Perfect Score?

[Guest John]

Found this article while browsing the web today:

http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

 

Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder if

the review is biased.

[Guest philo]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

 

"John" <a> wrote in message news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Found this article while browsing the web today:

> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>

> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder if

> the review is biased.

>

>

 

Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

the machine cannot even get on line...

then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

[Guest John]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:uYTl35ftIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> "John" <a> wrote in message news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Found this article while browsing the web today:

>> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>>

>> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder if

>> the review is biased.

>>

>>

>

> Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

> the machine cannot even get on line...

> then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

>

 

or maybe the CPU is always busy processing a ton of Norton processes, it

doesn't even have time to handle rootkit processes trying to kick in. Hey,

that is it! :-)

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

For the most part, the only good Norton products were those dating back in

the DOS days (NDD, SD, DS, etc). Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't

embarrassed by all that has happened since Symantec took it over (and still

with his name attached).

 

John wrote:

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:uYTl35ftIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "John" <a> wrote in message news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Found this article while browsing the web today:

>>> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>>>

>>> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder

>>> if

>>> the review is biased.

>>>

>>>

>>

>> Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

>> the machine cannot even get on line...

>> then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

>>

>

> or maybe the CPU is always busy processing a ton of Norton processes, it

> doesn't even have time to handle rootkit processes trying to kick in. Hey,

> that is it! :-)

[Guest PD43]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

>the machine cannot even get on line...

>then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

 

<SNORK!>

[Guest Nonny]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:38:14 -0600, "Bill in Co."

<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>For the most part, the only good Norton products were those dating back in

>the DOS days (NDD, SD, DS, etc). Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't

>embarrassed by all that has happened since Symantec took it over (and still

>with his name attached).

 

How do you know that he isn't?

 

My guess is that he made so much money over the years that he

couldn't care less about that.

 

And I agree... the products were GREAT and HAD to be had when he

owned the company.

>

>John wrote:

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:uYTl35ftIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> "John" <a> wrote in message news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>> Found this article while browsing the web today:

>>>> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>>>>

>>>> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder

>>>> if

>>>> the review is biased.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

>>> the machine cannot even get on line...

>>> then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

>>>

>>

>> or maybe the CPU is always busy processing a ton of Norton processes, it

>> doesn't even have time to handle rootkit processes trying to kick in. Hey,

>> that is it! :-)

>

[Guest Mark]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

AFAIK Norton has always had good protection, it's the integration with the

OS, resource hogging, and tech support that's been the problem. I used it

for a few years and never had a problem with malware. With that said, it is

generally crap software that I would never again install on a machine that I

own.

 

Mark

 

"John" <a> wrote in message news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Found this article while browsing the web today:

> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>

> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder if

> the review is biased.

>

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

Nonny wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:38:14 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>> For the most part, the only good Norton products were those dating back

>> in

>> the DOS days (NDD, SD, DS, etc). Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't

>> embarrassed by all that has happened since Symantec took it over (and

>> still

>> with his name attached).

>

> How do you know that he isn't?

>

> My guess is that he made so much money over the years that he

> couldn't care less about that.

 

I wouldn't want my name on a product tarnished like that. I'd force them

to remove it - if there was any possibility - or maybe even pay them with a

lump fee, to be done with it. I'm sure he's rich enough to have some

options.

> And I agree... the products were GREAT and HAD to be had when he

> owned the company.

>

>>

>> John wrote:

>>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>>> news:uYTl35ftIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> "John" <a> wrote in message

>>>> news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Found this article while browsing the web today:

>>>>> http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2

>>>>>

>>>>> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder

>>>>> if

>>>>> the review is biased.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead

>>>> the machine cannot even get on line...

>>>> then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>

>>>>

>>>

>>> or maybe the CPU is always busy processing a ton of Norton processes, it

>>> doesn't even have time to handle rootkit processes trying to kick in.

>>> Hey,

>>> that is it! :-)

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Perfect Score?

 

On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:11:21 -0600, "Bill in Co."

<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Nonny wrote:

> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:38:14 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >

> >> For the most part, the only good Norton products were those dating back

> >> in

> >> the DOS days (NDD, SD, DS, etc). Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't

> >> embarrassed by all that has happened since Symantec took it over (and

> >> still

> >> with his name attached).

> >

> > How do you know that he isn't?

> >

> > My guess is that he made so much money over the years that he

> > couldn't care less about that.

>

> I wouldn't want my name on a product tarnished like that. I'd force them

> to remove it - if there was any possibility - or maybe even pay them with a

> lump fee, to be done with it. I'm sure he's rich enough to have some

> options.

 

 

Yes, he's very rich. But regardless of how rich he his, he sold his

name to Symantec. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand the law, I'm

sure that he has no any legal options to prevent them from using the

name they bought and paid him for on their products.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup