if taken all >together. Better to opt for several best of class programs of your own >choosing. > >> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php >> "Gold-Rated - Top security product 2009" > >Well, that blurb doesn't tell me much. Guess I'll have to visit to see >if they are basing their opinion on more than the effectiveness of the >AV component (regardless of speed). > > Your opinions are noted however they do little to refute the facts offered up by lab tests and reviews by respected industry and journalistic sources, wouldn't you agree? After all who would one researching the net for pre-sales AV data regard..your opinion or sources like Virus Bulletin, ICSA, AV-Comparatives.org and other similarly recognized authorities? As an example Virus Bulletin has awarded Norton security products their top Gold award (Best of 2009) and they have been lab testing AV software for 10 years now. We all have opinions...on AV matters mine are based on TEST DATA not feelings or what someone else has told me without citing credible sources. I have politely cited very well-known and highly credible sources and still the shills and morons continue to clamor about paid-for reviews and parrot back what some other parrot told them once-upon-a-time. To me it is fact vs. fiction - a no brainer IMHO. Regardless your civility was appreciated but likely misplaced in this cess pool of shoot-from-the-hip baseless Norton bashing and name calling. |