Talk:Norton Utilities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm afraid I don't know much about this subject, but many of the assertions in this article come across as not NPOV:
Creating new utilities that are standard features of a system is usually viewed as counter-productive. Marketing them as new features and as new utilities is at least less than honest.
In particular, the second section is particularly vitriolic, and I'm sure there must be another side to the story:
The featured utility in 'The Norton Utilities, Release 2' was 'filefind' which allowed users to locate files on the new hard drives. At the time of the release Mr. Norton was Utilities Editor for PC Magazine, and in the marketing and all communications for 'Release 2' he failed to mention that 'findfile' from On-DIsk Software, Weston, Massachusetts, had been submitted for review almost a year before and performed all the functions of 'filefind' as well as some more. This utility was taken without "consent, contract or compensation" and incorrectly presented as Norton's work. Upon being alerted of an apparent lapse of journalistic efforts, not to mention apparent I.P. borrowings, if not theft, Norton suddenly was no longer Utilities Editor for PC Magazine. --Huppybanny 14:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. There was certainly an amount of borrowing of features between NU and, for example, PC Tools over the years. Would On-Disk have supplied the source code, or is this another case of feature cloning? Lovingboth 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Fan Decheng Will Add Something
Looking at the article, it was so faint. Let me add something about Norton Utilities 8 for MS-DOS and/or Norton Utilities 4 for Windows 9x. - Fan Decheng (AKA Robbie Mosaic)
And now we have a nice combination of NPOV and non-native English. Sigh. ZacharyS 00:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Hopefully my edit removes most of the problems with this page. I know I've left a few gaps, so more details would be welcomed (but only if they exclude non-sequiters such as "Compared with Microsoft programs, programs in Norton Utilities are much more beautiful and seeming to be smarter"). It does sound like someone has a personal grudge against the Norton Utilities. I'd also prefer it if the allegations of copying FINDFAST/FASTFIND were not reinstated unless somone could provide some proof. mh. 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit by 70.57.70.149 to that of Mhoulden, which seemed to be reasonably balanced. The stuff added by 70.57.70.149 seems to be the same as the original NPOV stuff which had been cleared up so well. Please do not revert back unless you clear up the obvious bias against Norton. Incidentally, mh, I think you have done a marvellous job. --Huppybanny 22:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that I am unable to speak native English, because I am not a native English speaker. Thanks for everybody's good work on the Norton Utilities page. I want to say that I do not have a personal grudge on NU. Instead, I liked Symantec Norton series products. Although Chinese translation of Symantec products aren't ideal, but they are much better and carefully done than Microsoft Chinese translations. A question: In the article: However, with the advent of Windows XP onwards, Norton's 'Speed Disk' reverted back to single-cluster defragmentation. The question is, was it really true? -- Fan Decheng 1:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Having worked on Speed Disk for windows NT I can tell you that it is not true that only one cluster is moved at a time the slowdown is the server targeted optimization algorithm and the Microsoft MoveFile API that is used to move the clusters. The Speed Disk for XP is a derivitive of the Speed Disk that was released for Windows NT4 and Windows 2000. In Windows NT4 there were no internal API's for moving around the disk contents. A driver was written to accomplish this task. The same driver was used on Windows 2000, but in windows 2000 Microsoft introduced a new API called the "MoveFile" API. MoveFile allowed a program to move around clusters on the disk but had serious limitations. Because of the limitations initially Speed Disk continued using their driver which was faster and could optimize the MFT and directories. After a few patches to Windows 2000 and a lack of focus on the utilities market, security was becoming the companies new focus, there was a decision to remove the driver which needed a new update everytime a patch came out and just use the MoveFile API which was supported by MS. The current MoveFile API has few limitations, but is still a lot slower than the driver was and the optimization algorithm in XP is much less efficient than the old 9x algorithm since the XP algorithm was originally targeted at maintenance of servers, not quick defrags. visionep 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NU history
It's ancient history I know, but I have a memory that Norton Disk Doctor was introduced in the unmentioned 4.5 release. I'll see if I can find the readme file from then. Lovingboth 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Uninstalling Norton Internet Security 2006
I tried uninstalling Norton Internet Security product from my computer using Add or Remove programs from my XP without any success. The product is still installed. I went on the internet and discovered "Uninstall Norton" as a program that is supposed to be able to uninstall any Symantec product on my machine. Does anybody know what this program does and whether it would enable me to take Symantec off my PC?
- This is not the place to ask that. This is for the discussion of the article and the content of the article. --CCFreak2K 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Differences between NU 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004 etc
I was hoping the article might mention how the product has evolved over these released. Anyone know where this information may be obtained from please? --Rebroad 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
