But for wikipedia the point is that it is unsoruced and sounds POV. This does not match my experience, and i am also a computer professional. It is also notorious for being almost impossible to completely uninstall. DustWolf 19:09, (UTC) Despite its widespread adoption, it carries a reputation within the computer enthusiast community as slow and inefficient. TWO DAYS to get it so baddly infected with viruses it brought down the entire T1 network.
My last time, version 2005, was fully configured to be stand-alone protected inside a network protected with an additional firewall, clean install of windows XP and it took two days of not even a screen connected to it. As far as I can tell, it is absolutely the worst there is and the people who sell it should be sent to jail for this obvious scam called Norton Anti-virus. I have had several clients wanting specifically to have Norton Anti-virus and firewall installed on their computers, claiming it is the best. In short I've never seen this anti-virus or the firewall do anything at all, other than being capable of updating itself.
Norton has always been a bad anti-virus and even tho the most recent rumors are that versions 20 are no longer as bad, I have plenty of first hand experience of this anti-virus and accompaning firewall of locking out the user, but giving access to trojans and viruses, preventing hardware drivers such as for BlueTooth connections or Webcams from functioning and not even notincing an EICAR stuck right under it's nose. In short, the entry as it stands is much too short, but perfectly accurate. It is beyond the capacity of most average computer users.
If it won't uninstall, then you have to do it by hand, and that is a horribly time-consuming task requiring manual deletion of lots of different files and an exhaustive search through the registry with many edits. Uninstall is possible roughly 2 times out of 3. The uninstall feature sometimes works OK, sometimes doesn't.
(Possibly because it is so common: I suspect that virus writers target NAV first when they are disabling AV software simply because it is the market leader.) Whatever the reason, there is no doubt of the consequence.Īs for removal, this is a serious problem. I have no idea why NAV misses so many viruses (including well-known old ones that you'd expect any AV package to deal with competently) but there is not the slightest doubt that it is the least effective of the common AV programs. It really is inefficient - every week we get machines come in for repair that are infected with viruses despite having NAV installed and (in most cases) fully up-to-date. It really is slow (compare with, for example, VET or Trend Micro IS) and horribly cumbersome to configure.
I have worked with computers on a professional basis for over 20 years, and we deal with (among other programs) NAV on a daily basis. Some ignorant but well-meaning editor will probably come along and "clean this up" or "NPOV" it before too long, which is unfortunate, as it is entirely to the point. NPOV?įrom the entry as it stands: Despite its widespread adoption, it carries a reputation within the computer enthusiast community as slow and inefficient. States that 9.0 is the latest version of Corporate, when it is in fact 10.1. Might as well be talking of an OS (may God help us from something like Norton OS) Fails to mention the Corporate Edition, which incidentally is much better (the difference might be analogous to the Windows95 and Windows NT branches for Windows). In addition to this, the article fails to:ĭescribe the product. It would be similar to me doing an article on Bush and just putting in: Current president of the United States. This article is definitely not NPOV, it is an outright bash against Norton AV.