wellies

As far as I know, you should be on the latest version of the Norton software but I'm not familiar with trial versions of it. Have you tried running Live Update repeatedly? If not, it might be worth doing that. Reboot a couple of times and run Live Update each time to see it the update servers pick up on the fact that the software is not up to date. The latest engine version number according to the Norton Forums is 20.3.0.36, for the 2013 versions and 19.9.1.14 for the 2012 versions, so you could open the Norton interface and look in 'Support > About' to see what the number is. I have to say that I don't know the state of the 2013 version(s) of Norton at present. I thought Norton Internet Security 2013 not so good as the 2009 to 2012 versions, and so looked elsewhere. However, did you still want to remove Norton? If so, it should remove as described and you need not worry about what version is running.

The Norton Removal Tool still leaves leftovers in the file system and Registry. I think these shouldn't make any difference to the incoming security solution but I've always preferred to search for and remove them once the Removal Tool has been run a couple of times (rebooting after each run of the tool). I've never had any trouble with manually removing the leftover files/folders but best to steer clear of searching for and removing leftover Registry entries if not confident with editing it. This isn't a purely Symantec/Norton thing. I've found that removing other security programs using the dedicated removal tool can also leave behind some files and Registry entries. I wish computer manufacturers/sellers wouldn't bundle software with the OS. It makes a clean start with anything else difficult.

I can tell you of my experiences with some programs for what it's worth. Maybe it will be useful: I tried Kaspersky a while back (still got a paid-up subscription) but found the System Tray icon was slow to show. Opinion on the Kaspersky forum was that the system was unprotected until icon showed. This put me off the program. I'm using Bitdefender at present and it is working well for me. However, there have been complaints on the Bitdefender forum that support is not so good if you do get trouble. This may be worth knowing about when making your decision of what program to choose. One of the best support forums I have come across in recent years is Norton's. Norton staff post there regularly, as do many regulars. I'm sure they have a failure rate when it comes to help but support via the forum seems good to me. I never had any trouble with Norton until the 2013 version was released (hence the quest for a change). I don't rule out going back to it, perhaps by reverting to the 2012 version for the time being. But you don't want Norton anyway, so I guess that one is out and you are already in trouble with Kaspersky. The only other protection programs I have had experience with is the Pro version of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and Comodo Internet Security 6. CIS 6 is perhaps not so good at detections (according to some opinions) but it majors more on protection than detection. This being done by virtualisation and sandboxing. Always a strong method of protection in my opinion. I have a system running CIS 6 and MBAM Pro. I feel that the vigilance of MBAM Pro will possibly make up for any lack of detection that CIS 6 may have. With CIS 6's sandboxing and virtualization, further protection might not be necessary but good protection involves layers and MBAM Pro provides one. Another is Comodo DNS. I'm using Bitdefender for Windows 8 and Sandboxie at present and am a bit undecided as to which arrangement is better. Maybe 'CIS 6 + MBAM Pro' and 'Bitdefender + Sandboxie' are both strong in their different ways. My wife's computer has Norton Internet Security (+ Sandboxie) on it but I have downgraded the Norton suite to the 2012 version. She never has any problems with that. I think one problem that could be encountered is that systems don't like being subjected to too much changing of security programs. Nearly all of them leave vestiges behind after uninstallation and I believe this can lead to trouble no matter what program the computer is changed to. I think it's important to thoroughly track down leftovers and remove them before installing the next realtime security program. I do it all using various disk images, always starting off with one that hasn't had any other security program installed (apart from Windows Defender that the system comes with).

Think about adding some virtualization into the mix. This doesn't detect anything but can make it so that there is nothing to detect. Virtualization protects rather than detects. Comodo Internet Security 6 is worth thinking about. It does realtime monitoring the same as other programs. I haven't seen any detection rate figures for CIS but they might at least match MSE's. Comodo Internet Security also has sandboxing/virtualiztion capabilities built into it and this makes it strong in the system protection department. The new version (released 19-12-2012) is very different to the CIS I tried a while ago. It is very easy to run any installed browser sandboxed and it has a virtual Desktop (called 'Virtual Kiosk') where browsers can be opened when using shopping, payment or banking sites. I think browsing sandboxed is the way to go for protection against zero day and drive-by infections. Scanning programs are always playing catch-up with those. Sandboxie is another program that provides sandboxing. A highly-regarded program when it come to computer security. I'd be using it now if I wasn't using CIS that has sandboxing built in. It's still best to have other layers of security. I'm using MBAM Pro alongside of CIS 6, plus using Comodo's DNS filtering service. However, sandboxing takes a different approach to security, so making it a worthwhile layer to have.

Having used Windows 7 almost since its release and Windows 8 for about a week now, I think I can be happy using either. My only disappointment with Windows 8 is that CorelDraw Home & Student X5, which I initially thought was OK, has something that doesn't work in it. The twain driver in PhotoPaint (part of the suite) is inoperative. Not insurmountable because I can always use 'Paint' to scan in an image and then take it into PhotoPaint for working on. I kind of think that it wouldn't hurt Corel to bring out an update for the driver but no, the whole program has to be upgraded to version X6. This would cost around £70. Apart from this disappointment, I'm OK with Windows 8 although not quite ready to ditch my Windows 7 disk images just yet. I can't get on with using IE10 in Windows 8 Metro mode. If Metro is thought different, IE10 in this mode can be classed as very different. All bookmarks appear as continuous tiled ribbon at the bottom of the browser when the Address bar (also at the bottom of the browser) is clicked. If you have a lot of bookmarks, the ribbon becomes very long. However, for those who want to use IE, it can also be used in the Desktop mode, which gives it the usual browser look that we are all used to and the bookmarks are in folders again. To some degree, the unsuitability of IE10 in Metro is down to the way some sites are constructed, mostly forums in fact. The table widths in forums are often made up in percentages rather than fixed pixel widths. This means that when they are viewed in full-screen, which is part of what happens to IE10 in Metro, everything looks far too spaced out. That might not look bad to some but I don't like it. I never have run browsers full-screen though. The latest version of Google Chrome has a Windows 8 mode now and this make it behave the same way as IE10. Overall, I'm not going to condemn Windows 8. Its UI is different of course but this and the system in general work well enough once a bit of familiarity is gained. I like the Windows Store. It is very much like the iPad that Mrs mart has in that respect.

I did create a disk image although, on upgrading, all programs and files were kept. Maybe not such a clean upgrade as starting from scratch (this option is given during the set-up procedure) but a lot less trouble. I've since cleaned off all the backup files that the upgrade creates using the Windows system files clean-up. I suppose that will leave the system in a fairly clean state.

Simple Adblock does work very well in Internet Explorer. It not only blocks ads but also closes up the gaps up where the ads were situated. Just worth mentioning is that although earlier versions of the program were free with no restrictions, later version are limited to blocking 200 advertisements per day (after the 30 day trial expires). So, if using IE all the time, it would be necessary to buy the program ($29-95 for a lifetime licence that includes future updates). Also worth looking at are the tracking protection lists (TPLs) that are available free for Internet Explorer: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ Maybe not as good as Simple Adblock because I think they don't re-arrange spaces left by the blocked ads. The price is better though. About TPLs: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/faq.html

Google Chrome can seem a bit basic but the minimalistic look is one of the attractions for some users. However, it can be made to look and behave differently by adding a few extensions and customisations. Turning on the Bookmarks Toolbar and placing a few favourite sites on it makes a difference. Like Firefox, there are a whole lot of extensions available for Chrome. A few well chosen ones soon make a difference to its functionality. If you like a nice look to the browser, then there are many different 'themes' that can be used. I use Chrome quite a bit and here's the preferred look: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/cb.gif Installed extensions are: Adblock. Do Not Track Plus. Image Properties Context Menu. LastPass. LockTab. Tab Cookies. Tabs to the front. WOT. By the time this is all done and added, Chrome becomes a very browser to the one seen when it is first installed.

Thanks for the thanks :) ..but the kudos should go to the lady who wrote about the cure and to yourself for finding the article she wrote about it. I'm pleased it worked. I thought it might be cured by a Microsoft 'Fixit' download that I'd come across. These are usually Registry fixes. I didn't want to link to anything like that in case it didn't work, or even made matters worse. The Registry can be such a touchy area. So, it's not well done me. It's well done you. :)

This is said by some to be a known bug with Internet Explorer. The trouble with this being that fixes need to come from Microsoft. I've also seen the problem described as 'missing toolbars' since you can't see much of what's in them because of the colour. I'm not absolutely sure if this is actually the same bug though. The quick fix is described as above but it can and does revert. If you do a search using the term internet explorer black toolbar bug, there is quite a bit of discussion around. If the 'missing toolbars' problem is the same as 'black toolbars', then there is a Microsoft 'Fixit' available. However, I won't link to it because I wouldn't like to possibly point you in the wrong direction. I'll leave it to the more prominent members to comment. Not much help but some information at least.

It certainly seems to be free by looking at the page linked to. About the only disadvantage the free version might have is the frequency of signature auto-updates. Every 24 hours is perhaps not enough these days, although you can always update manually at any time. Other free AV programs auto-update more frequently than that. ZA's paid versions auto-update every hour. http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/zonealarm-free-antivirus-firewall.htm The Kaspersky engine is a good feature. Kaspersky is always near or at the top the detection rate tables wherever you look, so that should make the ZoneAlarm program good, apart from maybe the auto-update frequency.

I hope you get on well with whatever program(s) you choose. It's all about reading as much as possible about the various security programs available, trying them out and weighing up the findings. If everyone agreed that there was one single AV program that was the best, we'd all be using it. I think Norton and Kaspersky are the best but that's just me. We all hope we never come across anything that can bypass the protection of our chosen AV program. There probably is malware around that can but it just depends on whether we come across it or not. Consider using Sandboxie as well. Then your AV program will only be called on to do its job if anything bypasses that. I think this is better than the sandbox included within some AV programs: http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?FrequentlyAskedQuestions

By all means change from Norton if that's what you want to do but there's no need to do it for reasons of cost. It is possible to buy from places other than the Norton site. Amazon and even PC World sell NIS for about £22-00. There is no need to uninstall the copy of Norton that you have. Simply open the program and click the 'Renew' button. Then click the 'I have a key or code' link. Enter the key that comes with the new CD. You will be asked for your account username and password. Once entered, the renewal process and activation will complete. Before leaving Norton, consider the fact that it has given you no trouble over the period of time you have used it. This has been my experience over the past four years. Its detection rates and protection are good: http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/test-reports/ I renewed for another year just a couple of days ago. I consider it better than the free products I've tried and think that paying £22-00 a year for three licences is worth it. I read on another forum that Norton has been running an offer to buy/renew NIS for £14-00. I wish I'd known about this before I bought a CD from PC World a couple of weeks ago in readiness for the expiry date. I believe the offer has expired now. I agree with the advice to have a number of layers of security. No AV program will catch all of the malware all of the time. I have removed Norton a few times because of wanting to try out various security suites and AV programs (free and paid). The removal tool should be run a couple of times, rebooting each time. This should leave the computer clean enough to install any other AV program you choose. However, I have found that even after running the removal tool in the recommended manner. There are still files and Registry entries left over. I believe these can be ignored but I always remove them manually. This is just to make the system as clean as possible before installing any other suite or AV program. Edit: Current Amazon prices: NIS 2012 is £21-59 (3 computer licence). Norton 360 is £31-99 (3 computer licence).

I have to say I'm a bit confused about what Norton Confidential actually is. As said earlier, I had never heard of it before reading about it here and then, over on the Norton forum after reading Jelly Bean's post. Research made it look as if it is a separate product ..until eventually coming across this. http://www.norton-security-store.com/products-norton/norton-confidential.html Then it starts to look like it is part of the 2012 suite that is only referred to as 'Norton Confidential' as part of a crash message. Whenever I've had need of the Norton Forum, the extensions that the suite adds to browsers have always been referred to as 'the Norton toolbar' (I normally hide it) and depending on the browser: * Firefox: Norton Vulnerability Protection. * Internet Explorer: Norton Identity Protection and Norton Vulnerability Protection. * Chrome: The password safe, site rating function and the toolbar are rolled into one under the name of 'Norton Identity Protection' (the toolbar can be hidden whilst keeping the other functions working). Now I read about many people getting a crash with Norton Confidential, which it seems doesn't exist any more according to the link above. It can only mean the extension, normally called 'Norton Identity Protection', is causing the crash but since the message mentions 'Norton Confidential', people start calling it that? I really wouldn't know for sure because Chrome doesn't crash for me, so no message. Ah well, live and learn I suppose. I've only been using NIS for three years. :)

Lots of free alternatives are available and I'm sure recommendations will made on them by others. I like security suites myself and have tried 3 different ones out lately. One of these was the Comodo Security Suite (free). This is thought not to have great detection rates but Comodo points out that it's protection that matters and they reckon the suite is better at that than others. That might be the case. It is OK to use anyway, Much better than it used to be in my opininion. There is no computer idle-time scan like some of the other AV programs have so it's not quite as 'set and forget' as NIS (for instance). BitDefender always gets very good detection rate figures on AV testing sites. It comes out well as regard false positive instances too. It uses more memory than Norton does but that doesn't matter providing you have enough of it. I tried BitDefender a few years ago and it slowed my computer right down. The 2012 version didn't do that. The suite includes its own site rating function (like WOT) and this works with IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera. A good suite and not that expensive if you shop around. Kaspersky is another that I tried. It gets good reviews as regards detection rates and false positive figures. This uses a bit more in resources than NIS too but again, it didn't slow the computer down. It also has it's own WOT-like site rating function but this didn't seem to work with Opera. I think I could use any of these suites quite happily but decided to go back to NIS in the end. It seems to have a lot going for it in my opinion and I don't always see why people say it is so bad. It's all about experiences and preferences though and I know that many have had poor experiences with Norton in earlier years. This seems to have set the opinion for life. Mud sticks, even though the versions from 2009 onwards have been much better. The fact that Norton Confidential is giving a problem doesn't mean to say that NIS must be changed too but there is plenty of choice of both free and paid programs if that's what you decide to do. My choice would be one of the above because, having read about and tried many free and paid products, I reckon these are best. The only thing I would say is not to rely solely on any AV program or security suite. Use other layers too. I always recommend Sandboxie for good protection. This, NIS, and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware does it for me. One more addition that has absolutely no overhead. You could change your DNS server to one that offers the filtering of malicious sites. Comodo, OpenDNS and Norton DNS all offer this. All you have to do to use one of them is change some numbers. No installation of anything is necessary.

I'm not familiar with Norton Confidential and had to read about it so see what it does. I do use NIS 2012 however and wonder if there might be a conflict with between the two programs. I don't get any problems with running NIS 2012 with Chrome. As far as I can tell, Norton Confidential only doubles up on what NIS does. Using both shouldn't be necessary and doing so could be causing the problem. An aspect worth looking into anyway. Have you only read about Norton being aware of this problem, or actually asked the question on the Norton forum? If you haven't asked the question there, it might be good to do so. It is the best place to go for advice about Norton if your preference is to keep using it.

I wonder if it worked?

I use Norton Internet Security. I think this would be the same as Norton 360 in many respects. Open Firefox. Are the 'Norton Toolbar' and the 'Norton Vulnerability Protection' extensions present in 'Add-ons > Extensions'? If they are, click Firefox's orange button (top left of the Window), hover the mouse over 'Options' and make sure the 'Norton Toolbar' is selected in the menu that opens. When this is showing, click on the toolbar's options button (far left). Put a tick next to 'Enable Norton Safe Web'. When this is done, the Norton Toolbar can be de-selected again if you don't want it showing. The Identity (password) Safe and Norton Safe Web will still be operational.

Sandboxie version 3.64 has been released: Download Sandboxie Changes from version 3.62: Sandboxie - Version Changes

I realise this post is after the event and I'm pleased that your problem is sorted out thanks to the good help received. Nonetheless, it might be interesting to read about this issue in a thread over on the Norton forum (link below). Best to read all posts. Possible reasons are given why high CPU usage will sometimes be high and sometimes not. Norton doesn't always run badly. In my own case, the processor usage for ccsvchst.exe goes up to about 50% when a scan is initiated but quickly drops down to 25% or below once into the scan. CPU usage for the process sits at about 0.05% when no scan is taking place. Perhaps mileages would vary for these figures depending on the particular computer. http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/CCSVCHST-EXE/m-p/589670/highlight/true#M183510

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/Seasonal/message-1.png

I've a feeling what might make a difference to computer performance with Rapport installed could be to do with the specifications of the system ..and maybe even whether the OS is XP or Windows 7. For one reason or another, it seems that many can't use Rapport even if they want to. I prefer to keep it as a layer of security but then I haven't noticed any performance hit.

Might as well bring information about Sandboxie up to date: Sandboxie 3.62 is now the current version. List of changes in all previous versions here: http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?VersionChanges

'Chromium' is the base browser for Google Chrome, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon and ChromePlus. I've tried them all and have to say that I like Chromium-based browsers. The look of the simple uncluttered interface suits me and I have even made Firefox 8 look like Chrome. I've been using Firefox since version 0.3 when it was called 'Phoenix', so feel almost a traitor using anything else. Despite that, I find I'm using Google Chrome more and more these days. Some aspects I like about Chromium in general are: * The speed at which it opens. * Its use of sandboxing. * The way that each tab runs as a separate process. * A good number of extensions are available. What I find with Google's version of Chromium is that it goes a few steps further than SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon or ChromePlus. Google Chrome includes FlashPlayer, so it runs sandboxed along with the rest of the browser. It includes a PDF reader which also runs sandboxed. Google are fast at releasing updates (some browser updates are released only because Flash has been updated). I make it a practice to run all browsers inside Sandboxie, so Chrome runs doubly sandboxed. Google Chrome also includes a Print Preview that the others don't. There is always the privacy concern raised regarding Google Chrome. I'm not sure if this should be a worry. I run Chrome via ChromePrivacyGuard, don't use Google for a search engine and block web-bug tracking. Maybe this all mitigates any privacy issues. Like Firefox, Chrome benefits from a few extensions. These are the ones I use: * AdBlock+ Element Hiding Helper. * AutoZoom - Allows zooming of text only * Image Properties Context Menu. * LastPass - Password manager and form filler. * Lock Tab - Disables closing a tab and the backwards/forwards buttons for that tab. * ScriptNo - A 'NoScript-like' extension. * Tab Cookies - Deletes cookies when a tab is closed unless the cookie is protected. * Tabs to the front! - Brings newly created tabs to the foreground. * WOT.

I'll concede the free/paid for point but I'd say not to think that those angry or upset by what they consider is a detrimental move by Google are the majority. It's only those who mind the changes that are likely to write into forums and say so. Naturally they are going to form 99% of posters. This will be but a small percentage of all those using Google though. Also, how can companies ask everyone if they mind changes being made? Even if they could or did, some would be in favour, some wouldn't be in favour and some wouldn't care one way or the other. No definite poll result to go by. Personally, if I used Google all the time, I wouldn't find a couple of bars at the top of a search page upsetting at all.