How do I get rid of Norton?

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:04:37 -0500, "Kevin Childers"
<kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:

> Environment is a factor, production or desktop, high demand operations
>or low, and even then the user level effects the perception of what is a
>significant speed hit and what is not.
>
> In some environments it is even a good idea to have virus servers that
>act as filters for all data into and out of a particular network segment.
>Mail servers in particular usually have a series of server layers to filter
>out spam and then viruses, before the actual mail servers.
>

Who are you replying to????? I didn't say anything about speed loss
and for a home pc, I don't think you want to have virus servers if you
have a router already. Of course if you want to use another pc just
for the virus server, whatever.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Notan wrote:

> "NoNoBadDog!" wrote:
>
>>And I would argue equally strongly your assertion that Norton products are
>>Resource hogs.
>>They are not. On a healthy system, they have no impact on system
>>performance. A quick review of the Processes tab under Task Manager will
>>prove to anyone with Norton install that it does not take up any more
>>resources than any other application (of any kind).
>>
>><snip>
>
>
> I remember this discussion from another thread and, if I remember correctly,
> you were the only poster that didn't believe Norton products to be resource
> hogs.

He's not the only one - I haven't had problems with NAV on my Dim 4550
or 8400.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
>
> > "NoNoBadDog!" wrote:
> >
> >>And I would argue equally strongly your assertion that Norton products are
> >>Resource hogs.
> >>They are not. On a healthy system, they have no impact on system
> >>performance. A quick review of the Processes tab under Task Manager will
> >>prove to anyone with Norton install that it does not take up any more
> >>resources than any other application (of any kind).
> >>
> >><snip>
> >
> >
> > I remember this discussion from another thread and, if I remember correctly,
> > you were the only poster that didn't believe Norton products to be resource
> > hogs.
>
> He's not the only one - I haven't had problems with NAV on my Dim 4550
> or 8400.

Minor difference... While I'm sure some people don't appear to have any type
of system slowdown, the vast majority do. In addition, NoNo is adamant about
the fact that the slowdowns people see are in *no way* related to Norton.

Notan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Notan wrote:

> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
>>Notan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"NoNoBadDog!" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And I would argue equally strongly your assertion that Norton products are
>>>>Resource hogs.
>>>>They are not. On a healthy system, they have no impact on system
>>>>performance. A quick review of the Processes tab under Task Manager will
>>>>prove to anyone with Norton install that it does not take up any more
>>>>resources than any other application (of any kind).
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I remember this discussion from another thread and, if I remember correctly,
>>>you were the only poster that didn't believe Norton products to be resource
>>>hogs.
>>
>>He's not the only one - I haven't had problems with NAV on my Dim 4550
>>or 8400.
>
> Minor difference... While I'm sure some people don't appear to have any type
> of system slowdown, the vast majority do.

If you're going to claim a "vast majority" you need a couple of cites,
otherwise the vast majority don't. Remember, people don't complain in
Usenet about stuff that works okay.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in message
news:KfN_e.2548$Ge5.1811@fe10.lga...
> Notan wrote:
>
>> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>>
>>>Notan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"NoNoBadDog!" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And I would argue equally strongly your assertion that Norton products
>>>>>are
>>>>>Resource hogs.
>>>>>They are not. On a healthy system, they have no impact on system
>>>>>performance. A quick review of the Processes tab under Task Manager
>>>>>will
>>>>>prove to anyone with Norton install that it does not take up any more
>>>>>resources than any other application (of any kind).
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>I remember this discussion from another thread and, if I remember
>>>>correctly,
>>>>you were the only poster that didn't believe Norton products to be
>>>>resource
>>>>hogs.
>>>
>>>He's not the only one - I haven't had problems with NAV on my Dim 4550
>>>or 8400.
>>
>> Minor difference... While I'm sure some people don't appear to have any
>> type
>> of system slowdown, the vast majority do.
>
> If you're going to claim a "vast majority" you need a couple of cites,
> otherwise the vast majority don't. Remember, people don't complain in
> Usenet about stuff that works okay.



Anyone running an 800mhz Celeron w/128mb of RAM, WinXP, and Norton NIS
likely can't find their butt with a map, much less locate usenet - or even
be aware that it exists ;-)

"Slow" is a relative thing, to be sure. I won't beat a dead horse here, but
will only say that my 2.0GHz and 3.0GHz machines both take a visibly
noticeable performance hit from NAV2005 or even McAfee 8 - when minimally
configured.


Stew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:ti0kj1p7i6h2mes0f83m9hgn535f0mbrku@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:04:37 -0500, "Kevin Childers"
> <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:
>
> > Environment is a factor, production or desktop, high demand
operations
> >or low, and even then the user level effects the perception of what is a
> >significant speed hit and what is not.
> >
> > In some environments it is even a good idea to have virus servers
that
> >act as filters for all data into and out of a particular network segment.
> >Mail servers in particular usually have a series of server layers to
filter
> >out spam and then viruses, before the actual mail servers.
> >
>
> Who are you replying to????? I didn't say anything about speed loss
> and for a home pc, I don't think you want to have virus servers if you
> have a router already. Of course if you want to use another pc just
> for the virus server, whatever.

That was just an example of how far the demands on single system
resources can go when using anti-virus software.

As for routers and anti-virus servers, your talking about separate
devices serving different purposes.

Separate anti-virus servers are an extreme measure meant to deal with a
particular environment. Not something the average home user would need.
Although, not something that the average home user couldn't have using an
older PC. In many instances such single purpose machines need not be top of
the line. Sort of like real world jobs, you don't need rocket scientist to
perform simple repetitive jobs day in and day out.

KC