Absolutely. It's my favorite for starting virus removal on heavily infected PCs.
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.
Either Safer Networking Ltd. or Symantec leaving the Anti Spyware Coalition...
- Thread starter PepiMK
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely. It's my favorite for starting virus removal on heavily infected PCs.
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.
Corrine
Security Expert
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:
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.
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.:crowned:
AlexanderBond
New member
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
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
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
Mike Nielson
New member
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.
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.
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.
iNsuRRecTiON
New member
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
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
FiddlinMomma
New member
Hi all,
I say keep Norton/Symantec on the :spider: list.
:
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 will
Plus 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
I say keep Norton/Symantec on the :spider: list.
: 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 will
Plus 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
I agree with much of what has been said. I also registered for the forum just to vote in the poll and respond to this. As with many others, I used to use Norton Utilities, etc. from way back when, but have not used any Norton/Symantec for a few years now, as it has, in my opinion, been ruined.
I am using Spybot-S&D and a few other programs to combat spyware, ads, pop-ups, viruses, etc. now, all of which are free, and very effective. Even having next to no money, and an 8 1/2 year old PC, I've still found no problems running Spybot-S&D, or indeed finding useful and effective free or inexpensive programs like it. I recognize that some 'expensive' programs must be bought to have true effectiveness, but I wish more programs took the classic approach that Spybot-S&D does, and wrote tighter programming code like the "old days".
Programs like these, ironically perhaps, are worth their weight in gold. :crowned:
I am using Spybot-S&D and a few other programs to combat spyware, ads, pop-ups, viruses, etc. now, all of which are free, and very effective. Even having next to no money, and an 8 1/2 year old PC, I've still found no problems running Spybot-S&D, or indeed finding useful and effective free or inexpensive programs like it. I recognize that some 'expensive' programs must be bought to have true effectiveness, but I wish more programs took the classic approach that Spybot-S&D does, and wrote tighter programming code like the "old days".
Programs like these, ironically perhaps, are worth their weight in gold. :crowned:
RollaCoasta
New member
I voted "Yes, detect NIS completely!", but somehow more sarcastic. Sarcastic, because like some other guys here mentioned already, and most of us might be aware of, MONEY rules the world. And the non-flexible yellow giant made already so much of it, selling the yellow-boxed pc-tranquilizers, that it might be easier to win the lottery jackpot than to win against them in court.
Ok, if you look how difficult - if not impossible - it is, to do a really clean uninstall of the yellow crap, they would deserve to find them self on the detection rules. And it's really a pity that so many hardware-producers deliver their machines bundled with this junk.
An open battle, Symantic vs. Safer Networking? I think, the risk is to high that Goliath would trample down David, just with his moneytary background.
"But as the harder they come, the harder they fall" Jimmy Cliff sang long time ago, and so I'm shure, Sym-tic will also do. I'm not happy about the fact that MS is pretending now (soon), they would protect purchasers systems of the crap that comes through the holes which they themself left open. But that could be a turning point for some of the money-collectors who promise security but bring instability.
Dinos disappeared because them were not flexible enough. And so it's also in business just the question, when do they reach their critical mass?
To all those people here who still use the yellow junk but think about a change. Yes YOU are the power, that can change Sym-tic's behaviour! Cause Money is the only language the speak. Don't buy it, and tell everybody else, also to use better alternatives!
Get rid of the yellow tranquilizer:
Additionally with an image of your clean installation and regular backups, there'll be then no need to slowdown your pc with 2 GB of "protective" apps (yes, computers can also do other things than to only protect themself).
@Patrick and Team Spybot,
hey guys, be strong and stay conscious in what your doing. And a BIG THX for your great tool/s! :bighug:
Greetings
RollaCoasta
(who fortunately got rid of the yellow crap two years ago
: )
Ok, if you look how difficult - if not impossible - it is, to do a really clean uninstall of the yellow crap, they would deserve to find them self on the detection rules. And it's really a pity that so many hardware-producers deliver their machines bundled with this junk.
An open battle, Symantic vs. Safer Networking?
I think, the risk is to high that Goliath would trample down David, just with his moneytary background."But as the harder they come, the harder they fall" Jimmy Cliff sang long time ago, and so I'm shure, Sym-tic will also do. I'm not happy about the fact that MS is pretending now (soon), they would protect purchasers systems of the crap that comes through the holes which they themself left open. But that could be a turning point for some of the money-collectors who promise security but bring instability.
Dinos disappeared because them were not flexible enough. And so it's also in business just the question, when do they reach their critical mass?
To all those people here who still use the yellow junk but think about a change. Yes YOU are the power, that can change Sym-tic's behaviour! Cause Money is the only language the speak. Don't buy it, and tell everybody else, also to use better alternatives!
Get rid of the yellow tranquilizer:
- clean your system of all the leftovers it (yellow crap) leaves there (or best do directly a fresh install);
- use an other, more effectiv less bloated, av-scanner (some are mentioned already, my favourites are Kaspersky or Avira AntiVir);
- get a simple hardware router - it doesn't cost more than a one-year subsription to sym-crap but works for years and the firewall in it is not such a cheat than all those desktop-/personal-"firewalls";
- (this is one of the most important points, as like the next one!) Use an alternative, "non-activeX", browser - e.g. Mozilla Firefox or Opera, with the right configurations;
- keep your system, browser, javaRE, apps etc. always uptodate;
- don't misuse user-accounts with administrator-rights for internet trips and other everyday's jobs! they are called administrator-accounts/-rights because they are there to administer your computer - and nothing else;
- and then the very most important - use your brain when you surf in-the-net, read your email or install new software;
Additionally with an image of your clean installation and regular backups, there'll be then no need to slowdown your pc with 2 GB of "protective" apps (yes, computers can also do other things than to only protect themself).
@Patrick and Team Spybot,
hey guys, be strong and stay conscious in what your doing. And a BIG THX for your great tool/s! :bighug:
Greetings
RollaCoasta
(who fortunately got rid of the yellow crap two years ago
: )Like others here, I registered for posting on this topic. (And BTW, why force a minimum of 5 letters for user name? I use 4 on most boards, and would never remember this user name in the future.)
I think that detecting Norton as spyware is stupid. It'd make Spybot S&D look like it's malfunctioning. Worse, it'd make Norton completely correct in urging its removal -- by your own criterion. (Since removing Norton impairs system security by definition, regardless of what you think of Norton's effectiveness.) In short, by claiming that what Norton is doing is wrong, and then doing back the exact same thing, you'd be going for meaningless revenge, and benefitting people in no way at all.
If you just detect Norton as spyware, people will not know what the issue is, and will just think Spybot is defective. I have no problem, on the other hand, with a dialogue in your software which mentions the issue specifically. Go ahead, tell people about the issue with Norton. Refer them to the discussion on your site. Let them make their own decision -- which will probably be in your favour.
So a specific detection of Norton, a message about it, and the option to not show this dialogue in the future, seems like a good solution to me.
As for legal channels, I won't suggest that. The link for sending e-mail to the ASC is a positive measure, and I'm sure some people will e-mail them. Some people might blog about this, or post news on tech sites. Public awareness can be a powerful force, which is why I think notifying users of the situation is the better solution.
I think that detecting Norton as spyware is stupid. It'd make Spybot S&D look like it's malfunctioning. Worse, it'd make Norton completely correct in urging its removal -- by your own criterion. (Since removing Norton impairs system security by definition, regardless of what you think of Norton's effectiveness.) In short, by claiming that what Norton is doing is wrong, and then doing back the exact same thing, you'd be going for meaningless revenge, and benefitting people in no way at all.
If you just detect Norton as spyware, people will not know what the issue is, and will just think Spybot is defective. I have no problem, on the other hand, with a dialogue in your software which mentions the issue specifically. Go ahead, tell people about the issue with Norton. Refer them to the discussion on your site. Let them make their own decision -- which will probably be in your favour.
So a specific detection of Norton, a message about it, and the option to not show this dialogue in the future, seems like a good solution to me.
As for legal channels, I won't suggest that. The link for sending e-mail to the ASC is a positive measure, and I'm sure some people will e-mail them. Some people might blog about this, or post news on tech sites. Public awareness can be a powerful force, which is why I think notifying users of the situation is the better solution.
I Think that spybot has to add an completely detect and remove all files, entries and registry info, but I would show the 'Norton'-problem in a different window and give a few links to other programs who do the same as Norton, but are better.
(Like 'for a: virusscanner you can use avast,
firewall you can use ZoneAlarm', ...) (or other good programs).
I used Norton, once too... But I did a complet uninstall (I'm still finding registry keys of it and it would be nice if spybot found them for me.), because it slowed down my computer too much. So I installed another virusscanner/firewall/... . The new virusscanner (avast), works much faster, didn't cost as much and found ... a few virusses that norton didn't found.
Since then I recomend Norton only when you want to throw away money and important system resources...
(Like 'for a: virusscanner you can use avast,
firewall you can use ZoneAlarm', ...) (or other good programs).
I used Norton, once too... But I did a complet uninstall (I'm still finding registry keys of it and it would be nice if spybot found them for me.), because it slowed down my computer too much. So I installed another virusscanner/firewall/... . The new virusscanner (avast), works much faster, didn't cost as much and found ... a few virusses that norton didn't found.
Since then I recomend Norton only when you want to throw away money and important system resources...
Last edited:
Sticky Mick
New member
I say play them at their own game.
I don't like NIS anyway. I installed it when I built my new PC last year, decided it wasn't for me (took ages to boot my PC, and was too slow).
I uninstalled it and tried to install the gear that I use now:
Spybot S&D
AntiVir
Zonealarm
and A-Squared.
None of them would install. I found out that it was something left behind by NIS. I e-mailed Symantec and their reply was "Well you'll just have re-install it" Had to re-install XP in the end, because they wouldn't tell me how to clean up my system.
I don't like NIS anyway. I installed it when I built my new PC last year, decided it wasn't for me (took ages to boot my PC, and was too slow).
I uninstalled it and tried to install the gear that I use now:
Spybot S&D
AntiVir
Zonealarm
and A-Squared.
None of them would install. I found out that it was something left behind by NIS. I e-mailed Symantec and their reply was "Well you'll just have re-install it" Had to re-install XP in the end, because they wouldn't tell me how to clean up my system.
Symantec only needs to keep going the way they have been lately, to be the means of their own destruction. When norton goback had issues with Spybot on one of my computers, the solution was simple I uninstalled norton system works,including norton goback!In my opinion, Symantec products (since 2004) have not been a good thing to put on your computer, especialy if you want to use it. Newer symantec products cause slowdowns, crashes, and shutdown problems. The net result is that I, like many other people have found somthing better, that will actually work with newer operating systems and computers.
Anyone willingly running Norton, even for free, are probably too far off the mark to be concerned whether SSAD is a good or a bad thing to delete from their system.
In my opinion,SSAD would be better served by continuing to market its products and capabilities successfully rather than risking expensive litigation against such a large and entrenched organisation.
David did once slay the giant, but remember he only had one (lucky?) shot, and we all know where he would have ended had he missed!
lijnoj
In my opinion,SSAD would be better served by continuing to market its products and capabilities successfully rather than risking expensive litigation against such a large and entrenched organisation.
David did once slay the giant, but remember he only had one (lucky?) shot, and we all know where he would have ended had he missed!
lijnoj
JohanSamyn
New member
I can only add to this list my own bad experiences with Symantec products. Indeed, trying to remove them marks them - at least for me - as true malware, because it's almost impossible to achieve. It's been already so long ago, I don't even remember if I succeeded, or if I reinstalled my pc. I think nobody has the right to try to master anybody elses pc that way, not even with the motive of "helping you to protect your machine". So yes, I voted "Detect and completely remove NIS". I understand however, that fighting Symantec in court would indeed be a Goliath-David experience. But it should be clear that nobody is allowed to tamper with the rules. To me, who hinders or fights people that are trying to help others (even for free !) is to be eliminated out of the game. It's untollerable. They are indeed violating the rules of the ASC, so action agains them is justified.
To Patrick Kolla (and eventually colleagues/helpers/etc) I say : "Thank you so much", your product has helped me several times already, and is a tool I would not like to miss. Please keep up the good works, as we use to say.
My donation will follow soon. I think this should become our normal behaviour. When we use someone's free product, and it is of real value to us, we should spontaneously compensate that person for his/her efforts.
Regards, Johan
To Patrick Kolla (and eventually colleagues/helpers/etc) I say : "Thank you so much", your product has helped me several times already, and is a tool I would not like to miss. Please keep up the good works, as we use to say.
My donation will follow soon. I think this should become our normal behaviour. When we use someone's free product, and it is of real value to us, we should spontaneously compensate that person for his/her efforts.
Regards, Johan
Still like Norton
I love Spybot and I have and will always have it on my pc's.
I also have used Norton for many years. I probably always will.
Reading through these messages I can understand the frustration of software that did not work for somebody, and the need for some folks to vent for reasons that may not be related to this issue.
I did a search of "Spybot Search & Destroy" on the Symantec site. When it came to NIS2007 and Spybot they talked about it running the tea timer feature and the worst case solution was to uninstall Spybot, then uninstall Norton IS2007 restart the computer and then reinstall NIS 2007 and then reinstall Spybot. Hardly a condemnation of Spybot.
I am going to write to Norton/Symantec and voice my concern if they are stating anything else elsewhere.
I love Spybot and I have and will always have it on my pc's.
I also have used Norton for many years. I probably always will.
Reading through these messages I can understand the frustration of software that did not work for somebody, and the need for some folks to vent for reasons that may not be related to this issue.
I did a search of "Spybot Search & Destroy" on the Symantec site. When it came to NIS2007 and Spybot they talked about it running the tea timer feature and the worst case solution was to uninstall Spybot, then uninstall Norton IS2007 restart the computer and then reinstall NIS 2007 and then reinstall Spybot. Hardly a condemnation of Spybot.
I am going to write to Norton/Symantec and voice my concern if they are stating anything else elsewhere.
You mean this page?
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPOR...bd905ac77882571e0005e8f21?OpenDocument&seg=hm
Well,in my own personal opinion,I think NIS should add some of the info from the above page,to this warning box,rather than have the warning box say to uninstall Spybot,with no mention of the instructions from the link above included:
http://www.dslreports.com/speak/slideshow/16919821?c=1064190&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3JlbWFyaywxNjkxOTgyMQ==
(Above taken from this thread) :
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16919821
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPOR...bd905ac77882571e0005e8f21?OpenDocument&seg=hm
Well,in my own personal opinion,I think NIS should add some of the info from the above page,to this warning box,rather than have the warning box say to uninstall Spybot,with no mention of the instructions from the link above included:
http://www.dslreports.com/speak/slideshow/16919821?c=1064190&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3JlbWFyaywxNjkxOTgyMQ==
(Above taken from this thread) :
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16919821
- Status