NAV 2006 vs 2008

> As you see there's not a lot of love for NAV here.

Yes, I was aware of this fact when posting.

> To actually answer your
> question I'd say that the 2008 version of NAV is much better then 2006, but
> if you're considering getting NAV (or NIS) I would strongly recommend
> waiting for the 2009 products which are currently being beta tested. They
> will be better then the 2008 versions in many ways, such as smaller, more
> frequent updates, faster scans, and better uninstall routines.

I have NAV 2006 on the home computer in question. I will need to
renew the subscription pretty soon and I fully intend to do it. I
have two options: just renew the signature updates and stay with 2006
or upgrade to 2008. In 2007 I opted for signature updates only. This
time I'm not sure.

> If you're
> curious checkout the ongoing thread atwww.wilderssecurity.com(in other
> antivirus software).

I will. Thank you.
============================================================

On Aug 27, 10:43 pm, "Victek" <Vic....TakeThisOut@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
> > than its 2006 counter-part?
>
> > I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
> > versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
> > scope for this question.
>
> > TIA, Eugene
>
> As you see there's not a lot of love for NAV here.  To actually answer your
> question I'd say that the 2008 version of NAV is much better then 2006, but
> if you're considering getting NAV (or NIS) I would strongly recommend
> waiting for the 2009 products which are currently being beta tested.  They
> will be better then the 2008 versions in many ways, such as smaller, more
> frequent updates, faster scans, and better uninstall routines.  If you're
> curious checkout the ongoing thread atwww.wilderssecurity.com(in other
> antivirus software).

"Little Charlie" <charlie1950.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:G1ntk.17948$De7.3546@bignews7.bellsouth.net:

> "Gaz" <gazter.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:6hmcnpFn3lugU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Eugene F." <pm771.am.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ae2437b-538c-42e1-a280-507a39c69151@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>> Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise undesirable
>>> than its 2006 counter-part?
>>>
>>> I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
>>> versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
>>> scope for this question.
>>>
>>> TIA, Eugene
>>
>> A couple of rules for NAV.
>>
>> i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
>> ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
>> software.
>>
>> Gaz
>>
>>
>
> Many will jump at the chance to bad mouth Norton. They are ignorant of
> any facts and simply parrot back to you what some other mindless
> parrot told them. I prefer Avast..but to answer your question
> directly I would ask Norton on the phone or in email. There may well
> be some details there that will shed light on your query. To conclude
> i have used every version of Norton AV ever produced. I never had
> trouble with Norton as an application or did my PC ever get infected.
> I simply now prefer a free AV product like Avast. Good luck on your
> quest Eugene.
>

https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=endpoint_protec
tion11&message.id=15665&jump=true#M15665


I agree with Gaz, based on personal observations and 10 years
professionally employed as a PC technician, Norton is bloated, gets
bloated more with each release, and has long since fallen from the high
pedistal it once was on.

--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

Little Charlie wrote:
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B0B7B1ED5558HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
>> "Little Charlie" <charlie1950.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:G1ntk.17948$De7.3546@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> "Gaz" <gazter.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6hmcnpFn3lugU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Eugene F." <pm771.am.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ae2437b-538c-42e1-a280-507a39c69151@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
>>>> ..
>>>>> Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise
>>>>> undesirable than its 2006 counter-part?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
>>>>> versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
>>>>> scope for this question.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA, Eugene
>>>>
>>>> A couple of rules for NAV.
>>>>
>>>> i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
>>>> ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> Gaz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many will jump at the chance to bad mouth Norton. They are ignorant
>>> of any facts and simply parrot back to you what some other mindless
>>> parrot told them. I prefer Avast..but to answer your question
>>> directly I would ask Norton on the phone or in email. There may well
>>> be some details there that will shed light on your query. To
>>> conclude i have used every version of Norton AV ever produced. I
>>> never had trouble with Norton as an application or did my PC ever
>>> get infected. I simply now prefer a free AV product like Avast.
>>> Good luck on your quest Eugene.
>>>
>>
>> https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=endpoint_protec
>> tion11&message.id=15665&jump=true#M15665
>>
>>
>> I agree with Gaz, based on personal observations and 10 years
>> professionally employed as a PC technician, Norton is bloated, gets
>> bloated more with each release, and has long since fallen from the
>> high pedistal it once was on.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>>
>
> "Personal observations" do not measured performance data or
> scientific testing under controlled environment make. Polly want a
> cracker?

I make my own decisions based on personal experieinces, i use external
information to assist in the process. I have come across enough computers
installed with norton to know that it makes a considerable impact on
performance.

Gaz

"Little Charlie" <charlie1950 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:PbAuk.21215$vX2.17444@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B0B7B1ED5558HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
>> "Little Charlie" <charlie1950 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:G1ntk.17948$De7.3546@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> "Gaz" <gazter RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6hmcnpFn3lugU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Eugene F." <pm771.am RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ae2437b-538c-42e1-a280-507a39c69151@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.co
>>>> m. ..
>>>>> Is Norton Anti-Virus ver. 2008 more bloated or otherwise
>>>>> undesirable than its 2006 counter-part?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just asking about the comparison between the two different
>>>>> versions of NAV, replacing NAV with a different product is out of
>>>>> scope for this question.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA, Eugene
>>>>
>>>> A couple of rules for NAV.
>>>>
>>>> i) NAV is slow and cumbersome
>>>> ii) the newer the version of NAV the slower and more cumbersome the
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> Gaz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many will jump at the chance to bad mouth Norton. They are ignorant
>>> of any facts and simply parrot back to you what some other mindless
>>> parrot told them. I prefer Avast..but to answer your question
>>> directly I would ask Norton on the phone or in email. There may well
>>> be some details there that will shed light on your query. To
>>> conclude i have used every version of Norton AV ever produced. I
>>> never had trouble with Norton as an application or did my PC ever
>>> get infected. I simply now prefer a free AV product like Avast. Good
>>> luck on your quest Eugene.
>>>
>>
>> https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=endpoint_pro
>> tec tion11&message.id=15665&jump=true#M15665
>>
>>
>> I agree with Gaz, based on personal observations and 10 years
>> professionally employed as a PC technician, Norton is bloated, gets
>> bloated more with each release, and has long since fallen from the
>> high pedistal it once was on.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
>> BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>>
>
> "Personal observations" do not measured performance data or scientific
> testing under controlled environment make. Polly want a cracker?

Ahh, the joys of usenet and ignorant persons. Without people like you, I
wouldn't have a job. It's ironic in it's own right. Carry on then, sir.

oh, and thanks for the cracker.




--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

"Little Charlie" <charlie1950 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in news:eUBuk.21267
$vX2.9304@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

> http://www.soundclick.com/LittleCharlie

Damn, MS... that explains things a bit.


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org

> "Symantec is scrambling to get the bloat out of Norton software-and stop
> the slide in
> market share
>
> In 2006, Rowan Trollope, a top executive at Symantec (SYMC), declared war
> on his own
> engineers. The company's Norton computer-security software was getting so
> overloaded with
> features that his best friends told him they turn off the software rather
> than deal with
> the problems it causes. "I realized then we were pigs, taking up way too
> many PC
> resources," says Trollope, senior vice-president for consumer products."
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_33/b4096060672925.htm?...paign_i
>
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
>
>
You may be interested to know that the public beta test of NIS2009/NAV2009
is finished and the products are supposed to go "gold" very soon (this
according to someone at wilderssecurity.com who was a beta tester). I'm
looking forward to reviews to see if the efforts to improve speed and
efficiency were successful.