Have a picture of Norton Antivirus 2003 - Symantec?, please send it to us.
Picture courtesy of Dave Scarbel.
| Ease of Set Up | 9/10   |
|---|---|
| Ease of Use | 9/10 |
| Value for Money | 5.9/10 |
| Reviewer Rating | 5.9/10 |
| Overall Rating | 6.7/10 |
By Nerd3D
on 11th Mar 2004
| Value for money | 0/10 |
|---|---|
| Overall value | 0/10 |
 Nerd3D's recommendation | |
Um it's popular?
But popular doesn't make it good. It's very slow to load. A "context scan" takes way too long. It's very frail and often the target of scanner hostile viruses. It relies on IE for it's entire interface. This makes it even slower and more prone to breaking. The "live update" mechanism fails frequently, depriving paid up subscribers of their updated.
Most importantly is actually caused data loss, exactly what it's supposed to prevent. Symantec, go home and try again.
I've been using Norton products for nearly 20 years. The latest batch of products saddens me. They have finally run me off. Even with current updates the Norton Antivirus 2003 - Symantec e-mail scanner was letting viruses through, then catching them latter as the e-mail client accessed the just-downloaded mail to display it. This usually caused something to crash.
I tried the official Symantec work-a-round of disabling the e-mail scanning completely. Yes, their official fix was to let your computer get infected then scan the virus out later. (Read it for your self here: http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/2003013115102706 )
I doing this back door trick once NAV finally caught the virus as the mail client opened... It "fixed" the mail file be deleting 6 months worth of e-mail. That was the day NAV got uninstalled.
Their sloppy programming just did exactly what it was supposed to prevent. I'll never be back.
| Helpful | Unhelpful | Agree | Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total Respect: +1
Would you like to see a review that's not being listed?
blacknyellow on 7th Sep 2004