Symantec Considering Virtualization Pay-Per-Use Software

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
So...Norton would get a copy of every one of my files sent to their servers to check for Viri?

Please tell me I am misunderstanding this:
“Whenever a machine asks for some code, before you give it to them, you would give it to us, and we will scan against 47,000-plus virus definitions, and if it looks like a virus, we can inject our agent into that machine and kill the processes, and delete the files associated with that.”
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
Most of those 47000+ virus' created by symantec to create business. Why would I want symantec to do anything for my machine? Thier software is bloated and is more harming to my systems stability then if I had a virus on it. They aren't even in the top 10 of anti-virus company.
 

smalltime0

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2008
309
0
18,780
0
That would make DDoS the Symatec servers a whole lot easier... just get everybody to 'try' the anti virus suite and then surf the net...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Symantec has a bad rap from past versions of AV. But frankly the latest NIS2009 is one of the best retail titles out there, and Endpoint Protection MR3 is worlds better now that it's out, when compared to MR2 and older.

The bulk of the folks that have posted dont pay for most of their software anyways, and haven't a clue about app virtualization.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Looks indeed like a lot of bandwidth to be used.
And with a lot of countries bringing in bandwidth cap, this will be a major issue,and not many people will be happy downloading the same file over and over again just to check their systems every week.
What if confidential (company) material is infected, and in need to be send over the internet, and is being intercepted?
Will Norton pay for the losses?

Also,does that mean we will probably have to do a system scan twice per year (or every week,for what it's worth) only to find out we had a virus running on our system for a few days already?

Ow,and what about the safer company that decided to have only a couple of computers connected to the internet while being connected to a local intranet with hundreds of computers connected to (that doesn't have internet access)?

However you look at it, you can't change the fact that there'll always be a need for an offline anti-virus.

Which brings me to the following topic:
Licenses.
I don't think it's fair that a license of a Norton product is limited in years of use.
I believe if I buy a product from Norton, with a license of 2 years for instance, Norton should give me updates for 2 years. After which I'll no longer receive support (updates), but I find that I still have the right to be able to use the program without trouble.
I believe it's more than fair,just like a car with factory guarantee, after 100.000 miles it's really time to change a car, but some users prefer to still drive an additionally 50.000 to 100.000miles to save cost..

I think it's not fair to disable or even cripple an anti-virus program updated to the latest, being more then capable of protecting a pc of over 40.000 viruses.
If I decided I wanted to use this product for another year before upgrading, I know full well the security risks I bring myself into.

But like said on the forum before, I know what I'm doing. I've only been infected twice in 12 years of internet use, and that was when checking out fishy sites, with IE5 on win98 and once on winXP,with IE6.
 

mdillenbeck

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
504
0
18,980
0
This sounds like it would be more targeted to the corporate and educational market versus the individual user. If you maintain several dozen to a few hundred machines that are locked down (no drives or media can be added, internet is tightly regulated or restricted to an intranet, and users can only add software through a controlled distribution medium), then the pay-per-use model may save money.

However, I think in general a pay-per-use model will cost more than the full-licensed product model. After all, you no longer buy a year of updates with the software - you rent a complete version for a limited time. Easiest way to tell would be to compare the cost of buying the product now to buying one year of continuous usage to determine a cost-benefit ratio of the selling methods.
 

a_mall

Distinguished
May 3, 2008
22
0
18,520
3
MY views regarding this:
# What about users who have pathetic bandwidth??
# What if it fails to remove virus? What if virus returns?
# What if it deliberately misuses this structure? i mean letting virus return & get paid for each removal??
 

Pixels303

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
13
0
18,510
0
The best software to use is software which is not affected by viruses.
Go open source, and if there is an issue with something, they simply apply a patch the next night and it is fixed. No need for Antivirus if the operating system is done properly and if people learn about how to use files and web.

This no-brainer software is simply created to patch the holes Microsoft so lovingly give you as "Features". Now even better, they can suck you dry with lifetime memberships to ever changing ever annoying Big Brother software which has and is currently censoring what type of software you can operate on your machine. If Symantec doesn't like a company, they simply add a file in the application as a Virus such that the end user cannot run it. TIME AND TIME AGAIN!

Why bother with Microsoft?
 

nukemaster

Titan
Moderator

Because the software and games library is much larger.

Open source is great, and there is many open source software on ALL the current OS's.

For users who do not click yes to every BS banner on the net and do not download illegal software all day, viruses are not a problem either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS