Whatever happened to Peter Norton?
Roy Henderson
I've used Norton Utilities, Navigator, Commander, and all the products
that I could find over the past few years. Because I knew that if Peter
Norton's name was associated with a product, it would work. Sure there
were a couple of problems over the years. But, nothing compared to the
problems that NU3 is giving a whole lot of people. Whatever happened to
Peter Norton? If he hasn't been kicked out of the loop by the 'bean
counters' then please ask him to get into this discussion and help us
out.
For those of you that are thinking of trying Nuts'N'Bolts to replace
NU3. Good luck, it's even worse that NU3. I'm still trying to get rid of
the D**M thing. When you uninstall their evaluation version it leaves
all sorts of garbage on your HD and desktop.
Good Luck everybody
Roy Henderson
Vincent Wan Hang Lau
Interesting enough Network Associates (previously McAfee Associates) have
recently purchased N&B. I have tried it myself too, I DON'T LIKE IT either
. . .
Vincent
12/27/97
Mark Kennedy
Peter Norton left and took his $20 million with him. He had very little
to do with any but the very early utilities.
--
Mark Kennedy
Norton Utilities Development
Roy Henderson <r...@writeme.com> wrote in article
<34A54272...@writeme.com>...
Michael W. Focke
The early Norton utilities operated in a simple DOS world of single tasking.
Today's world of multiple programs running against multiple file systems
(FAT16 & FAT32) is just a bit more complex. I'm amazed anything works.
Roy Henderson wrote in message <34A54272...@writeme.com>...
David Candy
Peter Norton sold Nortons to Symantec years ago.
--
-------------
Regards
David Candy Microsoft MVP Jumpstart (Word)
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/serenitymacros
D.E.
Well What Ever The Reason Is the NU30 is crap and symantec really
made a huge mess for alot of people including me last week and i'm
REALLY pissed at symantec for making so many people suffer including
myself having to clean it all off my system I want my money back
symantec NOW and put ssomething on your web page about it all
admit the truth of this mess symantec has made!!
such a hurridly put together piece of trash, makes you feel stupid for
buying it
comkiller#ameritech.net
replys change the # to @
Two Pi R
>When you uninstall their evaluation version it leaves
>all sorts of garbage on your HD and desktop.
That's funny. I removed it and there was not a trace except a copy of the
registry with the .HLX extension. And it reduced my registry by over 1/2 a MB.
Two Pi R
>He had very little
>to do with any but the very early utilities.
Then get his silly pictures off of my screen. He may be better looking than
Bill Gates, but I don't want to have to look at him in any case unless he's
personally gonna come over and fix the problems with NU 3.0 and WinFax 8.02!
Harry Krause
Mark Kennedy wrote:
> Peter Norton left and took his $20 million with him. He had very little
> to do with any but the very early utilities.
> --
> Mark Kennedy
> Norton Utilities Development
>
Let us not minimize Peter's contribution to your paycheck, Mark. Peter was a
weekly columnist for PC Week at the same time I was, and we used to exchange
notes and letters. He'd send me "alpha" copies of upcoming utilities, knowing
my penchant for making software go boom in the night. Almost all of the "very
early" Norton Utilities worked perfectly when released. Moreover, many of them
were unique for their time, and you had to have them. Further, Peter's
company, small as it was, had people who knew enough about the utils to
explain what each one was and what each one did without all the razzle-dazzle
you guys are layering over NU 2 & 3.
I don't use but a couple of the items in the new Suite and I'll tell you, it
is damned difficult to determine what these utils actually are doing. All the
reports here of serious problems are pretty frightening.
GregB
Mark Kennedy wrote:
>
> Peter Norton left and took his $20 million with him. He had very little
> to do with any but the very early utilities.
> --
> Mark Kennedy
> Norton Utilities Development
>
Then why would he put his picture on products he apparently has nothing
to do with. He should be very pissed off about the latest version of
"NORTON" Utilities (3.0) because it has lots of problems. More so than
the previous versions (8.0, 1.0, 2.0). Just look at all of the posts of
long time, 'devoted' users who claim no problems with earlier version
but want their money back for this one.
Hopefully Symantec will get some patches out. SOON!!
PBR
then why don't you guys get rid of those stupid pictures of him in the
Norton products? When you start word, you don't get a picture of bill gates.
And when you start Netscape, there isn't a photo of that fat guy who's like
25 but looks 40 that invented it.
Mark Kennedy wrote in message <01bd1323$332fddc0$bb02450c@unixs>...
>Peter Norton left and took his $20 million with him. He had very little
>to do with any but the very early utilities.
>--
>Mark Kennedy
>Norton Utilities Development
>
>
>Roy Henderson <r...@writeme.com> wrote in article
><34A54272...@writeme.com>...
>> I've used Norton Utilities, Navigator, Commander, and all the products
>> that I could find over the past few years. Because I knew that if Peter
>> Norton's name was associated with a product, it would work. Sure there
>> were a couple of problems over the years. But, nothing compared to the
>> problems that NU3 is giving a whole lot of people. Whatever happened to
>> Peter Norton? If he hasn't been kicked out of the loop by the 'bean
>> counters' then please ask him to get into this discussion and help us
>> out.
>>
>> For those of you that are thinking of trying Nuts'N'Bolts to replace
>> NU3. Good luck, it's even worse that NU3. I'm still trying to get rid of
>> the D**M thing. When you uninstall their evaluation version it leaves
>> all sorts of garbage on your HD and desktop.
>>
TWiehl3
>then why don't you guys get rid of those stupid pictures of him in the
Norton
>products? When you start word, you don't get a picture of bill gates.
And
>when you start Netscape, there isn't a photo of that fat guy who's like
25
>but looks 40 that invented it.
Put Cindy Crawfords picture on it or let me default my choice.....
Don't insult Peter with THIS product!!
Thomas
"Don't marry someone with
more problems than yourself"
fal...@perch_high.com
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 11:54:25 -0800, "PBR" <p...@sirius.com> wrote:
>then why don't you guys get rid of those stupid pictures of him in the
>Norton products? When you start word, you don't get a picture of bill gates.
>And when you start Netscape, there isn't a photo of that fat guy who's like
>25 but looks 40 that invented it.
>
Please, don't give Bill Gates any ideas!
Falcon
--
Spam bait:
Commisioner William E Kennard: wken...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpo...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtri...@fcc.gov
National Organization for Women: n...@now.org
Toker in Chief: pres...@whitehouse.gov
Gumby: vicepr...@whitehouse.gov
Vincent Wan Hang Lau
If he has left, how come we still see his picture on all the software boxes??
Shouldn't they put somebody's faces on it??
Vincent
12/28/97
Rob Hicks
LOL!
Vincent Wan Hang Lau
I think that the technical support here is pretty good. Look at all the Symantec
Tech that "comes in" on their long Christmas vacation (Dec 25 - Dec 28) and devote
their time that they DON'T HAVE TO. Many of the problems were solved. I think
that they are great. NU 3.0 is a little bit disappointed, but I don't think that
it is any difficult to install than any other programs.
Vincent
12/28/97
Yummy wrote:
> On 27 Dec 1997 23:57:41 GMT, "Mark Kennedy" <mken...@symantec.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Norton left and took his $20 million with him. He had very little
> >to do with any but the very early utilities.
>
> When exactly did it happen? Any chance his leave coincided with NU's downhill
> movement?
>
> Up to the version 5.0 NU were GREAT product. Windows versions (7.0 and 8.0
> AFAIR) were useless, but hey, they had DOS versions almost unchanged.
> Win95 version 1.0 was OK in a sense that it offered the same services in w95
> enviroment (though the suit shrunk at the expense of good one). Lots of
> "original" windows utils were hungry resourse suckers that did little good.
> The only improvement (without which whole product would be dead anyway) in
> version 2.0 was fat32 support. It became bloated, undocumented and polluted by
> Genies and Companions.
>
> Now we have 3.0 that takes 35 Mb and 1) does not work, 2) difficult to install
> and/or uninstall, 3) lacks documentation, 4) lacks decent technical support,
> 5) apparently a huge market hit.
>
> Considering all these things combined, I feel that you, Symantec employers, owe
> A LOT to Mr. Norton. I hope I don't need to explain why...
>
> Y.
Vincent Wan Hang Lau
I don't even remember the days with Nortom Commandor. What is it, anyway?? It must
have been disconnected by Symantec.
Vincent
12/28/97
Joe
Well, he is apparently still alive and writing books. I just brought Peter
Norton's Guide to Access 97 Programming written by him and someone named
Virginia Andersen. And his picture (with the folded arms pose and gray
hair <g>) is on the front cover.
--
Joe
Dave
Geeesh what a thread, but I must concur....
I too remember the days of DOS and man!!!! if you had Norton Utilities on
your hardrive, you had "REAL" tools. Limited mouse clicks, DOSy lookin'
screens, but the thing worked.... but let's scrap all that.... let's
put cool pictures in, replace Norton's muscle power with animated race cars
and and and VIDEOS yes lets use videos, and and and hey we can make
your computer play midi music while your defraging, well while your
"Running" the defragging program!
*************************************************************************
Norton, Symantec... WHO EVER
Put the Utilities back into Norton Utilities....
Please........
**************************************************************************
Registered NU 2, upgraded to 3, user.
PS, I'm not "flaming" NU or Symantec, I've still got faith in them....
for now.
Michael Joseph Fox
Hi Mark
Does anybody up in the head shed ever read all this bad press
Symantec/Norton is getting in this disscussion group?
Does anybody ever show it to them?
Do they care?
Harry Krause
Michael Joseph Fox wrote:
I think Symantec is typical of non-developmental companies that find a
cash cow, milk it for all it is worth and use some the bucks to buy
other cash cows. I admire Peter Norton for selling out for $20 million
or whatever. I think he saw the handwriting on the wall and got out at
the right time.
I used to use Procomm Plus. I was there at the beginning and even
beta-tested a few releases. It was the best program of its kind. But
then web browsers and the internet starting taking over and BBS's went
into a decline. So the developers of Procomm got out, and Symantec ended
up owning it. I still have a version 3.0 of Procomm but I haven't used
it in more than a year. Every so often, I get a call from a Symantec
sales rep who tries to convince me I need the new Procomm. I suppose it
still sells, but to who?
I strugged with WinFax for a couple of years. I was never pleased with
its reliability. I returned it for a refund nearly three years ago and
bought a free-standing fax machine. *IT* always works the first time.
Recently, I downloaded Symantec's trial version of Winfax to see if
things had improved. Nope. Still flakey.
Your question was, Do they care?
I don't think so. I don't think software conglomerates are driven by the
spirit that wants to create a great product and back it properly. The
last company that did this was WordPerfect Corporation. Corel owns WP
now, and while the software has lots more bells and whistles, it is not
as reliable and the tech support sucks.
Brendon Woirhaye
The company is well aware of the problems which are being aired in the
newsgroups, and believe it or not, we do care. Due to the nature of Norton
Utilities as a utility that enhances the operating system at such a low
level, there are compatibility problems which cannot all be detected in beta
testing and in-house testing. After a release (and the NU 3.0 release has
found fewer problems than the 2.0 release did), we carefully examine the
problems that were missed in development and fix those problems as soon as
possible. We realize that we cannot be a successful company or create a
successful product if people have problems with it, and therefore have a
very high priority on getting those problems fixed.
Brendon Woirhaye
QA Manager, Norton Utilities
Michael Joseph Fox wrote in message <34a7ab0a...@news.texas.net>...
Tom Swimmer
Thanks for the laugh...I enjoyed it. After spending DAYS trying to find out
why my system has been crashing a few times a day I dropped in this forum.
After reading all the posts, I now know why. After reading about all this
your post gave me a good laugh and by this time I really needed it! Take
care.
Two Pi R wrote in message <19971228024...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>He had very little
>>to do with any but the very early utilities.
>
Michael Joseph Fox
Well Brendon, it is nice to see someone at least a little way up the
chain of command appear in this discussion group. As you are becoming
aware, a bit of damage control, but no spin doctoring, is in order.
Symantec/Norton would do itself a big favor if it would maintain an
updated "Status of Repairs" message in this group. It should contain
a list of know problems in NU3 and its subprograms; it should contain
a short discription of the effects of the problem so people could say,
"Hey, that's me." And it should contain the status of repairs on the
problem at the factory (what you're trying; what failed; what worked),
and most of all, it should contain a realistic (maybe even
pessimistic) estimate on when the update will be out.
I think you'd be surprised at the good will this would get you.
Mike