Fred S <"Fred S"@anonymous.com> wrote in
news:ul$2#Ha1FHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I've heard that AVG is supposed to be pretty good so I installed
> it on a PC here that I'm setting up for a family member.
>
> The install went fine, updated the program using its update
> function and scanned the system - all OK
>
> This morning and as of now, AVG reports updates available but it
> will NOT update - keeps timing out says to try later!
>
> I went to their site and the server seems almost dead - takes
> forever to simply render any page - can anyone advise on this?
>
> Is a case of you get what you pay for? Or is it some kind of
> glitch? Can any AVG users comment?
>
> Thanks, Fred

Fred,

To answer your question:
You were plain unlucky. Grisoft was in the process of delivering a
version update (to version 7.1) to its users and managed to screw
up their servers for a while. Normal service was resumed on Friday.

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
news:OJK5jfN2FHA.632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> Asher_N wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> news:ecSg4jo1FHA.3000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Asher_N wrote:
>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>>> news:eInrtvc1FHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Blackwell wrote:
>>>>>> Do any of these AV programs actually REMOVE viruses if you have
>>>>>> them? I've used norton forever, and while it seems to be good at
>>>>>> scanning and deleting viruses from emails or even finding a file
>>>>>> that is infected on your computer, it does not actually clense
>>>>>> your comptuer of the virus. You still have to go to the symantec
>>>>>> and download their special tool that scans for the virus/worm and
>>>>>> then manually follow steps to remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Symantec sucks. I haven't let a Symantec product near my computer
>>>>> for a couple of years now, and am much the happier for it.
>>>>>
>>>> So what DO you use?
>>>
>>> Who are you and why do you want to know?
>>>
>>
>> Because you just keep bitching about the Symantec products, and
>> recommending free alternatives. How about you tell us what you trust
>> your security to. It's a simple answer really. What's your motive for
>> recommending products?
>
> I don't usually recommend specific products.
>
> And your query about what I use has nothing to do with the FACT that
> Symantec, and its products are overpriced, bloated, and generally suck,
> so you really have no need to know what I use, as it is irrelevant.
>

Then STFU. This is a group where people come seeking help. Just bitching
about a product, which is only your opinion, without offering an
alternative, preferably one that you know works, and trust is just a
waste of good bandwidth.

Asher_N wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> news:OJK5jfN2FHA.632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
>
>> Asher_N wrote:
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> news:ecSg4jo1FHA.3000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> Asher_N wrote:
>>>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>>>> news:eInrtvc1FHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert Blackwell wrote:
>>>>>>> Do any of these AV programs actually REMOVE viruses if you have
>>>>>>> them? I've used norton forever, and while it seems to be good at
>>>>>>> scanning and deleting viruses from emails or even finding a file
>>>>>>> that is infected on your computer, it does not actually clense
>>>>>>> your comptuer of the virus. You still have to go to the symantec
>>>>>>> and download their special tool that scans for the virus/worm
>>>>>>> and then manually follow steps to remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Symantec sucks. I haven't let a Symantec product near my
>>>>>> computer for a couple of years now, and am much the happier for
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So what DO you use?
>>>>
>>>> Who are you and why do you want to know?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you just keep bitching about the Symantec products, and
>>> recommending free alternatives. How about you tell us what you trust
>>> your security to. It's a simple answer really. What's your motive
>>> for recommending products?
>>
>> I don't usually recommend specific products.
>>
>> And your query about what I use has nothing to do with the FACT that
>> Symantec, and its products are overpriced, bloated, and generally
>> suck, so you really have no need to know what I use, as it is
>> irrelevant.
>>
>
> Then STFU.

You and what Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines are gonna make me?

> This is a group where people come seeking help.

ABOUT WINDOWS XP! Not Symancrap!

> Just
> bitching about a product, which is only your opinion,

ROFL! I am probably THE most opinionated person in this group that has
posted here since 2001.

> without
> offering an alternative,

One wasn't asked for, but by you Symancrapphants, and ya'll are only
interested in that to try to switch the argument away from Symancrap to
what me and what I use, since you really have nothing but blind faith to
present in favor of using Symancrap products.

> preferably one that you know works, and
> trust is just a waste of good bandwidth.

The waste of bandwidth here are non-Windows XP topics. And as long as
these off-topic posts are posted here, that's how long I will respond to
them according to my own whims.

Symancrap sucks, and so do the ever-decreasing number of
Symancrapphants.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail said ...
> > bitching about a product, which is only your opinion,
>
> ROFL! I am probably THE most opinionated person in this group that has
> posted here since 2001.
>
Yep - but whereas you pride yourself on being "opinionated" others might
not take such pride in such a negative attribute. Having opinions is
not the same as being opinionated. For God sake, the OP asked about AVG
and you've spent the past xxx posts ranting about Symantec and how
anyone who dares mention that word must be terminally lacking in the
brain cell department and doesn't deserve to be let into your great
secrets of computer security. There's a life out there - why don't you
go and look for one.
--
Wilf

Wilf wrote:
> kurttrail said ...
>>> bitching about a product, which is only your opinion,
>>
>> ROFL! I am probably THE most opinionated person in this group that
>> has posted here since 2001.
>>
> Yep - but whereas you pride yourself on being "opinionated" others
> might not take such pride in such a negative attribute.

Mostly conformists that have their opinions dictated to them, and are
jeolous that I have a mind of my own.

> Having
> opinions is not the same as being opinionated.

You can't be opinionated without having opinions.

> For God sake, the OP
> asked about AVG

And I didn't even reply to the OP of the thread.

> and you've spent the past xxx posts ranting about
> Symantec and how anyone who dares mention that word must be
> terminally lacking in the brain cell department and doesn't deserve
> to be let into your great secrets of computer security.

LOL! What a lie. I answered Robert Blackwell complaining that NAV
doesn't remove viruses and that you have to use separate removal tools
to remove viruses. I preceded to answer the RB that he should dump the
crap, like I have, and have been much happier since.

Then the Symancrapphants attacked because their beloved Symancrap was
being rightfully dissed.

Had Robert asked me for advise on what products I would reccoment, I
would have been more than happy to answer him, but the Symancrapphants
don't care what I use EXCEPT to divert attention away from the right
dissing of their Symancrap Cult.

> There's a
> life out there - why don't you go and look for one.

Thanks, but I have one. If I had yours, then I'd want to look for
another, but since I'm not you, I'm quite content with the one I have.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <etmpN2Y2FHA.2312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> I am probably THE most opinionated person in this group
>
> With the most posts that provide the leasst help too.

ROFL! Expressing one's opinion can be quite helpful, especially when
expressed in opposition to conformists regurgitation their corporate
dogma.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Norton, Symantec call it what you will, I have ditched it after
serveral corrupt downloads. If you think its secure you wanna have a
look here, get back and lets see what you think -:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...101101X,00.asp

and also (thanks to Overclocked)-:

http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723

here is a snippet

> The tool used to update the virus definitions in Symantec's
antivirus products has a security hole that can allow hostile code to
be downloaded to PCs, according to the German hacking group
Phenoelit.
>
> LiveUpdate, the software used by Symantec's antivirus software to
automatically update virus protections when updates become available,
has flaws in both the 1.4 and 1.6 versions that allow for the attacks,
Phenoelit says. When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain Name
Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the attacker's choice.

After reading this do you still trust Norton..?

Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in - come back
Peter Norton all is forgiven.

Davy

Leythos wrote:
> In article <wwx7f.249798$cw3.12288@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
> no@spam.invalid says...
>> When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
>> connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
>> connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain Name
>> Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the attacker's choice.
>>
>> After reading this do you still trust Norton..?
>>
>> Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in - come
>> back Peter Norton all is forgiven.
>
> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - if they
> use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be possible to
> hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.

http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723

But the buffer overflow document at the above link is a problem specific
to your beloved SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS! LOL!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eynfP7a2FHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <wwx7f.249798$cw3.12288@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
>>> no@spam.invalid says...
>>>> When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
>>>> connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
>>>> connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain Name
>>>> Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the attacker's choice.
>>>>
>>>> After reading this do you still trust Norton..?
>>>>
>>>> Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in - come
>>>> back Peter Norton all is forgiven.
>>>
>>> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - if they
>>> use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be possible to
>>> hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.
>>
>> http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723
>>
>> But the buffer overflow document at the above link is a problem
>> specific to your beloved SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS! LOL!
>
> Nice find, a exploit for an engine that's sooooo old that it is almost
> not worth knowing about - not to mention that have to have port 8004
> exposed.
>
> And if you look on the site, all the major players have problems with
> exploits - it's about how quickly they are fixed and how accessible
> the exploit is.

How old is that engine?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <uoRsgcb2FHA.3244@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <eynfP7a2FHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <wwx7f.249798$cw3.12288@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
>>>>> no@spam.invalid says...
>>>>>> When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
>>>>>> connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
>>>>>> connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain
>>>>>> Name Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the attacker's
>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After reading this do you still trust Norton..?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in - come
>>>>>> back Peter Norton all is forgiven.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - if
>>>>> they use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be
>>>>> possible to hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.
>>>>
>>>> http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723
>>>>
>>>> But the buffer overflow document at the above link is a problem
>>>> specific to your beloved SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS! LOL!
>>>
>>> Nice find, a exploit for an engine that's sooooo old that it is
>>> almost not worth knowing about - not to mention that have to have
>>> port 8004 exposed.
>>>
>>> And if you look on the site, all the major players have problems
>>> with exploits - it's about how quickly they are fixed and how
>>> accessible the exploit is.
>>
>> How old is that engine?
>
> The engine on most of our systems is well over 90.x.x.x, the one on
> this machine is 103.0.2.7 and I just checked 8 other systems - all in
> 103.something. The engine you pointed out was a version 4 version,
> not a version 10 version.

So it took until 2005 for Symancrap to fix it. And only did because
someone else caught it for them.

ROFL! Some Security Company Symancrap is!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <ec431sc2FHA.3416@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <uoRsgcb2FHA.3244@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <eynfP7a2FHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <wwx7f.249798$cw3.12288@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>>> no@spam.invalid says...
>>>>>>>> When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
>>>>>>>> connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said. That
>>>>>>>> connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of Domain
>>>>>>>> Name Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the
>>>>>>>> attacker's choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After reading this do you still trust Norton..?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in -
>>>>>>>> come back Peter Norton all is forgiven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - if
>>>>>>> they use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be
>>>>>>> possible to hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the buffer overflow document at the above link is a problem
>>>>>> specific to your beloved SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS! LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice find, a exploit for an engine that's sooooo old that it is
>>>>> almost not worth knowing about - not to mention that have to have
>>>>> port 8004 exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you look on the site, all the major players have problems
>>>>> with exploits - it's about how quickly they are fixed and how
>>>>> accessible the exploit is.
>>>>
>>>> How old is that engine?
>>>
>>> The engine on most of our systems is well over 90.x.x.x, the one on
>>> this machine is 103.0.2.7 and I just checked 8 other systems - all
>>> in 103.something. The engine you pointed out was a version 4
>>> version, not a version 10 version.
>>
>> So it took until 2005 for Symancrap to fix it. And only did because
>> someone else caught it for them.
>>
>> ROFL! Some Security Company Symancrap is!
>
> Maybe because it was a very old version? Maybe because they cared
> enough to go back and fix something that should not have still been
> in use?
>
> Heck, I can only speculate, but it was good of them to fix it.

And pretty funny for a security company to have missed it for so long.

Where, oh where do I sign up to secure my computer with that kind of
expensive incompetence?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail said ...
> > For God sake, the OP
> > asked about AVG
>
> And I didn't even reply to the OP of the thread.
>
ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoring
what its original purpose may have been, without altering its subject.
How useful to know for future reference. Furthermore, does it have to
be about computing? Could I raise how I dislike particular kinds of
music, for example ;-)
--
Wilf

Wilf wrote:
> kurttrail said ...
>>> For God sake, the OP
>>> asked about AVG
>>
>> And I didn't even reply to the OP of the thread.
>>
> ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoring
> what its original purpose may have been, without altering its subject.
> How useful to know for future reference. Furthermore, does it have to
> be about computing? Could I raise how I dislike particular kinds of
> music, for example ;-)



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Who ever said
> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - if
they
> use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be possible to
> hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.
>

Maybe maybe not, why then no one else be mentioned, nit picking at
Symantec arw we..? Explain why when they where notified Symantec
wasn't interested and 'appeared' to give the two finger sign ignoring
them.

Now then, this expolit is one thing but why should 6 downloads become
corrupt, 6 times I had to re-install or repair twice, the HDD 'had'
to be reformatted.

The last straw came after a virus alert update - I couldn't even turn
it on and I couldn't even update no matter which files I repaired
even the SymNRT tool would not even remove it - another HDD format.

Oh btw, I only purchased this last Dec/Nov, are there really people
who think I should continue using this product, putting up with the
re-formats repair's and re-installs?

If only people care to look at user opinions, user comments on varios
shopping sites instead of reading all the 'glossy write ups' then I'm
sure a different picture will be painted.

There was some downloads sent out with corrupted files - not
hi-jacked but corrupted - in other words dodgy, sent out unchecked
or not checked properly

I am sorry to say, I don't call this good, in plain speaking I call
it 'crap' and refuse to perservere with it 'at this time'.

No other AV has ever given me this grief.

Davy

Wilf wrote:
> kurttrail said ...
>>> For God sake, the OP
>>> asked about AVG
>>
>> And I didn't even reply to the OP of the thread.
>>
> ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoring
> what its original purpose may have been, without altering its subject.
> How useful to know for future reference. Furthermore, does it have to
> be about computing? Could I raise how I dislike particular kinds of
> music, for example ;-)

You can do whatever you like. I hear a bunch of Symancrapphants are
jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, maybe you'd like to follow them.
Please be my guest!

Or you can try to change the subject away from Symancrap's horrible
products by implying that I was the one that brought up NAV into this
thread. Oops, you have already tried that, and failed miserably! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <O9kUAPf2FHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <ec431sc2FHA.3416@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <uoRsgcb2FHA.3244@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <eynfP7a2FHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>>>>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <wwx7f.249798$cw3.12288@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> no@spam.invalid says...
>>>>>>>>>> When LiveUpdate 1.4 looks for updates, it attempts to
>>>>>>>>>> connect to a specific server at Symantec, the group said.
>>>>>>>>>> That connection, however, can be hijacked using a number of
>>>>>>>>>> Domain Name Server attacks and rerouted to the server of the
>>>>>>>>>> attacker's choice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After reading this do you still trust Norton..?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Its not been the same since Symantec stuck their noses in -
>>>>>>>>>> come back Peter Norton all is forgiven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the same issues are present in most of the AV products -
>>>>>>>>> if they use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be
>>>>>>>>> possible to hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=723
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the buffer overflow document at the above link is a problem
>>>>>>>> specific to your beloved SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS! LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice find, a exploit for an engine that's sooooo old that it is
>>>>>>> almost not worth knowing about - not to mention that have to
>>>>>>> have port 8004 exposed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if you look on the site, all the major players have problems
>>>>>>> with exploits - it's about how quickly they are fixed and how
>>>>>>> accessible the exploit is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How old is that engine?
>>>>>
>>>>> The engine on most of our systems is well over 90.x.x.x, the one
>>>>> on this machine is 103.0.2.7 and I just checked 8 other systems -
>>>>> all in 103.something. The engine you pointed out was a version 4
>>>>> version, not a version 10 version.
>>>>
>>>> So it took until 2005 for Symancrap to fix it. And only did
>>>> because someone else caught it for them.
>>>>
>>>> ROFL! Some Security Company Symancrap is!
>>>
>>> Maybe because it was a very old version? Maybe because they cared
>>> enough to go back and fix something that should not have still been
>>> in use?
>>>
>>> Heck, I can only speculate, but it was good of them to fix it.
>>
>> And pretty funny for a security company to have missed it for so
>> long.
>
> And it's just like you to Assume that they missed it for any length of
> time. I'm unable to determine how long it was an issue from my
> reading.

Well you were the one that said that this is a very old engine, so
Symancrap must have had years that they didn't find this flaw and fix
it.

>> Where, oh where do I sign up to secure my computer with that kind of
>> expensive incompetence?
>
> If you look at the exposure, I don't see where it was a real threat to
> the majority of customers - did you read how it has to be exploited

EvenSymancrap rates the Risk Impact as "HIGH," LameGirl.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei""

Leythos wrote:
> In article <%WI7f.270574$cw3.7484@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
> no@spam.invalid says...
>> The last straw came after a virus alert update - I couldn't even turn
>> it on and I couldn't even update no matter which files I repaired
>> even the SymNRT tool would not even remove it - another HDD format.
>>
>> Oh btw, I only purchased this last Dec/Nov, are there really people
>> who think I should continue using this product, putting up with the
>> re-formats repair's and re-installs?
>>
>> If only people care to look at user opinions, user comments on varios
>> shopping sites instead of reading all the 'glossy write ups' then I'm
>> sure a different picture will be painted.
>
> I'm someone that uses Symantec Products with almost no problems on
> more than 1500 machines currently. We also have a number of
> residential customers running various versions of Symantec/Norton AV
> products without any problems.

BS! Don't believe a single word you say.

I've heard you BS about how many people run Symancrap products without
any problems, and you have come up with one source to back that up
except yourself.

As far as I'm concerned you a just a bold-faced LIAR!

> While I understand that some people do have problems, and I've never
> discounted those people's problems with it, the vast majority would
> seem to not have any problems with their Anti-Virus products.

You have no idea about the vast majority! Hell, I've worked on
computers that had hardware problems, only to also find numerous viruses
also, on computers running NAV with Live Update set to Auto! And the
user was totally unaware he had any viruses!

>
> I will continue to use Symantec AV products until such time as
> something BETTER is available.

You deserve Symancrap!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail said ...
> I hear a bunch of Symancrapphants are
> jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, maybe you'd like to follow them.
>
well, it would be a reaI shameful waste of money to fly all the way from
the U.K. to the U.S. of A. just to jump off a bridge. What if I just
use Tower Bridge right here in London? Actually, I don't use
Symantec/Norton products anyway (happy enough using ZA-AV - oh god, I'm
not supposed to tell anyone what I use, am I?)
--
Wilf

> quote="kurttrail
> How old is that engine?

About as old as DOS....

Davy

The updates in from Symantec 'I understand' affected all users, anyone
want a review of Symantec only needs to look at user comment's on
various shopping sites, you will see more bad comments than good.
Also you will see comments like AVG found viruses that Symantec had
missed

People jump of bridges for many reason's and 'not' Symantec related...
those comments achieve nothing..! The only people who ought to
consider such acts should be themselves and those who suggest such
acts....

Anyone tried googling Symantic (with an i and not e) - funny ol'
world.

Davy