Yes, detect NIS completely!
Yes, but detect only some harmless files to wake up people.
No, please waste our donations to go through legal channels, instead of using them to fight malware.
None of the above.
Absolutely. It's my favorite for starting virus removal on heavily infected PCs.Originally Posted by Frank C
Of course, I use the free version. They have the same scanning engine, and the free version can do the boot-time-scan as well on WIndows 2000 and XP.
I review/analyze a fair number of log files helping users remove infections. The greatest majority of the infected computers I see have Norton product(s). The second most frequent is McAfee. There are a few with AVG or Avast and almost never NOD. I think that in itself is an indicator of the effectiveness of NAV and just one reason why I would not choose it for my computer. A bit off topic, but a second reason I would not select NAV is based on the results of this study on What Really Slows Windows Down.
Norton isn't the only company to pull this stunt. This summer McAfee was telling their subscribers to uninstall Ad-Aware. At least McAfee finally responded to protests and updated VirusScan 11 (Online Subscriptions/Boxed Product) on 30 August:
Several products that were previously marked as incompatible will no longer be flagged (this includes Ad Aware)That is exemplary of a company I would never want to be associated with. By instructing customers to uninstall a highly respected product, they are acting in a most unprofessional manner.
I hope others in the community join me in adding their voice -- whether here in this thread, blog about it (I did) or if a Norton customer, complain to Symantec. If they aren't going to get renewals, perhaps they will continue the lines of communication so this issue can finally be resolved.
Windows Insider MVP * * * Microsoft MVP, 2006-20016
Take a walk through the "Security Garden" -- Where Everything is Coming up Roses!
IMHO, I too agree with Terminator. (Even though revenge is sweet.) And professionally attempt to communicate with Symantec.
Personally I'm not familiar with Symantec's suites. But I did have Norton Personal Firewall and AntiVirus and had problems. I was stuck in between, Symantec blamed MS (windows) and MS blamed Symantec. I don't care whose "fault" it is, just make your programs work. I now use free AVG, free Zonealarm, Spybot, AdAware, and a couple others, and all has been well.
There are all kinds of complaints with Symantec products in most forums. If Symantec don't open their eyes and ears and listen to their customers, they will eventually do themselves in, as others have said here.
Keep up the great work.
Y does Symantec do this?
I really wonder why Symantec behaves in the way they do.
They buy everything, put their name and a fu**ed Uninstaller on it and stop supporting the product.
I can't understand people who support them
At one time Symantec had a great antivirus product for managed business networks. This was largely built from the acquisition of the well known Norton family of products and the less well known Intel LANProtect which provided the management interface. For a few years this was a great combination.
However, as many have already stated, Symantec just kept acquiring and adding products to this 'suite' that eventually became bloated and difficult to install, as well as uninstall. Where the antispyware components of this product came from I don't really know, but it hasn't been a very successful portion of the product from what I've seen and heard.
Now Microsoft has gotten into the protection suite business, in large part to try and produce something that will simply do the job required, without all the bloat and complexity that have crippled the major suite products from Symantec and others. Whether they are successful themselves doesn't matter, since just the Microsoft name is enough to have a large effect on the bottom line of Symantec, McAfee and the entire industry. Again, this is partially what Microsoft intended, to force these organizations to compete to produce products that people really need and which will provide the real protection they've been lacking. Personally, I don't feel bad for those who can't and won't survive, since they've taken lots of money for little value already.
The reality is that this has all started a 'protection' war that has been building over the last two years as Microsoft acquired both antivirus and antispyware products to jump start their development and then built Windows Defender antispyware and Windows Live OneCare (home) and Microsoft Forefront Client Security (business) versions of AV protection suites.
Now that these have or are about to release, along with Internet Explorer 7 and Defender for free, it's all about to hit the fan. This was all timed to occur after the end of Microsoft support for the Windows 98 OS family so only Windows 2000/XP and the soon to be released Windows Vista would require support. This radically changes the support profile since these are all protected mode Operating Systems and also vastly reduces the range of support issues.
Where this leaves Spybot S&D is a big question, since many believe that only the big suites can survive in this new environment. However, since Spybot is light and easy to transport and install, it's really more of a tool than most others. This allows it to be used in 'quick fix' situations which the large suites can't perform and in fact these suites really need a stable PC with no malware present before they are installed. So Spybot S&D actually has a niche for both this and other purposes, including the older OS versions and other cases where complete suites aren't desirable.
As for Symantec, they are simply a distraction that the Spybot Team shouldn't pay any attention to, since that's how Symantec is treating Spybot S&D. Worrying that Symantec is telling customers to remove Spybot S&D will gain nothing and simply waste time, which is exactly their intent. Team Spybot should log their displeasure with both Symantec and the official bodies and here as they have. However, the current environment is changing so fast that only those who change with it are going to survive. Team Spybot needs to concentrate all efforts on this so they will be one of the few to remain relavant in this new world.
Put simply, Symantec is a distraction, but only if you let them.
Bitman
stinkin' Symantec
Once I had to format my drive to get rid of all the Symantec junk when I uninstalled Norton. The option was literally hundreds of registry edits to get it out.
I think it is spyware. I'd love for Spybot to find it and clean it out!
I've been using Norton since 1984 when it was Peter Norton's Utilities, a very good product. Since Symantec took it over, it's been going downhill. Although it's still a good product, Symantec has gotten WAY too full of itself, and the product is not THAT good. I'm at a point where I can no longer recommend it to anyone else.
Symantec has gone the way of Microsoft, bloated and a stumbling juggernaut. Litigation is useless. Time is wasted, money is lost, and only the lawyers get anything out of it.
Symantec set the standard. So play the game as they've laid down the rules. Let Spybot declare an incompatibility with Symantec. At least Spybot is free, while Symantec charges out the ... well, you get the drift. And Spybot found problems on my system of which Norton is blissfully unaware.
I have a friend who had installed Norton and cannot completely uninstall or disable its functions. It is preventing him from using various programs and srtest.com oddly enough.
You guys should really add in the option to fully remove all Norton files and registry edits as it is downright impossible to completely wipe it off the system without a full HD wipe.
yes, completely + external removal app
Hey,
yes, that's very bad practise from Symantec and yes, you should add an completely detection and possibility to remove all files, entries and registry infos.
To strenghten your position on that, you should release an additional external standalone app/tool, which don't need to be installed and can detect and remove NIS completely!
I fully support you on this point, I had used an Norton product last time as Norton AV 2000 comes out and Peter Norton (head developer, producer of the great initial Norton product line, after Peter Norton leaves Symantec, their products turns to shit...) leaves Symantec, because of their bad practises.
After that I had switched to another AV soft.
I had already used many, like McAfee, the great Dr. Solomon (best and strongest solution/protection/detection to that date/by then..) (regrated by McAfee/NAI), great and strong Kaspersky and now I use NOD32 (from Eset, http://www.nod32.de, http://www.nod32.eu, http://www.nod32.com) for 2 years and will renew my license for another 3 years, soon.
Good luck and thx in advance!
best regards,
iNsuRRecTiON
Hi all,
I say keep Norton/Symantec on thelist.
I stopped using Symantec products some time ago. Norton takes over everything on your PC. Especially the System Suites. With those you can't do hardly ANYTHING without it poking it's nose into what you are doing, and that is very annoying.
Norton strews it's junk everywhere. Even just the Anti Virus alone leaves numerous files on the PC to be located & deleted after an uninstall, (look for folders of both Norton & Symantec), plus so many entries in the registry that they are almost impossible to get rid of. You have to have a special registry program for digging deep, & knowledge of the registry to get them, & even then you may not get all of them because you have to be real careful to make sure the entry is specific to Norton/Symantec only, or you willPlus you have to look for registry entries under both Norton, & Symantec.
Companies like Symantec count on the PC illiterate, who know little to zilch about getting rid of their junk they put on your PC.
Down with Symantec/Norton.
FiddlinMomma
Posting Permissions
