OT: Beware Norton AntiVirus 2004
Margaret Wilson
I (among others) recommended Norton AntiVirus as a solution. I'm currently
using NAV 2003 without a problem, and I've used several prior versions
(upgrading annually) and have been satisfied. But my antivirus signature
subscription is about to expire, and Symantec has a new version available,
so I decided it was time to upgrade. Well it's a good thing I made a Ghost
image before installing the upgrade, because the install wizard never
completed, and my machine became unusable -- so unusable that I wouldn't
have been able to *uninstall* NAV 2004 if I'd tried. Hoping the setup
nightmare was just a fluke, I restored my Ghost image and tried to install
NAV 2004 a second time. Unfortunately I got the same result.
I've emailed Norton's tech support, which says to expect a 4-5 day wait for
a response. BTW, my machine is plenty powerful with 1GB of RAM, and it's
running a fresh install of Windows XP Pro SP1a. I can't imagine everyone
will have this problem with NAV 2004, but I thought I'd send out this
warning to *at least* make a Ghost image before installing Norton's latest
version.
For those of you who want greater detail, here's what I sent to Symantec
tech support:
"I just purchased and downloaded Norton AntiVirus 2004, and then I ran the
installation program. It asked to remove NAV 2003, which I allowed, and
then it installed NAV 2004 and asked to reboot. Again I said yes. Well when
the machine rebooted, CPU usage is at a near constant 50%, and NAV is
totally unresponsive. It won't load the NAV user interface, so I can't tell
what's going on. It appears that "System" is using most of the processor,
and the NAV configuration wizard is loaded, but nothing is actually viewable
on the screen. The machine wouldn't even respond to a restart request. I
had to do a hard reset. Luckily I'd made a fresh Ghost image before
upgrading to NAV 2004, so I restored my Ghost
image, and my machine is again working fine.
"Next I uninstalled NAV 2003 manually, rebooted and then installed NAV 2004.
This time it never got to the point of asking to reboot. CPU usage again
went to 50%, with lots of NAV components loaded but not actually running,
and System using most of the processor. NAV is unresponsive and won't load
the user interface. The machine won't restart. Again I did a hard reset
and restored my Ghost image with NAV 2003."
Regards,
Margaret
Pt
<twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
Thanks Margaret.
Shortly after I read your prevous message I updated my Norton
successfully (live update).
For quite some time before that I was unable to restart my computer
and had to shut it down manually.
I had a few other minor problems that I thought little about.
After running Norton I found that I had two seperate backdoor viruses
and I quaranteed them.
Everything seems fine now.
About 6 months ago I contracted a virus that disabled Norton.
It is possible that you have a virus on your computer now causing your
problems.
McAfee has a free online virus scan.
I don't have the web page address but you should be able to find it by
doing a search for McAfee free online virus scan.
Pt
Catalina Thunders
Margaret Wilson wrote:
Thanks for the warning Margaret, my subscription runs out soon as well,
& I'm also running XP Pro SP1a. Let us know what happens...
Cat
Mark Guest
Thanks for your post. It's not OT in that we all are using computers,
sharing email addresses (and inadvertantly, address books if we're not
careful). Please keep us posted on Symantec's response.
--
Mark Guest
Mark at MarkGuest.net
www.MarkGuest.net
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bigd9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Margaret Wilson
router (and a software firewall) and gets its Norton updates regularly. But
I decided I'd better run a virus scan just to be sure before I posted a
reply. And sure enough, no virus. So if there's not something wrong with
NAV 2004's install program, there's definitely something about it that's
interacting with something installed on my computer. Anyway, I'll keep you
all posted on what I hear from Symantec. :-)
Regards,
Margaret
"Pt" <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iofnkvcuo4150bqpe...@4ax.com...
Wally
the BSD and that's it.....
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bigd9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Margaret Wilson
it turns out, the problem is due to the malfunctioning of a new software
"activation" or anti-piracy scheme that is built into all 2004 versions of
Symantec software. While users are supposed to have 14 days to use the
software before requiring activation, NAV2004 believes the activation grace
period has expired (upon install), so it locks down the software such that
Symantec tech support couldn't even figure out how to "break in" and set a
new activation code for me. They're supposed to call me back in 1-3
business days when they resolve the issue, but I think I'm going to switch
to a different product. For those who are interested, here's my account of
a 2-hour phone call with Symantec tech support:
I got tired of waiting for an email reply from Symantec and last night
decided to call their paid tech support line and rattle some cages. I spoke
with "Dave," telling him that I didn't believe my issue was one that should
require a charge. He took my credit card number and promised to warn me
before it became a "paid" incident, so I could terminate the call. Dave was
very polite and knowledgeable, and we worked through removing NAV2003,
downloading and running "RNAV2003," which removes all traces of Norton
Antivirus, removing Live Update and Live Reg, cleaning the registry of all
references to Symantec, deleting all Symantec folders left behind, and
finally rebooting to a "clean," read "Norton-free" system. Well, after
installing NAV2004 to my clean system, NAV2004 still sends the processor to
50% and refuses to start the GUI. Finally we used MSCONFIG to prevent
NAV2004 from loading on start-up, and then ran some specific Norton commands
to open parts of the user interface. This is when the problem revealed
itself: Norton AntiVirus 2004 (and all other 2004 versions of downloadable
Symantec software) are equipped with an Activation scheme to prevent piracy.
Users are supposed to have 14 days to use the software before "activating"
it. The problem is that my software thought the activation grace period had
expired, so NAV2004 refused to function. Symantec's activation scheme so
"cripples" the software that you can't even run Live Update, which tech
support (and Dave in particular) wanted me to do to see if there were any
updates to the software itself. Dave put me on hold several times and went
to consult with others, and each time he returned with something to try.
Unfortunately it was impossible to defeat the activation "lock-down" so that
I could enter an activation code. All the software will allow is an
uninstall. This ended up being an almost 2-hour call, and Dave was just as
frustrated and worn-out as I was. Finally Dave said that Symantec tech
support would have to call me back in 1-3 business days with a solution.
Well since my machine was in an unprotected and fairly unusable state when
we ended the call, I restored my Ghost image and promptly ran through the
"clean-up" procedure that I had just learned from Dave. I have since
downloaded and installed the trial for Computer Associates' eTrust EZ
Antivirus. (Thanks PMG!) This software has a much lighter footprint -- and
has no activation built in. Not that I don't believe manufacturers should
be able to protect themselves against software piracy, but I object to
having my time wasted and my computer screwed up. I don't know when vendors
will learn that their
attempts to prevent piracy only end up driving away legitimate customers.
Anyway, Symantec offers a 60-day refund on software, so although I still may
restore my Ghost image (with NAV2003) just to see how tech support resolves
my issue, I'll still probably return NAV2004. Furthermore, I'm concerned
how I'd ever go about reinstalling the software should I say, have to
reformat my hard drive.
Regards,
Margaret
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bigd9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
NDB
customers. This is just another example. Hopefully these companies will
see large defections from usage of their products to discourage this
stupidity. They just lost another customer after your account. Thanks
Margaret.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
A One-Man Jazz Band? Believe it!
http://www.cosmiccontamination.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bil6f...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Keith Freeman
programme, I'm going to try that.
I suspect our PCs are going to remain more vulnerable than they need be as
long as we stay with MS operating systems, as opposed to e.g. Linux. Much
as I would like to switch, though, I find I rely too much on Windoze
programs which have no Linux equivalents as yet - alack a day!
-Keith
Audio samples and tips at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FreeKeithMan
pataud
> The Free Edition of AVG Anti-Virus was recently recommended on a BBC radio
> programme, I'm going to try that.
>
> I suspect our PCs are going to remain more vulnerable than they need be as
> long as we stay with MS operating systems, as opposed to e.g. Linux. Much
> as I would like to switch, though, I find I rely too much on Windoze
> programs which have no Linux equivalents as yet - alack a day!
>
I've had some trouble with AVG. I went to their site and filled out all the
forms and whatnot to be able to download the free edition and be sent the serial
number, but when I ran the install executable [avg6509fu_free.exe] it installed
a program called Easy Message, and nothing more. Personally, I'm puzzled.
D.R
> I (among others) recommended Norton AntiVirus as a solution. I'm currently
> using NAV 2003 without a problem, and I've used several prior versions
> (upgrading annually) and have been satisfied. But my antivirus signature
> subscription is about to expire, and Symantec has a new version available,
> so I decided it was time to upgrade. Well it's a good thing I made a Ghost
> image before installing the upgrade, because the install wizard never
> completed, and my machine became unusable -- so unusable that I wouldn't
> have been able to *uninstall* NAV 2004 if I'd tried. Hoping the setup
> nightmare was just a fluke, I restored my Ghost image and tried to install
> NAV 2004 a second time. Unfortunately I got the same result.
I had freakin' horrible problems getting Norton's Antivirus 2002 to work under
NT4. Their dependance on IE functionality and ignore or User and Group policy
meant that to make it work, users had to be granted more admin rights. Emails
to Symantec were in vain. Just as well the problems were solved with 2003.
thom_j.
"Keith Freeman" <freeke...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93E5C4A6C...@212.64.53.132...
> The Free Edition of AVG Anti-Virus was recently recommended on a BBC radio
> programme, I'm going to try that.
>
> I suspect our PCs are going to remain more vulnerable than they need be as
> long as we stay with MS operating systems, as opposed to e.g. Linux. Much
> as I would like to switch, though, I find I rely too much on Windoze
> programs which have no Linux equivalents as yet - alack a day!
Keith F, dont you feel that Windoze will have to eventually go in this
direction anyway? Since so many numb'nutts love hacking-crapping
on others with their invasive kiddie virus, worm, trojan, etc. games?
just a thought.. cheers t.j.
D.R
Sounds very "Microsoft" to me.
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bil6f...@enews1.newsguy.com...
fpirrone
Keith,
I don't know how closely you follow developments in the Free (freedom)
Software world, but a few things for your consideration:
Dual-boot system using Gnu/Linux for its strengths and qualities
Music/audio applications are rich and maturing quickly - see:
http://linux-sound.org
Several extremely high-quality desktops to choose from
Bootable CD-ROM that installs nothing on your computer -
http://www.knoppix.net
Let me know if you need more information.
Frank
Keith Freeman
> Dual-boot system using Gnu/Linux for its strengths and qualities
I have that, but rebooting every time I need a Windoze program? - nope.
> Music/audio applications are rich and maturing quickly - see:
> http://linux-sound.org
That's good to know.
> Several extremely high-quality desktops to choose from
I don't really care about the visuals...
> Bootable CD-ROM that installs nothing on your computer -
> http://www.knoppix.net
I've heard about that.
The problem is that I use the PC mainly for work (translating) and
switching to Linux would mean I don't have access to my CIS offline
reader and the dictionary, thesaurus, CAT etc. programs I use.
Jack
twok...@nospam.msn.com says...
> I'm only posting this here because of the recent threads on viruses and that
> I (among others) recommended Norton AntiVirus as a solution. I'm currently
> using NAV 2003 without a problem, and I've used several prior versions
> (upgrading annually) and have been satisfied. But my antivirus signature
> subscription is about to expire, and Symantec has a new version available,
> so I decided it was time to upgrade.
Margaret:
Just curious, but why didn't you just renew the subscription? You'll
get all, or almost all, of the functionality by just renewing the sub,
and running Live Update on a regular basis.
Currently running Norton Internet Security 2003 Professional Edition
here on a WinXP machine (1 gig RAM, 2.53 GHz P4 processor, etc.) and no
real problems to speak of. Configuration is a bit hairy, but once done,
no sweat.
I see in this thread you're rather with computers. You apparently are
not aware, or forgot, one of the basic rules with computers: NEVER buy
version 1.0 of anything.
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC and NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail and D&H in N
Proud NRA member
email addy: jack...@monmouth.com
Margaret Wilson
You do not get "all" of the functionality of NAV 2004 by simply renewing
your virus signature description. You have to actually buy the new version
to get the improvements to the application.
And regarding your comment, "You apparently are not aware, or forgot, one of
the basic rules with computers: NEVER buy version 1.0 of anything." I
always knew and never forgot this. As a computer professional, I can deal
with v1.0-type problems. Note that I did make a Ghost image prior to
upgrading, so I lost nothing but some time. And it's because of people like
me (early upgraders) that people like you learn when it's safe to actually
upgrade. So please don't lecture me on my own business.
Regards,
Margaret
"Jack" <jack...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b9de8bb...@news.monmouth.com...
Jack
twok...@nospam.msn.com says...
> Jack,
>
> You do not get "all" of the functionality of NAV 2004 by simply renewing
> your virus signature description. You have to actually buy the new version
> to get the improvements to the application.
>
> And regarding your comment, "You apparently are not aware, or forgot, one of
> the basic rules with computers: NEVER buy version 1.0 of anything." I
> always knew and never forgot this. As a computer professional, I can deal
> with v1.0-type problems. Note that I did make a Ghost image prior to
> upgrading, so I lost nothing but some time. And it's because of people like
> me (early upgraders) that people like you learn when it's safe to actually
> upgrade. So please don't lecture me on my own business.
Touchy, aren't we? I wasn't lecturing you on your own business.
What I was getting at was why mess with something that was working
before you 'upgraded'? IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
--
de Jack N2MPU FN20
Modeling the NYC and NYNH&H in HO and CP Rail and D&H in N
Proud NRA member
addy: jack...@monmouth.com
Adam Bravo
and I pointed out that 2004 was out. Hope he doesn't have this problem,
upgrading from 2001 Pro, IIRC.
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bigd9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
foldedpath
news:o8e4b.36217$nf3.4916@fed1read07:
> Crap! I got this with my grandfather THIS MORNING! He had 2003 in his
> hand and I pointed out that 2004 was out. Hope he doesn't have this
> problem, upgrading from 2001 Pro, IIRC.
>
> "Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bigd9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> I'm only posting this here because of the recent threads on viruses
>> and
> that
>> I (among others) recommended Norton AntiVirus as a solution. I'm
> currently
>> using NAV 2003 without a problem, and I've used several prior
>> versions (upgrading annually) and have been satisfied. But my
>> antivirus signature subscription is about to expire, and Symantec has
>> a new version available, so I decided it was time to upgrade.
Another heads-up here about Norton. I use Norton SystemWorks 2003 (which
includes the virus protection). I paid for one retail copy, and I have
it installed on 4 computers on my home network. Eventually the 1 year
virus update subscriptions expire, and I just renew the subscriptions on
each computer when that rolls around ($9 each... a fair price).
I read recently that "Norton 2004" products are moving to a system
profile copy protection system, similar to that used by Windows XP.
You'll have to call or email the company if you make any major changes
on your system, or upgrade to a new computer. And that probably means
buying a separate license now for each computer on your home network. A
major pain in the ass. Quicken tried this recently with Turbo Tax, and
the users pitched a fit, so they backed away from it. Apparently Norton
thinks people won't mind.
I'm going to hang on to Norton 2003 as long as I can. I don't see
anything in 2004 that's tempting me to upgrade, and I despise the
hassles with system-profiling copy protection (not the least of which,
is that these programs burrow deep into the low level of the OS, and are
difficult to remove). The current virus protection in NAV 2003 works
fine, and $9 yearly subscription price per computer is a fair price for
the virus subscription renewals.
--
Mike Barrs
Margaret Wilson
news:Xns93E7D535DF005mb...@216.168.3.44...
> includes the virus protection). I paid for one retail copy, and I have
> it installed on 4 computers on my home network. Eventually the 1 year
> virus update subscriptions expire, and I just renew the subscriptions on
> each computer when that rolls around ($9 each... a fair price).
Unfortunately your buying one license and installing it on four computers is
exactly why Symantec has gone to this activation scheme. I agree that ~$50
a license is a bit steep. But I recently found out that if you buy the
"professional" version of NAV, it comes with two licenses. IIRC, the
professional version is an extra $10. You can also buy a 5-license pack of
the standard NAV, which is available at a reduced rate.
> I read recently that "Norton 2004" products are moving to a system
> profile copy protection system, similar to that used by Windows XP.
> You'll have to call or email the company if you make any major changes
> on your system, or upgrade to a new computer. And that probably means
> buying a separate license now for each computer on your home network. A
> major pain in the ass. Quicken tried this recently with Turbo Tax, and
> the users pitched a fit, so they backed away from it. Apparently Norton
> thinks people won't mind.
Well *I* mind, and I told Symantec so. We'll see if enough people feel the
same way to make Symantec *care*.
> I'm going to hang on to Norton 2003 as long as I can. I don't see
> anything in 2004 that's tempting me to upgrade, and I despise the
> hassles with system-profiling copy protection (not the least of which,
> is that these programs burrow deep into the low level of the OS, and are
> difficult to remove). The current virus protection in NAV 2003 works
> fine, and $9 yearly subscription price per computer is a fair price for
> the virus subscription renewals.
I just swithced to Panda Antivirus Titanium. It's $39.95 for the first year
and $19.95 each year thereafter. It's got a somewhat lighter footprint than
NAV, and it's just as user friendly. Seems very effective in the few days
I've been using it. Panda's antivirus doesn't have any activation, so
although it's a violation of the license agreement (I think) to install it
on multiple computers, there's nothing stopping you from doing it.
Regards,
Margaret
thom_j.
on the site I was on it's only $19.95 but I will use it as a single user.
Did you buy it for multiple computers? tia.. thom_j.
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bis6g...@enews3.newsguy.com...
KevinW
<mba...@NOSPAM.nightviewer.com> wrote:
>
>Another heads-up here about Norton. I use Norton SystemWorks 2003 (which
>includes the virus protection). I paid for one retail copy, and I have
>it installed on 4 computers on my home network. Eventually the 1 year
>virus update subscriptions expire, and I just renew the subscriptions on
>each computer when that rolls around ($9 each... a fair price).
I find it hard to believe that you are complaining about a change that
users that follow your practices caused themselves. It's fair to only
spend $9 per illegal copy to obtain virus protection???
>
>I read recently that "Norton 2004" products are moving to a system
>profile copy protection system, similar to that used by Windows XP.
>You'll have to call or email the company if you make any major changes
>on your system, or upgrade to a new computer. And that probably means
>buying a separate license now for each computer on your home network. A
>major pain in the ass. Quicken tried this recently with Turbo Tax, and
>the users pitched a fit, so they backed away from it. Apparently Norton
>thinks people won't mind.
And apparently you think Norton doesn't mind if you steal its
software.
>
>I'm going to hang on to Norton 2003 as long as I can. I don't see
>anything in 2004 that's tempting me to upgrade, and I despise the
>hassles with system-profiling copy protection
Then stop inducing companies to have to put that in. I hate
copy-protection as much as anyone, but for legitimate reasons. Being
able to change systems easily, having backup copies of original disks
in case of damage, etc. The reason these often hard to deal with
schemes are put in place is because users are ripping them blind by
thinking they can purchase one copy of software and then just loading
it on every computer they have.
If you've ever been hit hard by the worms/viruses/trojans going around
you'd realize how very fair the price for protection from them is. If
you've ever spent days getting data back, suffering extended downtime
over something that could have been avoided by ponying up $40 or so, I
think your opinion would be different.
It's a sad state that we have to worry about these things, but until
such a perfect time, I'm glad there's something out there that will at
least stop it "at the door" and I'm more than willing to pay for that.
I don't know you personally, and I'm sorry for the rant, but I fight
this everyday in my company with people who think that because we have
a disk in hand, we have an unlimited license to install it everywhere
and even take it home and install it for personal use. Quite frankly,
I have bigger problems to deal with than police what is no more than
common theft. The end result of it all is that people end up with an
unwieldy and yes "major pain the ass" installation procedure that
probably could have been avoided in the first place.
End of rant.
Bill Williams
I have been using AVG (free version) for a few months now after seeing
it recommended here and have been very happy with it so far. It has
regular updates and has picked up everything so far.
http://www.vnunet.com/Download/1123822
http://www.grisoft.com/
Certainly worth upgrading to the paid version at 40 dollars IMO.
Bill W.
KevinW
wrote: "a bunch of screamin blather"
Ok. Just reread my post and feel I must apologize to the group. I've
been through three weeks of fighting & preventing these latest
virus/worm attacks and geez it must've gotten to me. This was also
posted before my obligatory 8 cups of coffee.
Let me say this, I stand behind my points - but not the way I
presented them and for that I apologize.
I've noticed a bit of sniping on the group the last week or so and
damn if I didn't do it too. Damned nearness of the evil red planet!
Kevin
Margaret Wilson
but when you go to the store, it's actually $39.95. ($19.95 for subsequent
years, apparently.) This kind of turned me off, but it's a good product, so
I bought it anyway.
Regards,
Margaret
"thom_j." <thom_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:puidnVNqWd2...@comcast.com...
fpirrone
Kevin,
Magnificent Red Planet. Last night I enjoyed the most spectacular
telescopic view of the brilliant polar ice cap and an outrageous degree
of shaded surface detail of this entire opposition.
Frank
thom_j.
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bitpp...@enews3.newsguy.com...