Antivirus software is the new protection racket

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Sammy" <hhi_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115760011.219298.48490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
> > Installing Norton will not slow down a properly configured maintained
>
> > computer.
>
> Really? This is news. Please, what is the proper configuration so as
> not to slow ones computer down with Norton?
>
> > ( I have a network of over 200 computers of various makes, models and
>
> > vintage. Norton is on all of them. None of them are slowed down by
> > Norton...but then again I know how to maintain a healthy system).
>
> Which version(s) of norton are you using, and please describe in detail
> the exact no slowdown configuration one must use when dealing with
> Norton Antivirus.
>
> As it is however, in fairness to you; I suspect your full of it.

Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
Have you ever noticed a slowdown in any Windows system that had a cpu speed of
over 1.5GHz while using only Norton's Antivirus and not any other part of
Norton?
C'mon.

 

[sammy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Buffalo (nospam) wrote:

> Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
> Have you ever noticed a slowdown in any Windows system that had a cpu
speed of
> over 1.5GHz while using only Norton's Antivirus and not any other
part of
> Norton?
> C'mon.

Yes. Using Norton 2004 and 2005; With 2005 slowing down more so then
2004; Where as 2004 seems to be slower then 2003 was. 🙁

You must be the only person I can think of who doesn't notice it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Sammy wrote:
> Buffalo (nospam) wrote:
>
>> Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.
>> Have you ever noticed a slowdown in any Windows system that had a
>> cpu speed of over 1.5GHz while using only Norton's Antivirus and not
>> any other part of Norton?
>> C'mon.
>
> Yes. Using Norton 2004 and 2005; With 2005 slowing down more so then
> 2004; Where as 2004 seems to be slower then 2003 was. 🙁
>
> You must be the only person I can think of who doesn't notice it.

Let's face it. One of you is lying... or just plain stupid.

Read my paper on it.

 

[sammy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

>Let's face it. One of you is lying... or just plain stupid.

Fair Enough. Do a bit of googling for yourself. You too will see, many
many! people have noticed this issue with Norton being slow. And were
just talking about Antivirus, not the entire slow!!! security suite
offering.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Sammy wrote:
>> Let's face it. One of you is lying... or just plain stupid.
>
> Fair Enough. Do a bit of googling for yourself. You too will see, many
> many! people have noticed this issue with Norton being slow. And were
> just talking about Antivirus, not the entire slow!!! security suite
> offering.

I would never use it, but I usually recommend it to others. You see, I have
complete disdain for most of them; they're beneath me.

 

[sammy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Using a completely clean fresh OEM installation of Windows XP
Professional Sp2; then loading Norton Antivirus 2005 does show a
significant performance hit. This test was done using a p4 3.2
(northwood chip; not prescott) on an Intel 865GBF mainboard with
1gigabyte of dual channel DDR kingston valueram. Sitting on a 160gig
Western Digital SATA hard drive; 8megs cache, yadda yadda.

The time it takes to open the norton control interface from double
clicking its icon beside the clock is noticable. Other applications do
not appear to take nearly as long to bring up their GUI. The computer
startup time used to be roughly 25 seconds until I could login, since
installing Norton Antivirus 2005; That's almost 40 seconds now. (Norton
takes awhile to finish loading it's drivers apparently)

I don't run a dirty system, this was a clean load 2 days ago.

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Sammy" <hhi_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116084266.386461.219580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Using a completely clean fresh OEM installation of Windows XP
> Professional Sp2; then loading Norton Antivirus 2005 does show a
> significant performance hit. This test was done using a p4 3.2
> (northwood chip; not prescott) on an Intel 865GBF mainboard with
> 1gigabyte of dual channel DDR kingston valueram. Sitting on a 160gig
> Western Digital SATA hard drive; 8megs cache, yadda yadda.
>
> The time it takes to open the norton control interface from double
> clicking its icon beside the clock is noticable. Other applications do
> not appear to take nearly as long to bring up their GUI. The computer
> startup time used to be roughly 25 seconds until I could login, since
> installing Norton Antivirus 2005; That's almost 40 seconds now.
> (Norton
> takes awhile to finish loading it's drivers apparently)
>
> I don't run a dirty system, this was a clean load 2 days ago.
>


That does sound disappointing. Maybe it is performing some scanning on
startup. The last version that I used was NAV 2003 (as part of NIS
2003) and it compared equally with other AV software. I have heard that
each subsequent version thereafter got successively slower (i.e.,
impacted the responsiveness of the computer). Since NAV and NIS are
getting pretty old when you consider Symantec is a software publisher
and not a developer, it could be Symantec is just bandaging the product
at this point. What happens if you use their old cop-out method of
disabling the option to load on startup and instead put a shortcut to it
in the Startup group? That would probably shorten the boot time but
then you have to wait until the system settles after login for it to
load (but maybe it loads faster that way so there is less overall
impact).

--
____________________________________________________________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "DELETE", add "~VN56~" to Subject.
____________________________________________________________

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Sammy" <hhi_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116084266.386461.219580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Using a completely clean fresh OEM installation of Windows XP
> Professional Sp2; then loading Norton Antivirus 2005 does show a
> significant performance hit. This test was done using a p4 3.2
> (northwood chip; not prescott) on an Intel 865GBF mainboard with
> 1gigabyte of dual channel DDR kingston valueram. Sitting on a 160gig
> Western Digital SATA hard drive; 8megs cache, yadda yadda.
>
> The time it takes to open the norton control interface from double
> clicking its icon beside the clock is noticable. Other applications do
> not appear to take nearly as long to bring up their GUI. The computer
> startup time used to be roughly 25 seconds until I could login, since
> installing Norton Antivirus 2005; That's almost 40 seconds now. (Norton
> takes awhile to finish loading it's drivers apparently)
>
> I don't run a dirty system, this was a clean load 2 days ago.

Sammy,
Taking longer to boot up and longer to open the Norton interface (usually only
the first time) in no way indicates a general system slowdown.
C'mon now.
ie: does it noticeabley slow down your other programs and games?
If so, you sure failed to note it.
If the test you did only includes the above, it is invalid.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Well, what you report seems to have little to do with system performance.
So the time to open the 'norton control interface' is 'noticable'. So what
that means is exactly - the time to open the 'norton control interface is
'noticable' NOT that it shows an effect on system performance. So the
system start-up time is 40 seconds rather than 25 seconds. Again, that is
has exactly nothing to do with system performance. And, you post, '(Norton
takes awhile to finish loading it's (sic) drivers apparently). Maybe, maybe
not... perhaps, perhaps... again nothing to do with system performance. If
you DO have information that reflects changes in system performance, by all
means post it.


"Sammy" <hhi_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116084266.386461.219580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Using a completely clean fresh OEM installation of Windows XP
> Professional Sp2; then loading Norton Antivirus 2005 does show a
> significant performance hit. This test was done using a p4 3.2
> (northwood chip; not prescott) on an Intel 865GBF mainboard with
> 1gigabyte of dual channel DDR kingston valueram. Sitting on a 160gig
> Western Digital SATA hard drive; 8megs cache, yadda yadda.
>
> The time it takes to open the norton control interface from double
> clicking its icon beside the clock is noticable. Other applications do
> not appear to take nearly as long to bring up their GUI. The computer
> startup time used to be roughly 25 seconds until I could login, since
> installing Norton Antivirus 2005; That's almost 40 seconds now. (Norton
> takes awhile to finish loading it's drivers apparently)
>
> I don't run a dirty system, this was a clean load 2 days ago.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

nos1eep Wrote:
> "Buffalo" wrote in message
> news:jtCdnc3Y1oaAsOPfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "NEWS" wrote in message
> > news:mUofe.3736$Jc5.895@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> As> My internet pc config
> >> DELL GX1
> >> windows 2000
> >> p2 350
> >> 256 mb memory
> >> 2 x 20gb hard drives
> >> No antivirus software
> >> No spyware
> >> No problems
> >> Been up and running on the same setup for 2 years and never had a
> >> problem.
> >> Still runs as fast as when I installed win 2000
> >>
> >> Runs faster than my P4 3000 WITH NORTON AND XP.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > Well, if your P2-350 runs faster than your P4-3000, then if you apply
> your
> > 'secrets' to your P4, it should just about be the fastest PC in the
> > whole,wide
> > world. 🙂
>
> Installing Norton is one way to make a P4 run like a P2. I like that,lolll installing norton! Sad but
true.


--
PCDaddyPosted from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/ newsgroup access

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

First of all, I really have to say, the thread starter is a complete
moron. Not that i had to say that. He must have seen the MVP by some
names and though "most vulnerable person". idiot. I truly don't care
for Norton at all. Nor Avast. I say this and most responses are, they
have anti-virus?? Fix it utilities by vcom has what i deem the best
anti-virus software. It doesn't slow the system down at all and does a
full scan in, depending on hd, files etc..., 10 min on my 80 gig hd. I
have had many friends and relatives use it and they love it. Plus it
has all the utilities with it. No i'm not a sales man. When i took
norton off their pcs , same response, wow does my pc boot fast now, and
runs faster too. Norton integrates into the system too much for my
taste. That's just my opinion (no offense to Norton users).


--
PCDaddyPosted from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/ newsgroup access