Talk:Norton Internet Security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] FACT

  • FACT - "Norton Internet Security is known for its inefficiency. It runs slowly and takes a noticible toll on computer performance."
  • FACT - "Norton Internet Security has however been criticised for effectively 'spamming' computer users who have purchased computers from manufacturers such as Dell (who ship the software preinstalled) with reminders to purchase the product. There is no way to turn off these reminders, which appear every time an infected computer is booted up, without either uninstalling the whole product or signing up."
  • FACT - "product activation ... allows software companies to inspect the user's sytem to determine whether each product is installed legally."
  • FACT - "Norton Internet Security is proprietary software, meaning that its code and workings are not made available to allow public scrutiny of the product, and that it can only be distributed on Norton's terms. Like most software of its kind Norton Internet Security runs on Microsoft Windows, which is far more prone than other operating systems to security breaches and spyware infection."

All this was removed within minutes by User:Chairboy. Do you have a vested interest here, Chairboy? Are you employed by Symantec? Did you work on this piece of software? I'm not going to contribute to Wikipedia if its articles are policed by people who want them to look like worthless advertising copy, so I'll leave someone more experienced in the ways of editing and NPOV who comes across this to reincorporate some of the 'inconvenient' facts into the article.

  • Unsigned by 86.138.18.5

Hello! Please create an account, it's easier to track your work and you'll find that you get taken a bit more seriously. Please cite a source for the statement that 'Norton Internet Security is known for its inefficiency' as well as the spamming accusation. The product activation does not 'inspect' the system, you enter a key that's checked against a database to track how often it has been activated. The text makes the unfounded suggestion that the DRM code somehow allows Symantec to rifle through the users computer, which is wildly inaccurate. Finally, the section about NIS being a proprietary product is pretty silly. It's a commercial product, and unless all encyclopedia articles about non open-source software have something similar, then putting it into this article sounds like someone with an axe to grind. Welcome to wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing more contributions from you in the future! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BUT IT'S THE TRUTH!

I know the guy should have backed up his statements, but I'd like the throw in my two bits. I'm a Mac user myself, but I've seen two Dells that came with NIS pre-installed ground to a halt by this shitty piece of software. I remove it and replace it with Windows Firewall, AVG AntiVirus, AdAware, and SpybotS&D, and suddenly the user has better protection AND their computer doesn't run like shit.

-Tom Morrisey

I can't comment on the last three, but the first 'FACT' is certainly not a fact - I installed Norton Internet Security 2006 and noticed absolutely no slowing down at all. 'FACT' one is in fact opinion. __TheIslander 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done lots of work with NIS over the years, and you need at least 1GB RAM to not notice any slow down. 512 and less, you will see a performance hit, more so with 256, and your pc will barely work with 128MB. I should add that 2007 is lighter on system resources than previous versions. --Cooldude7273 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ladies, gentlemen: All of the above falls under WP:NOR. If the claims are to be made, a proper citation is required, with solid wording. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note from Oli -- the author of the references

Well the discussion looks passionate enough =). I've just popped in to maintain the links and add one to the initial test I did earlier in Sep06. The tests were performed to educate, not confuse people and scare them into uninstalling "vital" software. In terms of performance, however, my tests showd (pretty conclusively) that NIS is to be avoided on systems where you want good performance. I agree that most of the evidence for NIS being bad is anecdotal, coming from user experience but if you do have something to say about it write it down somewhere else and link it in. But remember evidence is power here.


OK, folks! Here's one for the pot! Yes, I've experienced most of the symptoms in operating with it described above - slow running, frequent scripting errors, etc., etc.

I've just contacted Which?, the consumers' organisation, regarding my recent ‘bad experience’ with Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 software.

Three years ago I purchased a Dell Dimension 8400 PC on which the OEM version of Norton Internet Security 2004 was pre-installed. I have been scrupulous in keeping it updated, purchasing my 2007 downloadable version as recently as the 6 June 2007, at a cost of £39.99. Since installing the update I have had almost three weeks of problems, with effectively no anti-virus protection.

It transpires that one of Symantec’s recent editions of ‘Live Update’ contained a bug that rendered the anti-virus component effectively useless. After trying several ‘fixes’ posted on the Symantec web-site - none of which appeared to work - I have now been forced to remove the software package from my system entirely (?). It appears I am not the only one who has encountered problems. I spent half an hour yesterday evening reading through a list of review postings on the Amazon web-site, which reveal a catalogue of problems with the various versions of Symantec’s current Norton packages.

I have contacted Symantec Support three times by email since 27 May, receiving an automated response on each occasion, but not the promised follow-up email response to resolve the issue. I've also tried to elicit a telephone contact by posting a brief description of the problem by email and waiting for a member of the support team to call me back 'within half an hour' – only they didn’t, because that particular contact page no longer accepts postings.

Symantec must know by now that they have a serious problem on their hands, and will be inundated with complaints. (There are useful comments on related problems with the various 2007 versions of Norton on the Amazon web pages.)

I have now been forced to solve my own particular problem by reverting to the version (2006?) of Norton ‘bundled’ with my recent BT Yahoo! Broadband installation – but this is not exactly what I want, because it provides only limited internet security.

Symantec enjoyed a reputation second to none for the quality of its software only a few years ago, as evidenced by the number of PC manufacturers who pre-installed it, and they are now living on past glories. Not just home office users, but also large commercial organisations rely upon Symantec’s Norton software to protect their networks. Now, judging by the ever-lengthening list of poor reviews, Symantec is trying to live on its former reputation for quality while (not so!) quietly ‘going down the pan’.

I just hope I will be able to get a refund of this year's £40.00 update subscription! 81.152.155.249 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increased the accuracy of the display text for an external link to the NIS 2007 sales page of one UK website

The one external link in this article had the display text "Norton Internet Security Reviews" and a second description as "NIS Reviews and Features Comparison". Clicking on the link takes one to the NIS 2007 sales page at one particular uk website: securitybay.co.uk.

[edit] Suites

What is NIS? Is it comparable to other products of other companies (McAfee, etc.)? So could they be subsumized under a specific designation? --Alien4 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] complete rewrite

u herd me,all this article daz iz 2 bury nis,rewrite it so ppl can know both the bad AND the good - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqmaster (talk • contribs)

Could you rephrase your question/comment in the form of... english? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does the article on Windows mention all the versions of windows? Shouldn't it just talk about Vista?
Seriously, though... there's no reason not to have the history of older versions of a program in an article, because it is information about that program. You could add that said issues were fixed in the newer releases, but there's no need to remove it just because it's from an older edition. Gscshoyru 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Norton Anti-virus/Internet Security is widely known in the ISP (internet service provider) business as a complete waste of time and a great annoyance." - seriously now, "GREAT annoyance" and "complete waste of time", even if it had a citation such a statement wouldn't last. Doing a lil' rephrase and leaving cit needed on. Seriously now enough with the Norton bashing. Nobody bashed ZAISS when version 7 went awry. =\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizard Fire God (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I request the removal of the screenshot of Norton Internet Security 2007

I request the removal of the screenshot of Norton Internet Security 2007 (Image:Norton07.jpg), because it is fair use and I don't think it adds significantly to the article. Althepal 18:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with saying the image is no longer relevant. It's purpose it to show the differences amongst recent versions of Norton Internet Security - after all, there is even a level 2 heading for the specific version, so why not have a screenshot to go with it? It aids the reader about understanding the product. The previous post has been incorporated into this discussion from my talk page. Althepal 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Cooldude7273 11:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's so important. Except for very popular programs (eg Windows) where there are both a significant number of people using the old version and there is a significant difference, I don't think that old versions of the program significantly contribute to the article. Also, discussing version history isn't enough to include fair use images of old versions (I only, and even then occasionally, see this happening on articles about Free Software, usually just on Linux articles). This is my view, but perhaps a consensus of people can settle this. Althepal 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure that Norton Internet Security is compatible with Mac OS X?

I'm looking for a security suite for Mac OS X 10.2.8 and according to this wikipedia-article, Norton Internet Security 2008 is compatible with Mac OS X (granted maybe the newest edition), but according to Symantec's very own product page there is no mention of Mac OS compatiblity, [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying Reigional Issues

Norton internet Security has been a very robust and effective program for as long as I've ever run it, and I've run it for four years. Most of my friends and reviews that I've read agree and put Norton Internet security as the industry leader in Online protection. Somebody higher up on this talk page mentioned that the program costed them 40 euros, which draws my attention for a few reasons. First of all, that person is european, and I've heard that the landscape on internet security is very different than it is in the US, mostly because of how we all run a different operating system than europe does, and would presumably affect the quality of the European product dramatically. Second of all, 40 Euros is like, what, 65 US dollars?!? NIS over here is just $45. Aparently there are significant reigional differences in the product, and I think we should put theese differences on the page.Rustyfence (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

40 euros is about $58 USD. These differences occur is just about all products that are sold both in the US and Europe. Europe always gets ripped off. Cooldude7273 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

The article raises some issues with NIS, but still goes too easy on it. And completely leaves out the very relevant cost issues. (Maybe you have used the product personally and not had problems. But if ten percent of the users are having problems, that can still add up to a mountain of grief.)

  • People don't use this kind of product because they want to, but rather because they have to -- because they are afraid. The products are expensive, complicated, and confusing. This software category is a protection racket. People are forced to pay year after year. It is expensive. There may be no reason to think there is actually conspiracy at work, but from the point of view of the consumer there might as well be.
  • The cost of NIS in the US is about $50 per year. The cost of the annual renewal ($50) is almost as much as buying the new version ($60 or $70). Maintaining a subscription provides access to updates, but does not provide the new versions that are released every year. Installing new versions may require completely removing the old version, which may be very difficult. Even keeping an old version running may require re-installing it, again with great difficulty.
  • There is no significant discount for buying the online download instead of the local retail product. In fact, local sales may be substantially cheaper ($40). And with the frequent rebates based on sending in proof of having purchased an older version (be sure to retain all old manuals etc), there can be great savings (down to $0 after rebate) -- for those willing to go to a great deal of hassle. It is inefficient and bad for the environment to force people to get unecessary physical retail product. (But when there are problems with the program, it can be a benefit to have the CD, assuming it can be found, along with all the needed product keys etc.)
  • Customer Service is poor. Help by telephone is extremely limited at best. Help by Chat, the preferred mode, is slow and not very helpful. Hours of agony, and additional help from local technical experts, may be necessary simply to pay for an annual renewal and then get the program to actually accept it.

The bottom line is that ordinary customers are treated as suckers, and Symantec is essentially printing money. These are all notable and relevant factoids -- maybe someone can find a way to prove them and get them into the article? And what are the best comparison guides and reviews for products in this class? -69.87.204.50 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason these should be incorporated into the article. If you went by what you said, then EVERY article on WP about any good sold should have a criticism section because no matter what the product is, someone will show negative points of it (like you.) Now, let me rebuttal here. Cooldude7273 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • People could very well use a free alternative. Google "free antivirus" and you have it. No complicated work needed.
  • Actually, you do get the new version. As long as your subscription is active and valid, you can download the newest version, install and BAM you are using the new version. For example, I was using NIS 2007 last year, and then 2008 came out. I went to their site, downloaded it, clicked next a few times, rebooted, and BAM I was using NIS 2008.
  • Tons of products have the same price online as in the store. So? What's the problem? And of course you'll be more likely to find a deal in a store. Why would Symantec allow everyone to simply go to Norton.com, fill out a rebate form, and then get a free product? Millions of times over? The company would lose money, that's just stupid if you expect them to do that. And at stores, it is the store that sets the final price, not Symantec. You also made my point about it being good to have a physical product.
  • Every tech support call I've made in the last couple of years sucks, including online chats. This isn't a Symantec problem, its an market problem that favors outsourcing. Get used to it.