If you like to play around with software before its retail release, Symantec is looking for a few good men and women.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Beta Test Symantec Products
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
Symantec will not ship until the programs meet the comany's incredibly strict resource hogging, instability and customer annoyance standards.
BTW, isn't Symantec supposed to post a "we're going to sue MS unless they allow us to root the OS" press release with each annoucement?
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2000
- Messages
- 9,434
At work we have to use Symantec on all PC's connected to the domain. It has a lot of problems like auto protect just becoming disabled and you can't enable it since its grayed out. I think we're already beta testing their products.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,918
My god I don't like their non-beta products on machines I use...I can't even imaging putting something beta from symantec on a machine I carried about.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,918
I have had more problems with sav (corparate...symantec...norton) than I have had with Norton (disclaimer: I have seen about 10 times as many computers with sav as I have with norton). In my opinion both are inherently flawed because of their massive resource usage and their amazing ability to conflict with damn near every program we have on lab computers.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,918
[rant]Are you one 10.1.6.6? On our computers (labs and workstations) it takes forever to startup with sav installed (considering starting up consists of SAV as well as Novell...without sav it's just a lot faster). The labs are just ridiculous when you add things like Compuguard and such. It got to the extent on my machine (as I use my machine as a test bed for pretty much any and all software we eventually implement) that I removed it and bought a license of Nod32. It's awful quite bad when Symantec tells us that we need to update our clients because the client itself has a security hole in it...especially when the process involved in updating these clients requires us to physically touch every machine IN THE MIDDLE OF A SEMESTER. The worst part is it is a common thing (as far as I'm told by fellow tech staff) and happens once a year or so.[/rant]
Or 2003?
Seriously. The only thing that made it worthwhile for the 3 months or so I struggled with any Symantec product was the fact that I didn't pay for a lick of it.
I'm using 10.0.2.2000 for all of my XP clients and my servers. I don't notice any difference with or without it, honestly. The machines most of my people are using are HP towers with a Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz, and 1 GB of memory, with slow 5400 rpm HDDs, and SAV isn't making any performance changes.
Phelptwan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 6,918
That's pretty amazing. We haven't upgraded to 10.2 stuff yet as we've been told only to use that on vista...campus wide though we have had nothing but problems since 10 came out.
Mine's actually an older version that what you have, if that matters. Even more so, my company is small enough that I have everyone's client go out and update on their own, no central server to handle downloads, and there are never any issues. I just recently updated our images, and had no differences between before or after the SAV client was loaded. I have test servers running on old Dell GX150s, that are Pentium3 1 GHz procs with 512 MB of memory, and again, there's no performance hit, or drop in boot time. I've been using SAV since version 7.x and have never seen any performance hit with it. That's the primary reason why I've always used it compared to some other solutions.