On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
loaded before the internet connection is made, hopefully there is no problem,
it never used to do this.
I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice which puts the matter right for a
short time only for it to return, any one had experience of this?
Regards

Norton again ! - Ask yourself a question. Why would I want a program
that costs money and have to fiddle with it to assure myself it is working
properly. Having to uninstall/reinstall it takes time away from productive
use of the PC. You wouldn't keep a car that requires recalls and trips to
the dealership to keep it on the road. No other company/program takes
up as much bandwidth here as Symantec/Norton. Microsoft NG Admin
should send Symantec a bill for all their problems that get fixed here.

"THE Old ONE" <THEOldONE@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1B2FFC6C-53F2-47CA-A169-D47E18DF63D3@microsoft.com...
> On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
> risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
> loaded before the internet connection is made, hopefully there is no
> problem,
> it never used to do this.
> I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice which puts the matter right for
> a
> short time only for it to return, any one had experience of this?
> Regards

You left out my subjective part of the statement about having to
"Fiddle/Twiddle" with it. Purchased software should work out of
the box and not require the user to work with it - to get it to work.
I have no interest/desire to participate in the other Symantec thread.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db454b4c138769098a259@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uO$uF$azFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, PcEngWork-
> NoSpam_@mindspring.com says...
>> Ask yourself a question. Why would I want a program
>> that costs money
>
> What program do you suggest that people run as part of a Quality Anti-
> Virus solution?
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

R. McCarty wrote:
> You left out my subjective part of the statement about having to
> "Fiddle/Twiddle" with it. Purchased software should work out of
> the box and not require the user to work with it - to get it to work.
> I have no interest/desire to participate in the other Symantec thread.

ROFL! I don't blame you one bit.

--
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"

AVG by Grisoft (www.grisoft.com) is an excellent antivirus program. $39 for
a two year license on the Pro version. The Free version (for home users
http://snipurl.com/anmy) is the same program without technical support and
with shared update server. I have switched all my computers to AVG three
years ago and have not ever had a virus get through. On XP machines I
added the Microsoft Antivirus program and that has stopped all spyware.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db454b4c138769098a259@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uO$uF$azFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, PcEngWork-
> NoSpam_@mindspring.com says...
>> Ask yourself a question. Why would I want a program
>> that costs money
>
> What program do you suggest that people run as part of a Quality Anti-
> Virus solution?
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

Do yourself a favour and dump Norton.. Norton 'Anything' is bad news.. AVG
do a nice free solution..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"THE Old ONE" <THEOldONE@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1B2FFC6C-53F2-47CA-A169-D47E18DF63D3@microsoft.com...
> On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
> risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
> loaded before the internet connection is made, hopefully there is no
> problem,
> it never used to do this.
> I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice which puts the matter right for
> a
> short time only for it to return, any one had experience of this?
> Regards

Leythos -

Are you replying to me or Kurt ? My post that's quoted here has
nothing to do with the Symantec Enterprise AV thread between
you and Kurt. It was in response to the OP who had re-installed
several times and couldn't assure himself that NAV was working
correctly. All I meant in my response to you was that you quoted
me out of context, omitting the part where I questioned the value
of purchased software that must be re-worked or re-installed a
number of times & how inefficient and unnecessary that is. Maybe
you're just continuing the thread and used my post to resume.


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db49085f2ad45ed98a25b@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uWFqDKbzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, PcEngWork-
> NoSpam_@mindspring.com says...
>> You left out my subjective part of the statement about having to
>> "Fiddle/Twiddle" with it. Purchased software should work out of
>> the box and not require the user to work with it - to get it to work.
>> I have no interest/desire to participate in the other Symantec thread.
>
> And again you've been very vague about what solution you would choose -
> so, how about it - what AV product, would you tell the masses to use and
> what do you trust on your own computer?
>
> Oh, and there was nothing to setup on Symantec Corp/SB desktop clients,
> unless you want to disable features, it works out of the box without
> needing anything other than updates (like other AV applications).
>
> So, how about it - what product do you suggest the masses use on their
> Windows based systems?
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:19:05 -0700, "THE Old ONE"
<THEOldONE@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
>risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
>loaded before the internet connection is made

Well known issue with windows not allowing time for everything to load
before wigging out and starting to fling error alerts like candy at
parade time.

Goto Security Center and select "Change the way security center alerts
me" in the left column and uncheck all three items.

Regards,
Ed

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db499a736740a6198a25e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <OBbyZWdzFHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, PcEngWork-
> NoSpam_@mindspring.com says...
>> Maybe
>> you're just continuing the thread and used my post to resume.
>
> Sorry, if I got lost between the posts.
>
> So, how about it, what antivirus product do you suggest that the
> masses
> use - Free or Not, what should they use in your opinion


Just drop it. Can't you understand that he doesn't want to get involved
in the sh*t?

--
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"

"THE Old ONE" <THEOldONE@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1B2FFC6C-53F2-47CA-A169-D47E18DF63D3@microsoft.com...
> On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
> risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
> loaded before the internet connection is made, hopefully there is no
problem,
> it never used to do this.
> I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice which puts the matter right for
a
> short time only for it to return, any one had experience of this?
> Regards

This is normal. MS Security Center will notify you if your AV is not
loaded. Since the Security Center loads first, does not find your AV, thus
the notice. This will happen, no matter what the manufacturer is of the AV
if the Security Center recognizes the AV. It goes away after the AV loads,
which you DO NOT mention for some reason. If this is not the case, please
advise this newsgroup in the same thread. The version of NAV may be
pertinent.

Leythos wrote:
> In article <#pTZUzhzFHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1db499a736740a6198a25e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> In article <OBbyZWdzFHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, PcEngWork-
>>> NoSpam_@mindspring.com says...
>>>> Maybe
>>>> you're just continuing the thread and used my post to resume.
>>>
>>> Sorry, if I got lost between the posts.
>>>
>>> So, how about it, what antivirus product do you suggest that the
>>> masses
>>> use - Free or Not, what should they use in your opinion
>>
>>
>> Just drop it. Can't you understand that he doesn't want to get
>> involved in the sh*t?
>
> That's just what I expect from people that don't really stand behind
> what they state in groups.....

LameGirl, you are an ass. You advocate very expensive AV meant for
businesses and domain networks in a group that is MOSTLY home users.
What you stand behind is just plain foolishness!

> If you have the knowledge to post that product X is good for the
> masses or that product X is better than product Y, then you need
> something other than BS to back it up with.

NAV, Symancrap AV for the masses, was once the AV of choice, BUT has
become so bloated, unreliable, and difficult to remove that it is
consider by many just as bad as the viruses that it is meant to protect
computers from!

You have even said that you have found viruses on computers that were
running on NAV, BUT you are so effin' deranged that you think SymCorp or
SB is a home consumer product! I've tried to show you why it isn't but
you have your head so far up Symancrap ass that all you can see is
SymanCRAP!

> If you tell people to Use
> a Free solution, stating that it's fine/better, and you don't use it
> yourself then you've just defeated your own statement.

ROFL! Still twisting what I said! You really are demented!

>
> I use Symantec AV only products when I have a choice,

Goodie for you! But I bet it ain't NAV!

> use them on my
> own computers too,

And from what I've seen about you, you probably buy yours along with a
customer, so you get a major discount when buying in bulk. Most home
users can't afford to spend the money necessary for SymCorp or SB, nor
need as many licenses that Symancrap forces them to buy.

5 for SymSB
10 for SymCorp

> and I've never found a better choice - and yes, we
> review the vendors current versions every year.

And I've seen you explain your testing methodology when it came to
internet/browser speed, and it was totally unscientific, and prone to
errors. I wouldn't trust a word you said, EVER!

--
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"

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

>This is normal. MS Security Center will notify you if your AV is not
>loaded. Since the Security Center loads first, does not find your AV, thus
>the notice. This will happen, no matter what the manufacturer is of the AV
>if the Security Center recognizes the AV. It goes away after the AV loads,
>which you DO NOT mention for some reason. If this is not the case, please
>advise this newsgroup in the same thread. The version of NAV may be
>pertinent.
>

Then why doesn't it happen to me? I use AVG on my personal machine
and never see that warning. Neither do any of my clients who also run
AVG, and I have never encountered it on any of the relatively few
machines that I see which have a fully functioning Norton install.

However it seems that malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9kcok1h538rpgtulc6no47nentet2ts233@4ax.com...
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>
>>This is normal. MS Security Center will notify you if your AV is not
>>loaded. Since the Security Center loads first, does not find your AV,
>>thus
>>the notice. This will happen, no matter what the manufacturer is of the
>>AV
>>if the Security Center recognizes the AV. It goes away after the AV
>>loads,
>>which you DO NOT mention for some reason. If this is not the case, please
>>advise this newsgroup in the same thread. The version of NAV may be
>>pertinent.
>>
>
> Then why doesn't it happen to me? I use AVG on my personal machine
> and never see that warning. Neither do any of my clients who also run
> AVG, and I have never encountered it on any of the relatively few
> machines that I see which have a fully functioning Norton install.
>
> However it seems that malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms.
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

As XP evolved, I believe it was after service pack 2, AV software has to be
able to tell XP that it is present (installed). At least this is the case
with NAV. I know this because after setting up countless computers,
installing the Win XP updates and the NAV updates there is a point XP stops
complaining the computer might be vulnerable or not protected, or what ever
the hell it says, eventually after nearing the end of the update process for
NAV, NAV downloads something that allows it to tell XP it's there, and then
XP stops nagging you about it.

Your comment "malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms" I believe are
incorrect. May be it's because you have had a bad experience with NAV in the
past and I understand this but I have been using Norton Internet Security
for many years now and find it top notch. I also like AVG, nice program. I
have had glitches with just about anything out there. It all depends on
what's installed on the computer, how well the computer is setup, (hardware
drivers etc.) and just plain bad or good luck.

Corrie

"Sherman" <nospam@internet557.net> wrote in message
news:OnEHAhrzFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9kcok1h538rpgtulc6no47nentet2ts233@4ax.com...
> > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
> >
> >>This is normal. MS Security Center will notify you if your AV is not
> >>loaded. Since the Security Center loads first, does not find your AV,
> >>thus
> >>the notice. This will happen, no matter what the manufacturer is of the
> >>AV
> >>if the Security Center recognizes the AV. It goes away after the AV
> >>loads,
> >>which you DO NOT mention for some reason. If this is not the case,
please
> >>advise this newsgroup in the same thread. The version of NAV may be
> >>pertinent.
> >>
> >
> > Then why doesn't it happen to me? I use AVG on my personal machine
> > and never see that warning. Neither do any of my clients who also run
> > AVG, and I have never encountered it on any of the relatively few
> > machines that I see which have a fully functioning Norton install.
> >
> > However it seems that malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms.
> >
> > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> > --
> > Microsoft MVP
> > On-Line Help Computer Service
> > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
> >
> > In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> > http://aumha.org/alex.htm
>
> As XP evolved, I believe it was after service pack 2, AV software has to
be
> able to tell XP that it is present (installed). At least this is the case
> with NAV. I know this because after setting up countless computers,
> installing the Win XP updates and the NAV updates there is a point XP
stops
> complaining the computer might be vulnerable or not protected, or what
ever
> the hell it says, eventually after nearing the end of the update process
for
> NAV, NAV downloads something that allows it to tell XP it's there, and
then
> XP stops nagging you about it.
>
> Your comment "malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms" I believe are
> incorrect. May be it's because you have had a bad experience with NAV in
the
> past and I understand this but I have been using Norton Internet Security
> for many years now and find it top notch. I also like AVG, nice program. I
> have had glitches with just about anything out there. It all depends on
> what's installed on the computer, how well the computer is setup,
(hardware
> drivers etc.) and just plain bad or good luck.
>
> Corrie
>
>
>

NAV 2004 all up to date. SP2 w/all subsequent security updates. Security
Center says PC may not protected until NAV loads. Disappears when the NAV
icon shows in system tray at boot. A simple solution would be to force NAV
to load first...

When people have a AV installed that the security center does not recognize,
most people disable that portion of security center to avoid the prompt.

Don't let Ron's attitude about Norton (Symantec actually) products bother
you. I'm used to it, read his rantings, and smile.

Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <9kcok1h538rpgtulc6no47nentet2ts233@4ax.com>,
>ron.martell@gmail.com says...
>> Then why doesn't it happen to me? I use AVG on my personal machine
>> and never see that warning. Neither do any of my clients who also run
>> AVG, and I have never encountered it on any of the relatively few
>> machines that I see which have a fully functioning Norton install.
>>
>> However it seems that malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms.
>
>it doesn't happen on any of the Norton / Symantec AV system that we use,
>control, maintain, have looked at. Shortly after Sp2 came out, every AV
>vendor came out with an update in order to resolve that issue - if the
>user is running an obsolete version it may not be patched for SP2.

Any user with an antivirus that predates SP2 has more serious problems
than just the warning messages from the Securiry Center.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Sherman" <nospam@internet557.net> wrote:


>
>As XP evolved, I believe it was after service pack 2, AV software has to be
>able to tell XP that it is present (installed). At least this is the case
>with NAV. I know this because after setting up countless computers,
>installing the Win XP updates and the NAV updates there is a point XP stops
>complaining the computer might be vulnerable or not protected, or what ever
>the hell it says, eventually after nearing the end of the update process for
>NAV, NAV downloads something that allows it to tell XP it's there, and then
>XP stops nagging you about it.
>
>Your comment "malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms" I believe are
>incorrect. May be it's because you have had a bad experience with NAV in the
>past and I understand this but I have been using Norton Internet Security
>for many years now and find it top notch. I also like AVG, nice program. I
>have had glitches with just about anything out there. It all depends on
>what's installed on the computer, how well the computer is setup, (hardware
>drivers etc.) and just plain bad or good luck.
>
>Corrie
>

My opinions about Norton/Symantec products are based on years of
experience with customer's systems that have been crashed, smashed,
and/or trashed by malfunctioning products from that company.

I see at least two or three systems per month where the only way to
restore normal stable operations (other than a reformat and reinstall
which I consider as the absolute last resort) is to:

1. Uninstall all Norton/Symantec products using the supplied
uninstallers and/or Add/Remove programs.
2. Do the uninstall again, this time with the supplementary
uninstallers provided by Symantec, such as RNAV2003. (side point -
doesn't the mere existence of these supplementary uninstallers provide
some pretty strong evidence of shoddy programming practices at
Symantec? Why can't they design their products to uninstall properly?
Other companies can and do.)
3. Do a manual cleanup, including searching for all folders with
Symantec/Norton in their names and deleting them and their contents;
plus a registry scan for and removal of all remaining Norton/Symantec
references.
4. Install replacement products for the removed Norton/Symantec items
where needed or requested.

On an older system, and there are a vast number of computers built in
2000 and 2001 that are still being used, just the removal and cleanup
as above will result in a very substantial improvement in overall
perfromance as most other antivirus and security products have a much
lower impact on computer performance than their Norton/Symantec
equivalents.

And please don't get me started on the myriad of problems that ensue
when a recent Norton product is installed on a computer running
Windows Millennium Edition.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

In article <1B2FFC6C-53F2-47CA-A169-D47E18DF63D3@microsoft.com>, "THE
Old ONE" <THEOldONE@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>On boot upI get a windows warning that Norton has not loaded and I am at
>risk. a little further on during boot up, Norton loads and it is always
>loaded before the internet connection is made, hopefully there is no problem,
>it never used to do this.
>I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice which puts the matter right for a
>short time only for it to return, any one had experience of this?
>Regards

Are you seeing a warning about Norton Antivirus from the Windows
Security Center? If so, that's probably because the Security Center
starts running before Norton does, and Norton hasn't had a chance to
report its status to the Security Center. I've seen that behavior on
many XP computers, and it's OK.

Some versions of NAV let you turn off alerts from the Windows Security
Center to avoid that behavior.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)

Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

"Sherman" <nospam@internet557.net> wrote:


>Your comment "malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms" I believe are
>incorrect. May be it's because you have had a bad experience with NAV in the
>past and I understand this but I have been using Norton Internet Security
>for many years now and find it top notch. I also like AVG, nice program. I
>have had glitches with just about anything out there. It all depends on
>what's installed on the computer, how well the computer is setup, (hardware
>drivers etc.) and just plain bad or good luck.
>
>Corrie
>
>

For an example of why I dislike Norton/Symantec products please see
the topic "System Optimizer" from
ryandsnow@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid dated 12 October.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Leythos wrote:
> In article <98buk1huo075t19j19qsr1eva3eo03v8c0@4ax.com>,
> ron.martell@gmail.com says...
>> "Sherman" <nospam@internet557.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your comment "malfunctioning and Norton are synonyms" I believe are
>>> incorrect. May be it's because you have had a bad experience with
>>> NAV in the past and I understand this but I have been using Norton
>>> Internet Security for many years now and find it top notch. I also
>>> like AVG, nice program. I have had glitches with just about
>>> anything out there. It all depends on what's installed on the
>>> computer, how well the computer is setup, (hardware drivers etc.)
>>> and just plain bad or good luck.
>>>
>>> Corrie
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For an example of why I dislike Norton/Symantec products please see
>> the topic "System Optimizer" from
>> ryandsnow@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid dated 12 October.
>
> There is no question that Norton Suites are bad news, but their stand-
> alone Antivirus products are cleaner and better at keeping people safe
> than any other save 1 application.
>
> I think the biggest problem is that Norton/Symantec bundle NAV with
> their suite programs and those bundles are total crapware.
>
> I just had a client hire a young lady, she came in with her own laptop
> and asked if she could use it on the network - I told her I would have
> to check it first.... The system had McAfee AV just installed a week
> ago, it was their multi-security product, and what's sad is that
> nothing had been updated - she thought it was updated, thought it was
> updating, etc... As it turns out that pretty bar-graph display
> confused more people than it helps... Once she "registered" online it
> would update, but NAV doesn't have that issue and it will nag you
> until you do an update and you don't have to register.

NAV sucks. You have even said that you have found systems with viruses
on them that ran NAV.

Nortons sucks, and you do too.

--
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"

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:57:40 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>but their stand-
>alone Antivirus products are cleaner and better at keeping people safe
>than any other save 1 application.

I use NAV2005 on my latest and fastest desktop but on the laptops and
slower desktop, I still use the older NAV2003. Reason.... when
compared to 2003, 2005 does seem to render a degradation in
performance on "slower" machines. Especially on my 1.7GHz laptops....
there was an evident cost to performance when running 2005 in
comparison to 2003.

However, I must agree with you about NAV's ability to keep a system
relatively safe when configured properly and kept up-to-date. I also
use AVG on a few test systems and have no problems with it either but
NAV has never let me down as far as protection goes.

In closing, I would say that I personally believe that NAV2003 was
their last and best contribution to the antivirus utility world. As
with most other programs, utilities and application turned out today,
they all have gone to hell compared to back when they had "Real"
programmers coding and not pin headed brainless administrators and
bean counters calling the shots. Example for one: EYE CANDY! They
are all hung up on EYE CANDY! Make it look good and to hell with what
it does and how it does it. EYE CANDY SELLS! They would rather
devote their energies to Eye Candy than code as simple a thing as a
proper uninstall routine that can get their application off one's
computer. BTW, NAV2003, to my knowledge, does uninstall without
problems. I don't think the same can be said for later versions.

Regards,
Ed