|
11 Feb 05 - 11:55 PM (#1406815) Subject: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Bev and Jerry Last November we installed Windows Service Pack 2 which Microsoft had downloaded to us through the magic of automatic update. Our computer gave a cough and a burp and then lapsed into a coma. We called Microsoft and it took them eight days for a tech to reach us. Meanwhile, we had a local tech revive our machine by formatting the hard drive and re-installing Windows without Service Pack Two. He charged us $200 for this (and some other) service and we suggested to Microsoft that they reimburse us but they denied any fault saying that we should have consulted our manufacturer (Gateway) before installing SP2 or any other Windows update. In the process, our Norton Anti-Virus software was wiped out and our tech installed the latest version of NAV. About a month before this, we had paid Symantec $30 for a year's subscription to updates for the old AV software. So, we called Symantec and, after waiting on hold for several minutes, reached someone whom we could barely understand (sounded like India). We asked if some adjustment could be made and we were told they would be happy to refund the entire $30. Although we did not believe this would ever happen, we did not follow up on the matter because of the difficulty of speaking to Symantec. Well, much to our surprise, a check from Symantec for the $30 arrived today. This has somewhat mitigated our cynicism about software manufacturers and shows that they are not all unsrupulous knaves. Bev and Jerry |
|
12 Feb 05 - 12:54 AM (#1406864) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Bert Microsoft zero. They've really come up in the world! |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:11 AM (#1406924) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: open mike yes i called norton symantec twice tonite trying to straigthten out my subscription...both timnes the voices (i asked the second fellow "are you the guy i spoke with a few minutes ago?) were speaking with accents souding like from India....and i had to ask them to repeat several times cuz i just could not understand.... any way i had tried time and time again to re-new my subscription.. and the system would not recognize my account number, or any other niumbers... so the guy finally told me that the version i had was expired and could not re-new, but if i went to such and such a web page i could get the new version....o.k. i paid, and got confirmation, and now the message says i cannot download the new version until i dis able the service pack 2.. why can't these computer businesses get their stuff together so they can be compatible?? i, like bev and jerry, do not think i actually asked for service pack 2, just turned around and it was on there!! now you not only ;buy the virus program, but pay extra so you can download it other times during the year...is this in case the download is not successful the first time?? what a hassle.. jeez...like the wicked witch said...or was it the next door neighbor?? (lady with Toto in the bike basket) what a world, what a world.... |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:16 AM (#1406926) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Bert why can't these computer businesses get their stuff together... 'Cos they don't care. When I studied compuer science we were told "If your program doesn't work, don't bother turning it in 'cos you'll get an F" And "if it brings the machine down, don't bother coming back for the rest of the semester 'cos you've failed the course" We were taught to write programs that worked. Doesn't happen nowadays. |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:23 AM (#1406932) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: The Fooles Troupe I blame 'Fully Paid Fees Courses' - they don't want to kick out those who are paying... I also blame the subcontracting process - "You will provide this section of code to these specs in 3 months - failure to submit will result in penalties". What if it doesn't work properly? As long as it runs when you submit it.... |
|
12 Feb 05 - 11:02 AM (#1407196) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: mack/misophist Whenever a technician installs a program for you, get the disc so you can reinstall it yourself if you need to. The work that was done couldn't have taken more than 2 hours and could have been done at home if you had the discs. PS. All the techs I talk to hate Gateway and Dell. Personally, I hate Compaq. OEM rulz! |
|
12 Feb 05 - 11:11 AM (#1407211) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Amos Geeze, why don't I go through these nightmares? A |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:01 PM (#1407356) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Q (Frank Staplin) Upgraded from 98 to XP yesterday. I will be floundering for a few weeks (I was still floundering with 98). O for the days when we had the luxury of live telephone operators! The installing technician said Symantec had problems and recommended Antivir Version 6 which he installed. Anyone else use this one? While he was installing, a worm came in from the service provider, Shaw.ca (western Canada cable provider) and it took a while to track it down and dismember it. Got Spy Doctor restored after one Help! email from me, and overnight email instructions from them. Excellent service! |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:34 PM (#1407378) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: open mike yes, disc...i see there was a choice to either get a disc or download the norton, i chose download, but since having problems i thought i would just ask for the disc..but, on, no can do, must cancel order to download, then start a-new.....if you don't see me on here for a while it is because i drp kicked the 'puter right out the window!! |
|
12 Feb 05 - 02:44 PM (#1407394) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Linda Goodman Zebooker How did you ever manage to get Symantec on the phone? I had all sorts of problems trying to renew (and upgrade) the downloaded version last week. I THINK I managed successfully (took the whole afternoon) but golly! I could not even find any kind of working number for Symantec. |
|
12 Feb 05 - 03:20 PM (#1407435) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Sorcha I use Avast! for AV. It's free and does automatic updates. |
|
13 Feb 05 - 05:18 AM (#1408036) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Richard Bridge I used to use Avast - and still do on 98 machines. There are issues about its performance with XP. Of the free antivirus programs I like Antivir. AVG is causeing people problems these days. Paid antivirus programs ALL (except one) seem to cause problems sending email. Even with the recommended workrounds in place, Outlook disconnects from the internet after it has sent the email to the antivirus, and befire the antivirus has sent it to the internet. The exception is Panda antivirus. Antivir needs a separate software firewall. I try to avoid Zonealarm because it slows systems down SOO much. Not all firewalls work with all OSs. Tiny is quite light on resources if you can get it going. But the main purpose of this post is to sing the praises of Norton Ghost. It came free (version 7) with my motherboard. Create a aeparate partition before a format C - call it, say, E. It's going to be small, less than 2gig (98) because all that goes in it are the programs. Make another one called F. Format C, clean install. Now you have a system with no crap in it. Boot to DOS. Run ghost from DOS - follow the instructions and put a copy of that clean system in E. Go to the knowledgebase and follow the instructions to put "My documents" on the F drive. Same for your email client files (in my case outlook). PUt the folders for your other data (pictures, music, new programs downloaded music, etc) in "My documents". NOw all your data goes to the F drive. When your system goes tits up - Boot to DOS and run Ghost. Put the contents of the E drive back over the top of the C drive. It's that simple. This restore takes 15 minutes, and you have a fresh clean install and are running again. I actually did it on Friday. My last clean format C and reinstall from scratch took me 4 hours, and I was lucky to be able to save my docs and psts off to CD first. For more info go to the Radified guide to NOrton Ghost. |
|
13 Feb 05 - 09:34 AM (#1408079) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: GUEST,Uncle DaveO Paid antivirus programs ALL (except one) seem to cause problems sending email. Even with the recommended workrounds in place, Outlook disconnects from the internet after it has sent the email to the antivirus, and befire the antivirus has sent it to the internet. The exception is Panda antivirus. Oh, come onnnn!!! Norton Internet Security, with includes Norton Antivirus, is a paid antivirus program, and causes no difficulties with email. Dave Oesterreich |
|
14 Feb 05 - 06:11 AM (#1409055) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: The Fooles Troupe AVG 6 & 7 have caused no problems with Eudora. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 07:42 AM (#1409094) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: pavane Foolstroupe & Bert : YES. I have been working recently as a Test Analyst. Firstly, I have had to learn to read various languages (C#, PL\SQL) so I can point out the elementary errors to the developers. Code review is not officially to be part of my job, and I am SUPPOSED to be provided with signed-off Unit Test results before I start my testing. It is clear from code released to me that unit testing has been totally inadequate. Developers do not seem to be taught how to test their code. Secondly, yes, deadline-oriented development, as required by most method(ologie)s, means that you get brownie points for delivering on time, but you don't lose any when it doesn't work. This is totally incompatible with the principle that it is far more cost-effective to find and fix bugs early in the development. A project on which I was recently engaged was put live long before it was ready, when it was known that the code was still 'fragile'. It resulted in major costs and long hours worked in rectifying the problems, and it was pure luck that the problem was able to be contained, or a household name could have been sunk. So I am not surprised when software does not work. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 07:52 AM (#1409102) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: The Fooles Troupe Code Writers don't Test Code Testers don't Write or is that... Code Testers don't Write Code Writers don't Test |
|
14 Feb 05 - 08:06 AM (#1409120) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Ron Davies Ah, good old Macroslop. Couldn't happen to a nicer arrogant monopoly. Interesting note in the Wall St Journal recently. A CEO mused on why Microsoft insists on buying computer security firms, rather than taking any responsibility to try to fix its own security problems itself, which would be a refreshing change. I'm with Amos--the long-term solution is obvious----ditch Macroslop. Roll on the day when everybody can do that. Since I've gone to Apple, it's night and day. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 09:21 AM (#1409203) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Uncle_DaveO Ron Davies said, in part: Interesting note in the Wall St Journal recently. A CEO mused on why Microsoft insists on buying computer security firms, rather than taking any responsibility to try to fix its own security problems itself, which would be a refreshing change. This is in the very genes of MacroHype: The company's start in life was purchasing someone else's work. They bought DOS, their start in life, ddn't develop it themself, and look how successful THAT was! Dave Oesterreich |
|
14 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM (#1409404) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: pavane The development team are supposed to do SOME testing, even if it is testing each other's work! As a former developer, I am in the 'Poacher turned Gamekeeper' role. On one project, a few years ago, I asked to see the actual test output, and was handed a Word document into which the developers had typed what they thought their program had (or should have) produced. Needless to say, it was completely wrong, as was the code. A UNIX application, it had been run in a non-standard environment, and wouldn't even run in the correct environment. It got returned to them as unfit to test. (Sometimes the released code won't even COMPILE.) |
|
14 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM (#1409405) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: GUEST "...Outlook disconnects from the internet after it has sent the email to the antivirus, and befire the antivirus has sent it to the internet...." This only happens if you have the box 'hang up after sending and receiving' ticked. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 12:33 PM (#1409438) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: robomatic I used to use Macs, but got turned off by their cost relative to PC, their lack of breadth in programs, and the arrogance of the company and the company reps I interacted with. My brother really likes his Mac, Really Really Really. He is familiar with my feelings re their opinions of themselves and he says: Yeah, they're a bunch of assholes. There's one thing that makes 'em look good - Microsoft! I am currently interacting with you via Mandrake Linux. Linux is not ready for prime time but if you like to tinker, it's fun. And RELIABLE. I also have a Windows 2000 system I keep off line and a Windows XP machine. Not too much trouble with 'em. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:03 PM (#1409472) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Richard Bridge Actually DaveO, Norton is the one that first got me started on this route. You puts it in, it works perfectly for about 3 days - it is supposed to have a subroutine that stops Outlook disconnecting as I described. Then it starts doing it. So you check with Norton, and get the official workround - disable scanning of outgoing email. That works for three days. Then that stops letting you send mail. Then the only way you can send mail at all is to turn the antivirus off completely, get the mail, and then scan it. Then it stops letting you get incoming mail at all. Believe me, I spent hours on the phone, uninstalled and reistalled like a yoyo, and even cleaned the system with format c 3 times - and after each reistall, same pattern. It lulls you into believing it works, and then stops. It refused to let me load the antivirus only without the firewall, which might have let me get incoming mail! It (another paid for copy) refused completely to load onto my daughter's system. But because it would load onto their system the shop refused to give her money back. That's a bad waste of £50 for a student as she then was. I've had it with Norton Security. McAfee was even worse. Similar things and a printer conflict arose. I rang McAfee. They said "That's a known issue" - and I said "What's the fix?" They said "there isn't one". Try Panda. At least it lets you work. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:05 PM (#1409474) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Richard Bridge Oh, and, guest, that is true. But why would you accept having to remember to disconnect on what was at the time a dialup system or get a large phone bill. If it doesn't work, they shouldn't sell it. Get Panda. It works. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:37 PM (#1409507) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I used to buy my AV package from Computer Associates (e-trust EZ antivirus), but when I changed to Win XP, it didn't recognise it. Several E-Mail enquiries later, having had no response from CA, I downloaded AVG Free 7.0. What can I say, automatic update on dial up, and never a smell of a virus since. With that, zonealarm, and AdAware 6 my PC seems to be pretty bullet proof. Also, much as I dislike and distrust MicroClot, I have to speak from experience, and say that, since changing from 98SE to XP (clean instal to NTFS), I haven't had the smell of a crash either. It seems totally stable, and runs more programs, more quickly. You have no idea how much I (as a long time MicroClot sufferer) hated to have to say that, but it's true. I suppose even they must have one satisfied customer. Don T. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 01:56 PM (#1409530) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Richard Bridge The computer mags are reporting lots of issues with AVG 7, but 6 is no longer supported. |
|
14 Feb 05 - 09:06 PM (#1409988) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: JohnInKansas You can get a very good, and free, check on how "bulletproof" you are at Symantec Security Check. It's among the first checks recommended by the majority of the better on-line help sites. Click on the "Scan for Security Risks." If you have a firewall, it will probably ask you for permission to "penetrate" it. (Different from asking you to turn it off, which is a little scary?). It's fairly quick, and it will give you a pretty complete report, with suggestions for what you can do to get better. While it will of course suggest which Norton/Symantec products can fix things for you, it gives you pretty complete descriptions of what any holes are. Knowing where you may be vulnerable can be a lot of help, and you're free to use other products. No real pushing of the Norton stuff. John |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:02 AM (#1410122) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Linda Goodman Zebooker On some Microsoft program Manual I saw a few years ago, Microsoft listed their street address as "One Infinite Loop" etc. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 08:10 AM (#1410312) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: GUEST,foolestroupe - "I come fru da window!" Hmmmmm.. I'll try this again...... Code Writers can't Test Code Testers can't Write or is that... Code Testers can't Write Code Writers can't Test |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:30 PM (#1410577) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Uncle_DaveO Richard Bridge: Given that I (and a lot of other people) don't have the problems that you describe with Norton, I have to assume that it's not Norton as such but other things you are using or doing. I operate on XP Pro, with Netscape as my browser. I get none of the problems you've described. It may be your problem has to do with your use of Outlook. I would never use IE or Outlook in any case--not only because they come from MacroHype (and thus almost by definition have bugs) but because their huge installed base makes than a natural target for hackers. Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM (#1411152) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Richard Bridge The problems I was getting are all known issues. I am not a computer expert, but I checked. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 07:24 PM (#1411169) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Uncle_DaveO I understand the concept of "known issues" all right, but known issues in what contexts? In certain Windows versions? With certain browsers? What? Dave Oesterreich |
|
16 Feb 05 - 12:33 AM (#1411487) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: GUEST Jeez! We didn't mean to stir up a hornets' nest. All we were trying to say when we started this thread was that Symantec did a nice thing for us and Microsoft didn't. Bev and Jerry |
|
16 Feb 05 - 01:23 AM (#1411508) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Cluin Microsoft is up to zero now? Wow, they must be pulling out all the stops! |
|
04 Oct 21 - 01:40 PM (#4121813) Subject: RE: Tech: Symantec one, Microsoft zero From: Stilly River Sage I'll pull a Keberoxu here, pulling up an ancient thread. I was looking for a Tech heading and noticed this thread in the results. Hasn't the world changed! Symantec bought Norton, and now Symantec has been purchased by Broadcom. That company shows up at about the same time as this thread. Coincidence? :) At one time stores like Fry's Electronics offered great rebates and coupons for the annual update of security software, keeping it quite affordable. I paid for and used Norton from my early computer days until about the time this thread was started (2005), then switched to free software (several brands - AVG, Avast, Comodo), and then paid for Kaspersky for several years until Windows seems to have rendered it dead. I finally got smart and use the free security software (I suspect MacAfee is behind it) called Security Suite offered by Spectrum because (drumroll) they have an interest in Internet connections and customers remaining secure. I think I have licenses for a dozen devices with my Spectrum account. Saved $70 or so a year with that move. But I do pay $25 annually for Malwarebytes after using it free for several years. |