Norton 2012 Betas Released

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
On Friday, Norton released the betas to Internet Security 2012 and Antivirus 2012 for public download. The beta has not been described as ground breaking, rather a compilation of mostly subtle improvements and interface tweaks along with new support for the Chrome Browser. If you haven’t tried out the latest Norton products, now is your chance.
 
Thanks for heads up.

This might be great for some people out there.

Currently using avira which I think does a fantastic job. Yes, I play in the devils playground when it comes to virus's ( usenet ) avira has never let me down.

I do wish I could find a non-biased Virus Scanner Shoot-out review, current that rates all the many different scanners out there.

Most of the reviews I find only bother to review the mainstream scanners and nothing else.
 
Admiral-Ackbar-trap.jpg


Norton IS a virus...
 
While I recognize that Norton is, and has been for a few years now, a decent product, I might be willing to buy it if it wasn't so expensive.
I mean, MSE is so good for free, I don't see $60 of added value in Norton.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Thanks for heads up.

This might be great for some people out there.

Currently using avira which I think does a fantastic job. Yes, I play in the devils playground when it comes to virus's ( usenet ) avira has never let me down.

I do wish I could find a non-biased Virus Scanner Shoot-out review, current that rates all the many different scanners out there.

Most of the reviews I find only bother to review the mainstream scanners and nothing else.
Click to expand...

This (pdf) is a good source for AV reviews. It breaks down the different types of viruses detected so you can figure which one is best for your situation.
 
While Norton may have gotten their software back in order starting with Norton 2010, I still haven't forgiven their billing shenanigans from the mid-2000s. I will not ever trust them with my credit card number again.
 
niconx said:
This (pdf) is a good source for AV reviews. It breaks down the different types of viruses detected so you can figure which one is best for your situation.
Click to expand...

I hadn't yet seen the 2011 test results. Looks like McAfee is improving again and Microsoft is still running strong considering their still very new to the game.It looks like G Data (??) is the new king of detection even though they've got a high false positive rating.
 
I manage a store and we have customers running everything you can think of.

At this point, running both MS Security and MalwareBytes Pro (Paid version) seems to keep Vista/7 pretty strong.

Interestingly though, for X:p, it won't stop scareware/rougues, rootkits or MBR infections, which is what most people are getting.

AVG 2011 seems to block the rogues with their link-scanner, but rootkits on XP are almost unstoppable. They easily disbale nod32, AntiVIR, MS Security, Norton, McAfee, pretty much anything.

Lots of PCs have Norton or McAfee installed and up to date, and they won't stop anything but old worms or file system viruses, but nobody gets these anymore. We see like 1 a year.

I try and convince as many people as I can to stop running XP, but there are lots of die hards out there.
 
I use avira, boxie and 20+ years of usenet experience to "try" and avoid any pit-falls. And if a rook-kit or some sort of other cleverly hidden virus / malware does make it on to my system it will get erased as I often do fresh installs of the OS about once a month.
 
I can never forgive Norton software for the horrible bloatware it became and the stupidity of the coding used therein.

I once, back in the early XP days, sorted the Norton files into a Norton folder in the programs menu, as the program didn't want to make a folder itself. On every subsequent startup, the program told me it needed to be repaired but couldn't run the repair protocol. It took me forever to work out that it didn't like the links being moved and couldn't function properly without them!

That was really the straw that broke the camel's back.
 
VIC-20 said:
I try and convince as many people as I can to stop running XP, but there are lots of die hards out there.
Click to expand...

You mean cheap, ignorant people who will continue to pay for repair work on a shitty outdated OS, instead of ponying up the necessary hardware / software upgrades to step into the current decade
 
stiltner said:
You mean cheap, ignorant people who will continue to pay for repair work on a shitty outdated OS, instead of ponying up the necessary hardware / software upgrades to step into the current decade
Click to expand...

There's a difference between cheap and 'cannot afford.'
 
Seems the only thing proven is that just about anything on Vista/7 and you are basically ok unless you surf like an idiot. As to where just about anything on XP is equally worthless as XP...well XP was never a good OS for security.
 
stiltner said:
You mean cheap, ignorant people who will continue to pay for repair work on a shitty outdated OS, instead of ponying up the necessary hardware / software upgrades to step into the current decade
Click to expand...

I wonder if you work in IT? (not saying you don't). a lot of times what your describing has really little to do with being cheap. there is a natural resistance to change in a lot of people that IMO is usually the bigger factor. And then there are the bean counters that point out that the current system is PAID for can only amortize out further at this point. not to mention that it does pretty well what most businesses need just fine. that makes it pretty hard to justify upgrading despite the problems it causes IT.

Having said that I have been told that Norton has improved considerably but still can not recommend it. its no better then MSE and free is hard to beat. and there is the lingering bad taste in my mouth left from stripping the crap ware off a lot of computers over the years and Norton has often been one of them
 
Valset said:
stripping the crap ware off a lot of computers over the years and Norton has often been one of them
Click to expand...

Agree! You have no idea how many times people have come to me because their computers suddenly slowed down after they installed Norton!
 
Sorry but I won't install a Norton product again.

Had too many problems personally and seen too many problems professionally with Norton and Symantec apps.

You couldn't get me to install this on my computer even if if you bribed me with an entirely new, top-shelf rig with all the trimmings.
 
Norton was good back in 2000, but after that it went downhill, personally I cannot recommend any Norton products to anyone.
 
I stopped using Norton a while back for monetary reasons and it was a memory hog.

When a friend of mine (who was a Senior network tester at Cisco) told me that he found a virus imbedded in a Norton Auto-update a few years ago, I decided I'd never use them again.
 
Modred189 said:
IMO, the differences are more than compensated by cost.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the cost. I was replying to a quote that said MSE was better, and it's not. It's better if you're cheap, but that wasn't the discussion.
 
Modred189 said:
There's a difference between cheap and 'cannot afford.'
Click to expand...

See, that's an oxymoron. If they 'cannot afford' upgrades to their hardware to avoid having to go into the repair shop to have virus and other crap removed off their system on a regular basis, how are they affording to pay repair shop bills on a regular basis to have virus and other crap removed off their system on a regular basis?

If they upgraded their hardware/software and os, they'd be more virus-protected and need less repair shop visits, have a better overall computing experience(IE, faster/more user friendly/more things you can do) and then need to take their computer into the repair shop less saving them money over time paying for the hardware/software cost. There might not even be a hardware cost even when you consider that a lot of the later computer's that had windows XP put on them can run Windows 7.
 
Chas said:
Sorry but I won't install a Norton product again.

Had too many problems personally and seen too many problems professionally with Norton and Symantec apps.

You couldn't get me to install this on my computer even if if you bribed me with an entirely new, top-shelf rig with all the trimmings.
Click to expand...

I could very easily be bribed by this. I'd just format and reinstall to get rid of Norton and enjoy my new pc.
 
Modred189 said:
IMO, the differences are more than compensated by cost.
Click to expand...

What cost? I've gotten a 100% rebate on a 3 user license for Norton Internet Security for each of the past 3 versions. Fry's.com regularly sells AV software that's free after rebate...last year shipping was free too.

Sorry, but from NIS 2009 on, Norton has put out a very good product that uses virtually no resources.
 
think most who talk bull about what they have not used for 4 years is talking out of there arse

guess not many have used an 2009 norton or later product (or 360 3.0 or higher) they complete remade the code from the ground up so speed and protection works together, older versions below 2008 was bloatware and i norm used AVG for that time until it also become bloated it self

i norm load Norton antivirus on my customers pcs that i yearly service them and i get it cheap any way even on low end system like netbooks or older p4 systems it works very passive (after you have done the first 2 updates) it only does slow things when your Not at the pc (norm set to 10 mins) and if you come back to the pc it will stop scanning or what ever it was doing

MCafee, kaspersky are one of the worst antivirus scanners for resource use avg not far behind (ID scanner on avg uses cpu when its idle) kaspersky will max out an CPU core under when norm use of the pc, but all 3 of them use 200-300mb of ram where as norton uses less then 100-50mb depending on what it is doing can use up to 200mb or so when its removing something, and Panda antivirus you cant turn off the bulletins so it take the business away from me or confuse the user

i used norton antivius 2009 to 2011 and all of them have worked fine apart from users fault (ie blindly opening 0 day threats exe files no antivirus can protect from that or Internet explorer 0 day bugs automatically running exe files, fix for that is use opera or chrome)

if you pay $60 for it its your been riped off any way you can get it for $20 £20
 
The best thing Symantec has ever released is the Cleanwipe utility..
Not sure if any of you had the misfortune of dealing with SEC.
 
greenfrogman said:
think most who talk bull about what they have not used for 4 years is talking out of there arse

guess not many have used an 2009 norton or later product (or 360 3.0 or higher) they complete remade the code from the ground up so speed and protection works together, older versions below 2008 was bloatware and i norm used AVG for that time until it also become bloated it self
Click to expand...

actually I think most of use have acknowledged that they have improved. but you seem to think that somehow negates all the previous crap they did. sorry but I have a pretty long memory. and to this day it can be a pain in the ass in several ways (uninstalling comes to mind). And there is still the bottom line, even if you get it for 20 bucks instead of retail your stilling paying for a product that doesn't work any better the the free packages from the competition. If it does enough that it makes it worthwhile to you to use it then that is all to the good. I just don't see it.
 
Valset said:
actually I think most of use have acknowledged that they have improved. but you seem to think that somehow negates all the previous crap they did. sorry but I have a pretty long memory. and to this day it can be a pain in the ass in several ways (uninstalling comes to mind). And there is still the bottom line, even if you get it for 20 bucks instead of retail your stilling paying for a product that doesn't work any better the the free packages from the competition. If it does enough that it makes it worthwhile to you to use it then that is all to the good. I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

In the software game, IMNSHO, what matters is how the product currently works. 2005-2007 were lousy products. 2008 was better, but still not great. 2009+ have all been good-exceptional.

This year it appears the others have either caught up or Symantec has taken a small turn for the worse. Regardless, most of the arguments in this thread were used a year ago, when Symantec was regularly ranked in the top tier and considered one of the top 2 or 3 AV packages.

I haven't used the others, but given that I get Symantec for free every year (A/R 100% rebates), I don't think the price is a deterrent....and Symantec always pays.
 
Valset said:
And then there are the bean counters that point out that the current system is PAID for can only amortize out further at this point. not to mention that it does pretty well what most businesses need just fine. that makes it pretty hard to justify upgrading despite the problems it causes IT.
Click to expand...

The bean counters are the root of all (ok, just much) IT instability/insecurity, so **** them. If you knew the kind of crap we have to go through to get upgrades to systems that are years past needing it...:mad:
 
Amazing the amount of people who wont try norton based on past mistakes, i guess then you wont ever buy an intel processor, or an AMD one or an ATI or NVIDIA gpu because of past attempts at scamming it's users...
 
SixFootDuo said:
Thanks for heads up.

This might be great for some people out there.

Currently using avira which I think does a fantastic job. Yes, I play in the devils playground when it comes to virus's ( usenet ) avira has never let me down.

I do wish I could find a non-biased Virus Scanner Shoot-out review, current that rates all the many different scanners out there.

Most of the reviews I find only bother to review the mainstream scanners and nothing else.
Click to expand...

av-comparatives.com

Tknojnky said:
Admiral-Ackbar-trap.jpg


Norton IS a virus...
Click to expand...

No it isnt, get off the bandwagon.

Daemas said:
nod32
Click to expand...

MSE....
 
MrGuvernment said:
MSE....
Click to expand...

If you're going to use something free perhaps (given that AVG and Avast! have both decided to start sucking).

When people have asked me in the past what AV to get though I've tended to tell them NOD32 as well, at least if they're willing to pay a bit. It definitely has one of the best track records out of any of them and it tends to be very lightweight as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top