McAfee or Norton on New Notebook?

[Scott]

My wife's new Win XP Pro notebook just arrived. It came pre-installed
with McAfee Internet Security (30-day trial) and Norton Internet Security
2005 (90-day trial). I've always had good results with Norton 2002 on my
other XP machines. Can anyone discuss the pros and cons of Norton 2005
and McAfee 2005? I'll be removing one of them...but which one?

Thanks!
Scott

[Virus Guy]

Scott wrote:

> I've always had good results with Norton 2002 on my other XP
> machines.

You can continue to run NAV 2002.

Once the 1-year subscription runs out, simply un-install the program,
delete all program directories where it installed itself, and
re-install. As long as you delete ALL directories you will be able to
fool it into thinking that it's being installed for the first time.
Then you will gain a full year of updates.

As I've discoverd and posted here recently, older versions of NAV
(such as 2002) do have their anti-virus scan engines updated when such
updates are created. It's a myth that NAV 2002 is less capable of
detecting viruses than later versions of NAV.

What I do is copy the contents of the original NAV 2002 disk onto the
PC and run it from there. That way you have it when you need it (ie
if you lose or no longer have the original cd).

[Scott]

OK, I understand. Is there anything special I need to do to completely
remove Norton Internet Security 2005...so NAV 2002 can be installed?

Thanks!
Scott

[Virus Guy]

Scott wrote:

> > You can continue to run NAV 2002.
>

> OK, I understand. Is there anything special I need to do to
> completely remove Norton Internet Security 2005...so NAV 2002
> can be installed?

Well, that is a different ball of wax. From what I've read, NAV
2004/2005 are a pain to remove completely. You say you have NIS - I'm
not familiar with that product. Does it include NAV?

I would suggest that you do what you can from the add/remove thing in
the control panel.

Then install NAV 2002. My guess is that NAV 2002 will have no idea
that some radically new Symantec software was installed, and even if
it does it probably won't know how to react to it.

[Scott]

Virus Guy,

OK, I'm just trying to be cautious. I don't want to screw up my system when
NAV 2005 is working okay. Norton Internet Security includes NAV 2005 and
a spam blocker. Do most of the uninstall/install problems come when upgrading
to a newer version? I'm wondering if a downgrade is a safer bet.

Also, this is for my wife's new (2 days old) Gateway win XP Pro notebook.
From the start, it's had an unusually long bootup (2-3 minutes to get to the
desktop). Once the desktop is visible, then it's another 30-sec for the icons
to appear...and another minute or two for everything to finish loading.
It has a 1.4 Ghz Celeron and 512MB RAM...and the manufacturer has put the
OS on a separate partition. Could Norton Internet Security be the culprit
for the slow boot-up? Note: I already removed all of McAfee Internet
Security. (It sure didn't want to leave, though).

By contrast, my 3-year old WinXP Pro desktop boots up fully in less than 2
minutes.

Thanks!
Scott

[Virus Guy]

Scott wrote:

> OK, I'm just trying to be cautious. I don't want to screw up my
> system when NAV 2005 is working okay. Norton Internet Security
> includes NAV 2005 and a spam blocker. Do most of the uninstall
> /install problems come when upgrading to a newer version? I'm
> wondering if a downgrade is a safer bet.

I think people have problems just plain removing NAV 2004/2005 (what
they're trying to ultimately accomplish seems to vary - maybe they're
trying to re-install it, or install something else). If it's working
for you, then what's the problem?

Others have posted (either in this group, or alt.comp.anti-virus) some
links giving details on how to remove NAV 2004 or 2005).

> Also, this is for my wife's new (2 days old) Gateway win XP Pro
> notebook. From the start, it's had an unusually long bootup (2-
> 3 minutes to get to the desktop). Once the desktop is visible,
> then it's another 30-sec for the icons to appear...and another
> minute or two for everything to finish loading.
> It has a 1.4 Ghz Celeron and 512MB RAM...and the manufacturer has
> put the OS on a separate partition.

(smirk on my face)

Funny how it was a priority for Macro$lack to keep XP's boot time to
something like 30 seconds. It was a design imperative for them if you
read the early history on XP (it was one of their fluffy reasons to
migrate from Win-2k and 98).

> By contrast, my 3-year old WinXP Pro desktop boots up fully in less
> than 2 minutes.

Remember that XP stands for eXtra Processes. An optimized XP-pro
setup should boot in less than a minute.

> Could Norton Internet Security be the culprit for the slow
> boot-up?

There are lots of reasons why XP boots slow. When it comes to Norton,
I have no direct experience with any version of NAV (or NSW) beyond
2002. The general consensus is that each version of NAV (2003 -> 2004
-> 2005) has been increasingly a drag on the system.

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:08:23 -0400, Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote:

>Others have posted (either in this group, or alt.comp.anti-virus) some
>links giving details on how to remove NAV 2004 or 2005).

Here is a link to a removal utility for NAV amongst other.

http://www.ik-cs.com/post-disinfection-repairs.htm

--
Ian Kenefick
http://www.ik-cs.com
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com

[kurt wismer]

Virus Guy wrote:
[snip]

> As I've discoverd and posted here recently, older versions of NAV
> (such as 2002) do have their anti-virus scan engines updated when such
> updates are created.

i must have missed the article where you posted 'yes process explorer
shows nav is using the new engine files' then...

--
"they threw a rope around yer neck to watch you dance the jig of death
then left ya for the starvin' crows, hoverin' like hungry whores
one flew down plucked out yer eye, the other he had in his sights
ya snarled at him, said leave me be - i need the bugger so i can see"

[Roger Wilco]

"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:42F38228...@Guy.com...

> It's a myth that NAV 2002 is less capable of
> detecting viruses than later versions of NAV.

Could you post test results and methodology to back up this claim?

[Virus Guy]

kurt wismer wrote:

> i must have missed the article where you posted 'yes process
> explorer shows nav is using the new engine files' then...

Process explorer shows that when I start NSW, the file NMAIN.EXE
starts up (description = Norton Integrator). When I select "Scan
directory" then the file "navw32.exe" starts up (description = Norton
AntiVirus Scanner Module). When I select a directory to scan, then
start scanning, navw32.exe spawns "qserver.exe" (description = QServer
module).

Only 1 device listed under Qserver -> VNETBIO. A bunch of mapped
files, mutex's, semaphore's, and a thread is also listed.

Under the process NAVW32.EXE, there are 5 devices:

- NAVAPI
- NAVKRNL
- VWIN32
- VWIN32
- VNETBIO

I can't get the properties for the above devices ("Properties are not
supported for objects of this type").

There are a bunch of "files" listed:
- NAVCOMUI.DLL
- NAVWBWND.DLL
- \cookies\index.dat
- \history.ie5\index.dat
- \system\atl.dll
- \system\mshtml.tlb
- \system\mshtml.tlb
- \system\stdole2.tlb
- \tempor~1\content.ie5\index.dat

Some mapped files, some mutex, some semaphores, about a dozen threads
(all of them are NAVW32.exe).

What exactly am I looking for?

In a previous post, I said the following:

------------
based on renaming the following files I can't perform a scan
unless this file is present:

- navex32a.dll July 27, 2005 (8:30:21 pm) 685,728 bytes
version = 20051.1.0.12
description = AV Engine

-----------

I had written that none of the following files seemed to be needed:

navex15.vxd
navex15.sys
navex15.exp
naveng32.dll
naveng.vxd
naveng.sys
naveng.exp
ECMSVR32.dll

That was wrong. Turns out that renaming all of those files didn't
affect NAV's operation during the session. But upon re-starting,
Norton wasn't happy and was non-functional. I haven't figured out yet
which of those are needed upon a re-start.

Anyways, what am I looking for with Process Explorer?

[Virus Guy]

Roger Wilco wrote:

> > It's a myth that NAV 2002 is less capable of
> > detecting viruses than later versions of NAV.
>
> Could you post test results and methodology to back up this claim?

See the other thread with this same subject line.

In short, NAV 2002 can't perform a virus scan unless one specific DLL
is present. That DLL has a very recent version number and file date
on my system (July 27/2005). I have also posted statements from
Symantec's own web site that say that when a new def'n file is created
and if it warrants a new scan engine then the engine is built into or
comes with the def'n update, and in that case in order for the scanner
to function properly with the new def'n file the new scan engine must
be installed and operable. This applies to any AV product where defn
files are updated via live update.

Have a look here:

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/d90699b1d0ecca5988256818006f78bd/a6585880d6a280fe88256ed900572c4c?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam

(http://tinyurl.com/bbuth)

or read my post:

Subject: Re: Reinstalling Norton
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:48:04 -0400

[kurt wismer]

Virus Guy wrote:
[snip]

> Anyways, what am I looking for with Process Explorer?

you identified which dlls represented the most recent version of the nav
scanning engine - what you're looking for is whether or not those dlls
are loaded by nav2002 when it scans a directory that doesn't contain
those dlls... listing the dlls loaded by a process is a straight-forward
task with process explorer: first make sure the lower pane is showing
(by selecting the 'show lower pane' option from the view menu), then
make sure the lower pane is showing dlls (by selecting such in the
'lower pane view' submenu of the view menu), then you select the
process... come to think of it, you can actually do those in any order
you like...

optionally you may want to go to the view->select columns option and
make sure 'path' is checked under the 'dll' tab so that you can see what
directory the dlls were loaded from (just in case there is more than one
version of the particular dll on your hard drive)...

[Gaz]

"Scott" <gol...@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:42F31FA1...@uslink.net...

Both are horrid resource hogs, which will cripple your new laptop, this is
even more so if your laptop only has 256mb of memory.
Get yourself a free antivirus such as avg, much better then norton or
mcafee, and make sure your xp sp2 firewall is enabled.

Gaz

[Gaz]

"Scott" <gol...@uslink.net> wrote in message

news:42F43F7E...@uslink.net...

NIS is responsible for the two minutes or so following the desktop. If you
watch the icons appear in the right hand side, you will see the longest
delay is for norton to get up and running.

gaz

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:49:15 +0100, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:

>Both are horrid resource hogs, which will cripple your new laptop, this is
>even more so if your laptop only has 256mb of memory.

Agreed whole heartedly.

>Get yourself a free antivirus such as avg, much better then norton or
>mcafee,

I wouldn't say it is better in every sence. Both McAfee and Norton
beat the shit out of AVG for detection. If you have invested in a new
pc then the least you could do is put decent protection software on
it. For a low ram system you should look at www.nod32.com NOD32
Antivirus system.

>and make sure your xp sp2 firewall is enabled.

Install the free zonealarm or Sygate here or if you want to spend a
few bucks I recommend Sygate Personal Firewall Pro. Windows Firewall
is a half arsed firewall.

[Tore Lund]

Ian Kenefick wrote:
>
> Both McAfee and Norton beat the shit out of AVG for detection.

If I may quote what Grisoft says about AVG:

"We have received the VB100% in the test of Virus Bulletin in February
2005 on Windows NT platform."

and:

"100% detection rate of AVG Free System is continuously certified by
independent ICSA laboratories."

So it cannot be all that bad. But it stands to reason that a free
program must be limited somehow, so I am all ears if anyone is able to
point out in what ways McAfee or Norton beat AVG.
--
Tore

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:55:29 +0200, Tore Lund <tor...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>I am all ears if anyone is able to
>point out in what ways McAfee or Norton beat AVG.

Here is a comparative where McAfee and Norton Beats AVG for detection.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php

[Tore Lund]

Ian Kenefick wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:55:29 +0200, Tore Lund <tor...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I am all ears if anyone is able to
>>point out in what ways McAfee or Norton beat AVG.
>
> Here is a comparative where McAfee and Norton Beats AVG for detection.
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php

Thank you. Very interesting.
--
Tore

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:08:23 +0200, Tore Lund <tor...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_02.php
>
>Thank you. Very interesting.

You are most welcome - you will find links to more here

http://www.ik-cs.com/library.htm

[Gaz]

"Tore Lund" <tor...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ZNydnaTJFMu...@telenor.com...

I find AVG picks up huge number of trojan horses that norton and mcafee dont
touch, these are largely spyware infections though.

Gaz

> --
> Tore

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:18:46 +0100, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:

>I find AVG picks up huge number of trojan horses that norton and mcafee dont
>touch, these are largely spyware infections though.

What version of Norton and McAfee. Only last 2 version I think have
added detection for spyware/adware etc.

[Virus Guy]

kurt wismer wrote:

> > Anyways, what am I looking for with Process Explorer?
>
> you identified which dlls represented the most recent version
> of the nav scanning engine - what you're looking for is whether
> or not those dlls are loaded by nav2002 when it scans a
> directory that doesn't contain those dlls...

While NAV 2002 was scanning a sub-directory which did not contain NAV
2002 program files or download directory or temp directory, the
following was saved to a text file and brought into Excel for editing.

All non-symantec entries were removed.

I take it that this listing contains all relavent information about
the operation, configuration, and/or status of Norton Anti-Virus 2002
in the context of it's capability of being "up to date" as far as it's
detection ability is concerned relative to more recent version's of
NAV.

There are 2 items listed as "AV Engine" (NAVENG32.DLL and
navex32a.dll) that are clearly up-to-date, while another file with a
similar description (NAVSCAN.DLL) has the date 9/30/02 (presumably
this file is/was never updated during the support period of NAV 2002
anyways, an indication that perhaps it's functionality has little
impact on scanning capability). Several other files (most notably the
API) also have legacy dates, again not necessarily an indication that
they are involved (in a significant way) with the actual scanning
process.

A more comprehensive description of NAVENG32.DLL and navex32a.dll
would be useful to fully understand their role in the scanning
process. The fact that these files seem to accompany (or be part of)
some (or most, or all) def'n updates (and the fact that they are
indeed in-use during a scan) is an indication that some aspect of
NAV-2002's scanning mechanism is kept up-to-date by the Live Update
mechanism.

-----------------------------------------

Process Description

NMAIN.EXE Norton Integrator
NAVW32.EXE Norton AntiVirus Scanner Module
QSERVER.EXE QServer Module
NPROTECT.EXE Norton Protection Status
NAVAPW32.EXE Norton AntiVirus Agent
PROCEXP.EXE Sysinternals Process Explorer

Process: NAVW32.EXE Pid: FFFB1A95

Name Description Version
Navapi32.dll Norton AntiVirus Engine API 4.01.0000.0015
N32exclu.dll <file description missing> 8.00.0007.0017
NAVENG32.DLL AV Engine 20051.01.0000.0012
navex32a.dll AV Engine 20051.01.0000.0012
NAVSCAN.DLL Norton Anti-Virus Scan Engine 8.00.0007.0017
SCANMGR.DLL Norton AntiVirus Scan Manager 8.00.0007.0017
NAVW32.exe Norton AntiVirus Scanner Module 8.00.0007.0017
DEC2.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2AMG.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2ARJ.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2CAB.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2EXE.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2GZIP.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2HQX.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2ID.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2LHA.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2LZ.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2RTF.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2SS.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2TAR.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
Dec2Text.dll File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2TNEF.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2UUE.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DEC2ZIP.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0017
DECSDK.DLL File Decomposer Component 3.02.0008.0016
S32alogo.dll Norton AntiVirus Activity Log 5.03.0000.0182
NAVComUI.dll Norton AntiVirus Common UI 8.00.0007.0017
NAVAP32.DLL Norton AntiVirus Helper DLL 8.00.0007.0017
NavInoc.dll Norton AntiVirus Inoculation 8.00.0007.0017
S32integ.dll Norton AntiVirus Integrity Library 5.03.0000.0182
S32NAVO.DLL Norton AntiVirus Symantec Technology 5.03.0000.0182
NAVTskWz.dll Norton AntiVirus Task Wizard 8.00.0007.0017
NAVTasks.dll Norton AntiVirus Tasks Module 8.00.0007.0017
NavWbWnd.dll Norton AntiVirus web hosting control 8.00.0007.0017
ScrBlock.dll ScriptBlocking 1.01.0000.0126
ScrAuth.dll ScriptBlocking Authenticator 1.01.0000.0126
TKNV32O.DLL Symantec Kernel Thunk Library 28.00.0000.0060
NETBIOS.DLL (no description) (no version entry)

Process: QSERVER.EXE Pid: FFE7630D

Name Description Version
QServer.exe QServer Module 1.00.0000.0001
fslink.dll Norton AntiVirus File Transfer DLL 8.00.0007.0017
N32call.dll Norton AntiVirus Engine Callbacks 5.03.0000.0182
NAVAP32.DLL Norton AntiVirus Helper DLL 8.00.0007.0017
quar32.dll Norton AntiVirus Quarantine 8.00.0007.0017
S32NAVO.DLL Norton AntiVirus Symantec Technology 5.03.0000.0182
NETBIOS.DLL (no description) (no version entry)

--------------------

Repeat listing of first 7 items listed under Process: NAVW32.EXE
with file date replacing file version:

Name Description File Date

Navapi32.dll Norton AntiVirus Engine API 7/24/01
N32exclu.dll <file description missing> 7/27/02
NAVENG32.DLL AV Engine 8/3/05
navex32a.dll AV Engine 8/3/05
NAVSCAN.DLL Norton Anti-Virus Scan Engine 9/30/02
SCANMGR.DLL Norton AntiVirus Scan Manager 1/23/03
NAVW32.exe Norton AntiVirus Scanner Module 2/27/02

[kurt wismer]

Virus Guy wrote:
[snip]

> NAVENG32.DLL AV Engine 20051.01.0000.0012
> navex32a.dll AV Engine 20051.01.0000.0012

ok, i'm now reasonably convinced nav2002 currently can be updated to the
latest engine...

i was wrong when i said it probably couldn't be...

for the time being nav2002 should be a reasonable option for people -
they should be able to get most or all of the detection capability
(dunno about non-viral malware detection - don't know enough about how
that's implemented in nav) of the most recent versions of nav without
the bloat or undesirable characteristics of the most recent versions...

i just hope engine updates don't break silently at some point in the
future... it is still an unsupported product after all...

[Gaz]

"Ian Kenefick" <ian_ke...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:v73cf11nh0o9ptfa3...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:18:46 +0100, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I find AVG picks up huge number of trojan horses that norton and mcafee
>>dont
>>touch, these are largely spyware infections though.
>
> What version of Norton and McAfee. Only last 2 version I think have
> added detection for spyware/adware etc.

I have found the removal of norton 2004 or 2005 fixes many a problem with a
slow computer.........

Gaz

[Scott]

Very interesting posts. I checked the av-comparitives.org site, and it looks
like Nod32 scores best all-around. Interesting, I already use Nod32 on my
Win 95 and Win98 machines and am very happy with it's small footprint and
speed. I didn't realize how well it outperforms the competititon. It looks
like Nod32 is going on my wife's new notebook.

Scott

[Roger Wilco]

"Tore Lund" <tor...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ZNydnaTJFMu...@telenor.com...

> "100% detection rate of AVG Free System is continuously certified by
> independent ICSA laboratories."

Wow!! That sounds too good to be true ...

[Roger Wilco]

"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message

news:42F568BD...@Guy.com...

> Roger Wilco wrote:
>
> > > It's a myth that NAV 2002 is less capable of
> > > detecting viruses than later versions of NAV.
> >
> > Could you post test results and methodology to back up this claim?
>
> See the other thread with this same subject line.

Nice followthrough re Process Explorer. Clearly some files are being
updated and used by NAV2002. If these updated files are indeed all that
is needed for the overall program to match the detection rate of later
versions then clearly NAV2002 "should" hold up. As to whether it "does"
still requires a test of some sort. My main area of concern would be the
"unpacking" of various packed executables and I am not quite sure where
the function lies in NAV - in one of the updated dll's or not.

It is unlikely that any reputable testing facility will make any effort
to test NAV 2002 against anything seeing as it is being phased out. The
fact is that I agree with you about pasting something like "new and
improved" on the newer version's box being a marketing tool and maybe
not entirely based on fact.

Thanks for taking the effort to post actual results from Process
Explorer.

[kurt wismer]

Roger Wilco wrote:
[snip]

> Nice followthrough re Process Explorer. Clearly some files are being
> updated and used by NAV2002. If these updated files are indeed all that
> is needed for the overall program to match the detection rate of later
> versions then clearly NAV2002 "should" hold up. As to whether it "does"
> still requires a test of some sort. My main area of concern would be the
> "unpacking" of various packed executables and I am not quite sure where
> the function lies in NAV - in one of the updated dll's or not.

it would be quite odd for nav to load the up to date engine dlls and not
use them - it would also be quite odd to update part of the codebase
required for scanning an not all of it... you're right that it's not an
iron-clad argument but it's a lot stronger than the counter-argument at
this point...

clearly the dlls identified by symantec as being responsible for
scanning are being downloaded to client machines and loaded by the
executable while scanning... short of debugging through the process
while it's operating or testing with virus samples that are known to
require the most recent engine i don't see any good way to gain any more
certainty about the efficacy of an updated nav2002...

[Roger Wilco]

"kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:TDAJe.2403$6d4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Roger Wilco wrote:
> [snip]
> > Nice followthrough re Process Explorer. Clearly some files are being
> > updated and used by NAV2002. If these updated files are indeed all
that
> > is needed for the overall program to match the detection rate of
later
> > versions then clearly NAV2002 "should" hold up. As to whether it
"does"
> > still requires a test of some sort. My main area of concern would be
the
> > "unpacking" of various packed executables and I am not quite sure
where
> > the function lies in NAV - in one of the updated dll's or not.
>
> it would be quite odd for nav to load the up to date engine dlls and
not
> use them - it would also be quite odd to update part of the codebase
> required for scanning an not all of it... you're right that it's not
an
> iron-clad argument but it's a lot stronger than the counter-argument
at
> this point...

It wouldn't surprise me to find that a system in place to keep updated
defs and engine current was different than a system to keep other parts
of the software current. It also wouldn't surprise me if non-supported
software were still able to use the first system. Admittedly, I don't
know the inner workings of this product - I was rather focussed on the
recent development of 'bug finders' scrutinizing the unpacking algorithm
libraraies used by many AV programs. Are these libraries upgraded by the
def/eng system or only by product support mechanisms for "supported"
products?

> clearly the dlls identified by symantec as being responsible for
> scanning are being downloaded to client machines and loaded by the
> executable while scanning... short of debugging through the process
> while it's operating or testing with virus samples that are known to
> require the most recent engine i don't see any good way to gain any
more
> certainty about the efficacy of an updated nav2002...

Neither do I. But without such a test, dismissing the possibility as a
myth is premature. It sure "looks like" Virus Guy is correct in light of
the information gathered so far, and it doesn't surprise me that a
company might want you to think that their last year's product is now
obsolete so that you will buy their current offering.

[Virus Guy]

I had previously found that I couldn't perform a manual scan if
navex32a.dll had been moved or re-named (but all the following files
can be re-named or moved):

naveng32.dll
navex15.vxd
navex15.sys
navex15.exp
naveng.vxd
naveng.sys
naveng.exp
ECMSVR32.dll

Turns out that one (or more) of the above files are needed when the
computer starts up, and re-naming or moving them aftwards has no
effect on NAV. Seems that naveng32.dll is one such file.

So the above files (which have recent file dates so are obviously kept
in a constantly updated state) must be used for other products.

There are some .txt files that accompany each update. One of them is
technote.txt.

From Technote.txt (Aug 3 / 2005):

(this file has essentially no content except for this message):

: Additional information regarding this virus definitions update
: can be found in UPDATE.TXT and WHATSNEW.TXT.

There is no "update.txt" to be found.

However, a version of that file can be found here:

http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/update.txt

A portion of that file:

----------------
Norton AntiVirus Intelligent Updater
Installation Instructions
Copyright 1997-2005 Symantec Corporation
All rights reserved

Intelligent Updater
===================

This program automatically updates Norton AntiVirus and Symantec
AntiVirus products with the latest virus definitions. It
automatically searches for the program on your computer and updates
the necessary files.

This document includes installation instructions for the following
platforms:

I. Norton AntiVirus 2000 for Win9x/NT/2000
II. Norton AntiVirus 2001 for Win9x/Me/NT/2000
III. Norton AntiVirus 2002 for Win98/Me/NT/2000/XP Home/XP Pro
IV. Norton AntiVirus 2003 for Win98/Me/2000/XP Home/XP Pro
V. Norton AntiVirus 2004 for Win98/Me/2000/XP Home/XP Pro
VI. Norton AntiVirus 2005 for Win98/Me/2000/XP Home/XP Pro
VII. Norton AntiVirus 7.x Corporate Edition
VIII. Symantec AntiVirus 8.x Corporate Edition
IX. Symantec AntiVirus 9.x Corporate Edition
X. Norton AntiVirus for OS/2
XI. Norton AntiVirus for Microsoft Exchange (Intel)
XII. Symantec AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino
XIII. Norton AntiVirus 2.0 for Lotus Notes for AS/400
XIV. Norton AntiVirus 2.5 for Lotus Notes for AS/400 (iSeries)
XV. Norton AntiVirus 2.5 for Lotus Notes for OS/390

It also includes instructions and resources for manual updates.

XVI. Installing Virus Definition Files Manually
XVII. Intelligent Updater File List
XVIII. Recent changes

----------------------

Perhaps an indication that NAV 2000 and 2001 are also similarly
updated. Perhaps they are using some of the above-mentioned files.

[Ian Kenefick]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:52:59 +0100, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:

>I have found the removal of norton 2004 or 2005 fixes many a problem with a
>slow computer.

Sarcastic - but this brings us to a whole new topic. The impact of AV
software on application performance. Does anyone know of such
benchmarks?

[Scott]

Scott wrote:
>
> My wife's new Win XP Pro notebook just arrived. It came pre-installed
> with McAfee Internet Security (30-day trial) and Norton Internet Security
> 2005 (90-day trial). I've always had good results with Norton 2002 on my
> other XP machines. Can anyone discuss the pros and cons of Norton 2005
> and McAfee 2005? I'll be removing one of them...but which one?
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

Update:

Well, I finally got up the nerve to uninstall Norton Internet Security 2005.
All went well. An immediate benefit was that the incredibly slow bootup on
this new notebook is no longer a problem. It now boots normally. Then I took
Virus Guy's advice an installed NAV 2002. Live Update downloaded 14mb of files.
All is working well. My notebook not only boots faster, but it also runs quicker...
i.e. the way it's supposed to--without the NAV 2005 bloatware.

Scott

[Gaz]

"Scott" <gol...@uslink.net> wrote in message

news:42FA68A8...@uslink.net...

Good for you. I always wonder why these programmes get good write ups in
magazines, the latest norton and mcafee cripple older computers, and slow
down even new ones, i suppose they must advertise a lot in the publications.

Gaz

> Scott