backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Feb 23 at 11:39 AM

Leading security software chief says Windows Vista isn't yet for him -- or his company

Microsoft is preaching all the security benefits of Windows Vista, but the CEO of Symantec isn’t at all convinced by the hype. CNET News asked John Thompson if he’s installed Vista, to which he replied, “No, I have not. I see no need for it for what I do online today,” adding that Symantec has not yet made a commitment to migrate to Vista.

With all the increased security features in Windows Vista, some may be wondering why the chief of a software company isn’t interested in running what is advertised as the most secure consumer OS on the market today.

“Consumers should not be confused. Vista is not a security solution,” Thompson said. “Vista is an operating system, and Vista provides some very important advances from Microsoft's perspective and for the industry's point of view on building a more stable, more reliable, more secure operating platform, but people still need the efficacy that comes with the products that Symantec and others in the industry build, and so we should not be confused by the marketing rhetoric with what Vista is.”

The interviewer then presents the argument that some of Symantec’s core products—virus scanners and firewall—are outdated defense technologies, which Thompson answers, “It would be naive to say they're outdated. Locks were invented for doors in the homes that we live in many, many years ago. They're no longer the last line of defense, they are the first line of defense, and people still buy more advanced locks, hence more antivirus, more firewalls.”

“We'll have to be smarter about delivering new capabilities and new functions there for proactive defense as opposed to reactive defense, but you'll also have to layer other kinds of technologies on to deal with new threats around fraud and identity management and all of those,” Thompson said.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ummmm...good?
By Golgatha777 on 2/14/2007 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 5
"Symantec has not yet made a commitment to migrate to Vista"

Great, now I won't have to worry about my relatives new Vista computers getting slowed down to a crawl because the Geek Squad said that Norton's products will keep them safe.




RE: Ummmm...good?
By jmn2519 on 2/14/2007 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that. I'm putting a new PC together tonight to load with vista. I'm going with Kaspersky because:
a.) From everything I've read it won't slow your computer to a crawl.
b.) It's just as good at virus protection as Norton.
c.) It plays better with vista.

Basically what this CEO is saying is if you are running vista don't buy our product. Crazy....


RE: Ummmm...good?
By SunAngel on 2/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm...good?
By Araemo on 2/14/2007 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
Probably two things: The pre-caching of your programs and data to RAM so that things will open faster when you launch them, and #2: Indexing all your files for quick searching.

Vista uses EXTREMELY agressive pre-caching(And there's a marketing name for this 'technology' too, I just can't recall it at the moment. Anandtech's review goes into some detail on this.), which would explain much of your hard drive access, and high memory usage if you've noticed that as well.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Flunk on 2/14/2007 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 1
The marketing name is ReadyBoost (prior to release it was superfetch).


RE: Ummmm...good?
By msftman19 on 2/14/2007 4:11:58 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, no. It still is SuperFetch...ReadyBoost is the ability to plug in flash memory and have it 'speed up your system' - really it just means mirroring your page file onto the flash.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By therealnickdanger on 2/14/2007 4:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The marketing name is ReadyBoost (prior to release it was superfetch).

Not quite...

ReadyBoost = using external flash to store "page file".

SuperFetch = pre-loading frequently accessed applications and files into system RAM.

Both are current features of Vista.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By johnsonx on 2/14/2007 10:49:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
ReadyBoost = using external flash to store "page file".


Not quite...

ReadyBoost simply uses your flash drive to store prefetch files. This is why people get ReadyBoost and SuperFetch confused, as they are very similar and work together doing prefetching.

Putting your page file on a flash drive would be darned near fatal to performance.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Chadder007 on 2/14/2007 3:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
How much RAM do you have? I wouldn't run with anything less than 1 Gig.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By SunAngel on 2/14/2007 3:35:30 PM , Rating: 1
2GB DDR2-533


RE: Ummmm...good?
By SunAngel on 2/14/2007 3:36:32 PM , Rating: 1
only about 475MB is available.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Griswold on 2/14/2007 3:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Its the way somebody else said up there, SuperFetch is using your RAM to pre-cache applications. Vista doesnt desperately try to keep your RAM unused by trashing everything to disk when theres 5 minutes of inactivity. You will see that number shrink even more as superfetch is "learning" what other apps you use and it what order. On my box for example (I also have 2GB RAM), 1426MB are used for the cache and only 8MB are unused.

Should an application or game need more RAM, it will be available, dont worry about that.

Upon booting, the HDD activity is due to superfetch loading apps into RAM you might use shortly anyway. The other disk activity is usually caused by the indexing service. It should stop once your disk(s) have been indexed.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By SunAngel on 2/14/2007 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows OneCare, Office Prof 2007+, SQL Server 2007, Nero Ultimate 7, RealPlayer, Quicktime, and Skype


RE: Ummmm...good?
By SunAngel on 2/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Ummmm...good?
By Hare on 2/14/2007 4:36:17 PM , Rating: 5
Look... What good is it to you if you have 1Gb free? Nothing. That's exactly why Vista is filling up your RAM so that when you need something it's already in RAM so you don't have to access your hard drive.

IF you have 44mb free and something requires more, Vista will simply release more RAM. This happens instantly so there's no "lag" or anything. This is the way RAM is supposed to be used .

Same thing with other advanced OS's like Mac OS X.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By dagamer34 on 2/14/2007 10:08:17 PM , Rating: 4
If there is anything that you should know when going from Windows XP to Windows Vista, please remember this: WINDOWS VISTA PRE-CACHES DATA TO MEMORY.

For Windows XP, free RAM was good. This meant that XP would have adequate space to put stuff into memory without having to page data to the swap file. But it's grossly inefficient over a long period of time. Any data cached gets lost after a reboot.

In Windows Vista, RAM is always used. Free RAM is bad because it's not being used for anything. This is where your XP thinking is getting you into trouble, you always want to have your data into RAM whenever possible, but XP wasn't designed to put it there before you need it. As a result, in Vista, a first program launch (often the slowest), gets the most improvement.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Moishe on 2/14/2007 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
The extra hard drive access may be SuperFetch. If you get a chance, I think Anandtech has a nice article on Vista features.
The biggest thing I noticed was the different RAM usage concepts between XP and Vista. Making XP run fast means keeping as many things out of RAM/running as possible so that when you want the RAM it's available. Vista is the opposite. SuperFetch learns what you use most and when and then tried to intelligently pre-load those things into RAM. This may be why the hard drive is being hit more often. Vista tries to keep as much in RAM as possible so that when you request it, it's ready to go.

It makes sense considering you have the RAM, you might as well use it.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By mindless1 on 2/14/2007 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
Nonsense. WIth XP you want EVERYTHING cached into memory, XP runs apps from the filecache but makes space available immediately as needed. With Vista it does extra work ahead of time, so initially your system performance is slower when doing anything but the "predicted" tasks.

You have fallen victim to marketing tactics. If your XP system takes an extra few seconds the first time an app ran, even then with all the OS using less memory you can not only cache MORE app code, you still have more memory remaining for the application to use.

When a feature is more of a marketing stunt than a benefit, it makes you wonder what those folks at MS spent so many years doing. DRM anyone?


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Griswold on 2/14/2007 4:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
Nonsense. XP is deliberately trying to keep as much RAM free as possible at any given time but especially when you minimize applications, causing unnecessary swappin to and from harddisk. This can be alleviated by increasing the systemcache, but it doesnt work nearly as efficient as vista.

I suggest you go and read that fine AT article about vista.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By mindless1 on 2/14/2007 8:57:08 PM , Rating: 3
Nope, XP is not trying to keep as much RAM free as possible. Have you had your head in the sand these past few years? Never bothered to even check on XP's memory usage? Never bothered to read any of the 8 gazillion memory tweaks for XP that allow setting an even larger filecache?

Yes XP does more swapping than I'd like, but citing to/fro hard disk as a problem, but then conceding addt'l hard disk activity trying to predict what you'd run in Vista, is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In the end, it takes the same amount of memory to run the (same) app and do the same job, and with Vista a system with same amount of memory will have less of that memory remaining and have to flush portions of the cache even more often.

I suggest you go and read articles about XP, or look at an XP system as you use it. It's a tradeoff, and we can see that obviously enough just by Vista's minimum memory requirement spec even if nobody wants to be stuck using a system with so little memory in it.



RE: Ummmm...good?
By AnnihilatorX on 2/20/2007 3:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
with Vista a system with same amount of memory will have less of that memory remaining and have to flush portions of the cache even more often.


Remember the flusing of a cache in Vista is instantaneous. It takes no disk swapping as cache data are 'useless' and unimportant in terms of data importance and can be dumped without problems. This main difference makes Vista more efficient.

The fact that XP has to load programs as they run into RAM, although there's more free RAM available, is not the optimal scenario as in Vista where the program is already loaded in RAM, and insufficient RAM just means other cached program but unused free up for the others operation instantaeously


RE: Ummmm...good?
By mindless1 on 2/23/2007 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
No. XP does not write the cache back to the pagefile instead of flushing instantaneously as Vista does. It is no "difference" and Vista is always less efficient in this regard because there is less memory left.

It is silly madness to continually load things that you aren't using. It constantly wastes memory bandwidth and HDD time. The first time you load an app, so what if it takes a few seconds? If you are actually using that app so much that Vista's pre-caching would help, you'd be using it again in XP and it would have been more likely stored in XP's cache along with MORE other apps, since there is more memory available for the caching.

There is no instantaneously benefit in your latter statement either, whatever it was you were trying to say.

Yes I get it that Vista pre-loads, that is not news but it is news to you that it has a substantial drawback for it to be Vista that is doing it. You have some random theory based on marketing blurbs but haven't actually looked at how XP works and that is a bit incredible, to try to compare based on a marketing blurb with something out so long that you still don't understand.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By glennpratt on 2/14/2007 3:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just to reiterate what the others said, it's probably indexing. If you open Task Manager (Ctrl+Shift+Esc), hit the Performance tab then hit Resource Monitor. Under the Disk heading you can see what programs are using the disk, what files they're accessing, etc. If it's the indexer then you have your answer. It will probably calm down after a day or two (just a few hours for me).

Otherwise the likely culprit is RAM. I suggest at least 1 GB. 1.5 GB is the minimum I would want and 2 GB has a nice amount of head room.

Also, take this time to BACKUP. Installing a new OS, especially one as disk intensive as Vista will probably encourage a weak drive to fail. Vista has a nice backup feature, use it.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By BikeDude on 2/15/2007 5:35:19 AM , Rating: 1
I concur.

First thing I did after installing Vista was to disable indexing.

I also eventually turned off Defender. It didn't use much CPU or anything, but my mouse would sometimes get "stuck", and it was just annoying. I'm using a Core2duo CPU and do not accept noticable delays.

But just because (IMO) Defender and indexing "sucks", that doesn't mean Vista sucks. I do not necessarily agree with turning all such services on by default, but I can easily understand MS for doing it.

I'll upgrade to Longhorn Server soon, and I expect it will be better suited to my needs. (Windows 2003 Server had everything switched off by default, and was much less work to set up compared to XP; it is easier to switch on theming than disable some annoying feature like the search dog)


RE: Ummmm...good?
By glennpratt on 2/15/2007 11:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think MS is in the right. Indexing is great, I haven't seen it slow my computer down (if you have a quiet hard drive and no activity light, I bet you wouldn't notice it run.

And Defender hasn't bothered me either. Your mouse shouldn't be sticking even if the computer is running flat out, I bet it is a hardware issue, not Defender or indexing.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Korvon on 2/14/2007 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Usually it's indexing files on the hard drive... I have noticed that a lot with Vista.
As for Symantec... I work in a tech shop and we have a saying that if it has Norton it has viruses. Generally we reccomend AVG cause its just as good and its free. If you want something that works better either use Kaspersky or Nod32.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Felofasofa on 2/14/2007 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nod32 with Agnitums Outpost32 is a great security solution especially for older PC's as both have minimal footprint and work very well. The Norton Commander for DOS actually written by Peter Norton was the last good Norton product, after that he sold out to Symantec and it's all been down hill. NIS is a disgrace.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By JazzMang on 2/14/2007 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Open task manager and check available MB of memory. Yes, it should have almost none.

Superfetch.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Locutus465 on 2/14/2007 10:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Try using the Resource monitor, it will give you a better idea of what is going on... As another poster suggested pre-fetching and indexing are the two likely sources of your disk activity


RE: Ummmm...good?
By CaptainRoo on 2/20/2007 4:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Did you try using FileMon or DiskMon from Sysinternals?
FileMon will give a realtime report on what is being accessed by what program. Can be filtered, printed, saved, etc.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Armorize on 2/15/2007 12:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
where did u read that? did you read the same article that I did... hes saying that now is not the time for vista, just like when xp came out there were some bugs, maybe not as many as with vista, and also that MS is trying to go it alone with its saying most secure os yet...

"Windows Vista, keepers users where they belong. In their houses."


RE: Ummmm...good?
By f1sh3r on 2/14/2007 3:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
He was saying that the company hasn't personally moved their computers over to it. Geek Squad is still going to be putting Norton on your relatives' computers. Either that or PC-Cillin...


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Xenoid on 2/14/2007 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
My Win XP SP2 CD comes with Norton Corporate (AV and Firewall) and I will be the first to say it doesn't slow anything down on my dinosaur of a computer (XP 2100 Palomino, 768MB PC2100).

Although I will agree 100% that a regular Norton install will kill a computer.

Should also be noted that a lot of people didn't go to WinXP from Win2k right away either. I waited at least a year.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By mindless1 on 2/14/2007 3:50:12 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't have to worry, they were already crawling just by running Vista (relative to XP). For years I've advised people to get rid of the invasive Norton/Symantec/McAfee bloatware on their systems, but XP with those has less of an impact on performance, or crawling as you put it, than Vista.

The real problem might be something else though, relying on advice from the Geek Squad. Many who worked well with computers might've been called geeks, but a group of sales droids masquerading as technicians calling themselves geeks just isn't the same thing.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Flunk on 2/14/2007 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
What do you expect, it's run by Best Buy. The hire appliance salesmen to sell and service computers.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Vile2600 on 2/20/2007 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
relying on advice from the Geek Squad. Many who worked well with computers might've been called geeks, but a group of sales droids masquerading as technicians calling themselves geeks just isn't the same thing.


True for the most part, but don't generalize like that and put *everyone* in the same group.

I work for Geek Squad, simply for the discount at BB, and I can assure you that some of us know much more than you (15 years in the computer scene for me) and others like you that do nothing but bash on places like GS/BBY. What's amusing is that we get plenty of customers who think they know what they are doing, and end up screwing up their systems, and then turn around and bring it here. It happens quite often, and always provides a good laugh, for us "real" technicians.

Anyway, as to the original topic, Norton does suck, and plenty of better alternatives are available.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By cocoviper on 2/14/2007 8:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
No joke man...

When I first got my laptop from Dell...opened up task manager...and Mcafee was definitly using 135MB of memory just sitting in the system tray, not even doing anything.

These companies (norton, sysmantec, mcafee) need to either learn how to write better code or fade away...until they do AVGfree and its 7MB memory footprint suits me just fine. And incidentally...AVG pro is already Vista compatable for those of you early vista guys.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By drebo on 2/15/2007 10:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm running Symantec Client Securities, and all five processes it runs take less than 60mb of RAM to run. Quite honestly, I don't notice the difference between running it and not running it.

Don't confuse your inability to properly configure the application with it being bad software.

Symantec Antivirus is the single best corporate antivirus in the industry. Real corporations do not put free antivirus programs on their machines. Nor do they load up a multitude of single-user license programs. These may be fine for the home, but just don't work on a corporate level.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By Quryous on 2/14/2007 9:29:25 PM , Rating: 1
Despite the many supposed advances in Vista, a topic of major concern for many users is not what it will enable you to do, but what it could prevent you from doing. Vista has been designed from the ground up to support Digital Rights Management (DRM) in ways never before possible under Windows. New output content protection mechanisms are designed to protect premium’ (usually meaning paid-for) content against physical interception and copying. Outputs that do not support DRM, or are deemed insecure, must be turned off before playback can proceed. This is called Protected Video Path — Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM). Device drivers must agree to switch off these outputs at the request of the operating system and have to undergo a certification process to verify their compliance. Protected Video Path — User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) ensures that premium content, such as HD video, is encrypted as it passes over the PCI Express bus to your graphics card. This prevents any electronic snooping on the data by hardware devices. Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) provides similar protection for audio content, again allowing for content producers to insist that insecure outputs be disabled before playback.

The practical application of these technologies is highly complex and well beyond what a typical consumer could be expected to understand. DRM adds a whole layer of potential incompatibilities, with few perceived end-user benefits. For this reason, many users are justifiably wary of installing Vista and buying new hardware, especially displays, that may prevent them accessing content in the future, It’s an area that’s seeing a lot of activity at the moment, and HD content providers are certainly being wary of implementing DRM fully for now. The impact of these technologies remains to be seen, but unless they work transparently without inconveniencing users, only the pirates will benefit.


RE: Ummmm...good?
By RjBass on 2/15/2007 12:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Fer Real. Symantic sucks and I have no problems with telling my customers so.

Symantic can lag behind if they want to. Meanwhilwe AVG, Avast and others will get more of the market share. And good for them. Their products are way better anyways.



RE: Ummmm...good?
By Ard on 2/15/07, Rating: 0
one guy's experience
By yacoub on 2/14/2007 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
I used Norton Anti-Virus (not their garbage Internet Security suite) for several years and not once had a problem with it.
I was finally convinced by a friend to switch to NOD32 ( currently the highest rated by independent studies even over Kaspersky which was a close second in most categories) and have also had no problems since I switched to that last December.

So yeah, I dunno what all the fuss is about. It must be people who make the mistake of buying the Internet Security bloatware suite, or who have other problems with their systems.

Never had a problem with NAV, have no problems now with NOD32. Would recommend NOD32 over NAV simply because it was proven better by tests.

The two test sites I read were:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.html?http://w...
and
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id...




RE: one guy's experience
By yacoub on 2/14/2007 3:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
well okay it looks like Kaspersky has since regained the first spot on some tests. =)


RE: one guy's experience
By angryhippy on 2/14/2007 4:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hey thanks, I was having trouble finding decent anti-virus comparison sites. I'm trying out the NOD32 30 day Demo on two PC's now, already notice a speed improvement over AVG 7.5, and a huge speed improvement over Norton or Panda. It's already found some stuff the other programs missed.


RE: one guy's experience
By Filibuster on 2/14/2007 9:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in shock.

People are finally talking about NOD32, and not just one person.

Far and away the best antivirus available, both in catching viruses/adware/spyware and performance.

Any time Symantec says anything about "security" I practically gag. Anyone with their products should consider themselves not protected.


RE: one guy's experience
By Bytre on 2/17/2007 5:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nod32 is pretty decent. It detects about as much as Symantec (98.61% vs. 98.13%), although not as good in the polymorphics area (Symantec detects 100%, NOD32 about 80%). Compare that with Avast!, mentioned in another thread, it detected 92.01% of the samples and 20% of the polymorphics, AVG detected 91.69% and 10% of the polymorphics. These aren't "some IT guy says" results, but rather unbiased research from August 2006. http://ssl1.at/av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnis...

An even more important benchmark is the VB100. This measures not how many samples out of a massive zoo set you can detect (as the av comparatives results do), but how your product does vs. live in-the-wild threats. Nod32 does well here, not as consistently as Symantec or Kaspersky though.

Onecare? McAfee? Avast? AVG? They don't consistently protect from the real live threats often enough.

Read up at http://www.virusbtn.com


RE: one guy's experience
By Locutus465 on 2/14/2007 10:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
AVG is still my personal favorate... The free version cleaned up my parentes Windows 2000 system rather nicely. I've since bought the pay version, orginally paid $30 for 2 yrs of updates (including major version upgrades) and relicenced at $19 for another 2 yrs.


Who cares.
By angryhippy on 2/14/2007 3:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
With all the problems Symantec security software seems to cause I wouldn't use them anyway. Norton Internet Security slows down older systems pretty bad, and the software can be difficult to remove. I was unable to get Windows home networking to work until I removed all traces of Norton Security 2004, and editing the registry if I remember right.

One top of that Norton couldn't protect against a common adware infection that tries to trick you into buying bogus anti-spyware protection. A demo version of Panda Anti-virus removed the infection easily, though it's a resource hog too.




RE: Who cares.
By Flunk on 2/14/2007 3:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
My sentiments exactly. Symantecs consumer product line has been going down hill for years. Each year less effcient and more bloated than the year before. Maybe this will get more people to switch anti-virus solutions (the rest of Norton's security products shouldn't be required with Vista). There are plenty of low-cost or no-cost alternatives.

I think the real reason for this is that Symantec feels that Microsoft is trying to put them out of business. Symantec's business has relied on the massive security flaws in Windows for years. Microsoft is closeing a good number of those holes with Vista (although not all), so they are trying to fight back to justify their existance.

It's simple corporate darwinism. Build better products or die, Symantec.


RE: Who cares.
By FITCamaro on 2/14/2007 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Also agree. Symantec and McAfee are just pissed because less people will need their products. Other anti-virus software seems to be doing just fine. They can suck it as far as I'm concerned.

As far as Vista using all your RAM, I still don't like to see all my RAM out of 2GB used. Is there a way to limit how much is cached or to turn it off altogether?



RE: Who cares.
By Locutus465 on 2/14/2007 10:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
All of your 2GB? What do you have installed? I've got 2GB and my system stays around 1GB / 1.3 GB unless I start up Windows XP under Virtual PC '07. Then I usually jump up to 1.8 / 1.9


RE: Who cares.
By InsaneScientist on 2/16/2007 2:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sheesh......... What are you guys running???

Last time I saw Vista using that much RAM on my system (I have 2GB as well) was pre RC2.

Granted, RC2 itself came pretty close to 1GB at times, but it usually hovered around 7-800MB.

I installed the RTM and was extremely glad to see my RAM usage promptly drop to just over 500MB... and that was after a few days so that SuperFetch would have had a chance to figure out what I do. (Run Office 07, Run I.E., Run Mathematica, Play Oblivion :D, etc.)

Oh, and I'm running NOD32 as my AV... that's my only background program that's not part of Vista.

Occasionally it will be up at 700ish idle, and, obviously, if I'm doing something memory intensive (I.E. Oblivion) it'll go up much higher, but for the most part it hovers just over half a gig.

Why are we getting such wildly fluctuating figures on the RAM usage??? :S


Thats Ok Symantec
By Mitch101 on 2/14/2007 3:43:01 PM , Rating: 3
Symantec Hasnt produced a quality product or innivative product worthy of installing on a Windows computer in years. So who cares what Symantec has to say any more.

Ghost is now a horrible product and can be replaced by many free similar items on the web.

Speedisk is no longer needed.

Anti-Virus is overpriced and has poor performance at times.

System Tools I havent bothered with in ages because CCleaner doest just as good a job if not better and its free.

De-Installing thier AV software corrupts the OS a lot of times and when its installed it kills FTP because it constantly stopping it thinking its virus activity even if you exclude the application. I have even had fresh installs of Windows go corrupt with Installs of symantec products.

Symantec should just shut up.




RE: Thats Ok Symantec
By enlil242 on 2/14/2007 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to that end, they have already bought their main competitor, Altiris, in the Enterprise Desktop Management Solutions market, so, watch for them to bastardize that software as well. ;-)


By nomagic on 2/14/2007 10:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
You've mistaken security measures with inconvience, and that discredits a lot of what you are saying.


By cheetah2k on 2/14/2007 10:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.. The prompting that Vista gives you for everything you do is crazy. I get frustrated with the "do you want to copy that file?", "are you sure?", "Are you absolutely positive?" type of response from Vista, when all i want to do is copy a file for fraks sake.

At least NIS sits in the background, and prompts you when theres more serious issues at hand (like REAL security issues), and allows me to do what i want with my desktop.



By cheetah2k on 2/15/2007 8:16:47 PM , Rating: 1
Here's another good reason to stick with the guys that know what they're doing

http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=37619

heres a snippet:

Windows Vista has large security hole in UAC
When Microsoft shipped Windows Vista, they bragged about how secure it was, showing off the User Access Control (UAC) feature. UAC is something that asks a user if they really want it to run a program before simply running it (previous versions of Windows would simply run the program). "Hackette" Joanna Rutkowska found a disturbing loophole through UAC. Apparently, UAC works by running everything as an administrator, and simply asking for confirmation before executing a program. So if something like a game installer triggered off UAC, and a user hit "allow", the program could theoretically be allowed to run a bunch of other things that would individually require administrator privileges. When dealing with things like simple registry changes this is no problem, but when malware is piggybacking in an installer....this effectively ushers in the next generation of Trojan horse viruses. Microsoft does not consider this a serious threat, and thinks of it more like a minor weakness, which is the result of a "design choice".

Bingo

I rest my case.........


Good Riddance
By Kaix on 2/14/2007 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing Symantec has going for it is name recognition. The Norton brand has been around for many years and the software used to be okay. Symantec's software has gotten progressively worse over the years and there are plenty of better alternatives to choose from now. Good riddance.




Does a CEO really do that?
By fic2 on 2/14/2007 6:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
CNET News asked John Thompson if he’s installed Vista


Shouldn't that be
quote:
if he’s had a flunky install Vista




...
By Duwelon on 2/14/2007 7:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
Symantec products suck. Bloated and buggy. They make PC repair men happy though.




RE: ...
By ali 09 on 2/16/2007 8:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't make uneducated comments like that. NIS 2007 footprint on my comp: 776kb at idle. No bugs, runs flawlessly. Have used NIS for 7 years and never one virus. (Yes i do have the internet and use it)


By Spartan Niner on 2/15/2007 12:34:41 AM , Rating: 3
"We tried to sleep with Microsoft to get access to the operating system at the kernel level but they told us 'F*$@ you' and now we're going to be whiny byatches"




Heads will roll.....
By crystal clear on 2/15/2007 8:10:11 PM , Rating: 3
“We'll have to be smarter about:

#Talking to the Press/websites & Not make a fool of oneself.

Unquote-

#This interview is a PR disaster-not compatible to the level
of CEO talking to the press.

#This interview is a marketing disaster-you dont exclude yourself from the market(security software for Vista)

Soon the sledgehammer of the shareholders will come crashing on his head.
Headds will roll........




GOOD!
By bwave on 2/14/2007 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
GREAT! If Symantec would just complete close down could be the only better news. I'm tired of waiting 40 minutes for NIS to uninstall off every repair that comes in here. I love how people come in and go, well my computer was running great, I installed Norton, and now it doesn't work at all, do you think I have a virus? And we uninstall Norton and machine runs like new again and no viruses on the machine.




career suicide
By hellokeith on 2/14/2007 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling the board of directors and some heavy-hitting stockholders (assuming Symantec is a publicly traded company) will be looking for a new CEO. One who is interested in selling product to millions of Vista owners.




By BillyBatson on 2/14/2007 3:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we have all heard about how MS hhhas somehwat locked out the security companies (whether intentional or not) and a few of those companies have complained and at least one claimed it didn't need full access to keep vista safe. What it comes down to is profits though doesn't it? Who cares if vista won't allow access to its kernal is symantec had a ready product to launch and make money along with all the other companies jumping on the hype train it would do so. Why purposely limit yourself and not expand your companies offerings to the "latest and greatest?"

If I had to guess I would say Syamantec does not yet have a finished and ready product for Vista either because they are having problems in general, or having problems with a 64 bit version and instead of saying that they are blaming MS and Vista. Bottom line if they could make a working product today they would because again int he end it is all about profit.




bah anti-viruses
By Eomer of Aldburg on 2/14/2007 6:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've always stayed away from anti-virus programs and such because they have always slowed down my pc. I could care less if hes going to migrate to vista as most of their software is overpriced and isn't that great.




Corporate Edition the same?
By shaw on 2/14/2007 6:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
A year ago I decided to just purchase Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition with 5 seats to protect the numbers in my home network. I agree that Norton Anti-Virus I noticed slowed down my system, but would people say Symantec Anti-Virus slows it down just as equally?

If I ever upgrade to Visita anytime soon I'm going to try NOD32 because I heard good things about it. I just like the Corporate version because I don't care to reinstate my subscription every year.




I don't use nor recommend Norton
By Jackyl on 2/14/2007 9:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Since when did Norton turn a shade darker? :) We don't recommend nor use Norton products at all anymore. There are many better alternatives for the consumer. Norton used to be good, but it's last iterations are nothing but bloatware that literally slows down your system! We have tested this ourselves on numerous systems. The processing power required and the memory resident hog has not changed.

If you are a consumer, check out other solutions like:
AVG
http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1

Avast
http://www.avast.com/

NOD32
http://www.eset.com/

Outpost Firewall
http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/

Kerio Firewall
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Kerio.cfm





By Quryous on 2/14/2007 9:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
Despite the many supposed advances in Vista, a topic of major concern for many users is not what it will enable you to do, but what it could prevent you from doing. Vista has been designed from the ground up to support Digital Rights Management (DRM) in ways never before possible under Windows. New output content protection mechanisms are designed to protect premium’ (usually meaning paid-for) content against physical interception and copying. Outputs that do not support DRM, or are deemed insecure, must be turned off before playback can proceed. This is called Protected Video Path — Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM). Device drivers must agree to switch off these outputs at the request of the operating system and have to undergo a certification process to verify their compliance. Protected Video Path — User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) ensures that premium content, such as HD video, is encrypted as it passes over the PCI Express bus to your graphics card. This prevents any electronic snooping on the data by hardware devices. Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) provides similar protection for audio content, again allowing for content producers to insist that insecure outputs be disabled before playback.

The practical application of these technologies is highly complex and well beyond what a typical consumer could be expected to understand. DRM adds a whole layer of potential incompatibilities, with few perceived end-user benefits. For this reason, many users are justifiably wary of installing Vista and buying new hardware, especially displays, that may prevent them accessing content in the future, It’s an area that’s seeing a lot of activity at the moment, and HD content providers are certainly being wary of implementing DRM fully for now. The impact of these technologies remains to be seen, but unless they work transparently without inconveniencing users, only the pirates will benefit.




Uh sure...
By kamel5547 on 2/14/2007 11:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is we already have a corporate edition that supports Vista... no vista PC's for a couple years in the offices though :p.




NIS 2007
By ali 09 on 2/15/2007 3:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why everyone hates Symantec. I personally like them. You'd be thinking oh his computer is uber fast and doesn't slow down but in fact I have a 1.6Ghz P4 with 512Mb ram and a 9600xt. There are absolutely no performance differences between no NIS and NIS. 2007 is much less bloated than 2006. The only reason people think it is slow is because it cripples your computer at startup checking for updates. Turn that off and no performance hit. None.

I like Symantec - the installs are crap and the uninstalls are even worse - i must say that the 2006 to 2007 install was flawless - not even the removal tool used. Anyway, enough rabbling by me. Don't dis Norton.




By MustardTheoRy on 2/15/2007 8:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
I personally like using Vista, its an overdue break from XP. After the initial crunching, Indexing has become useful in finding stray or misplaced files and folders. The usual memory usage is around 1.0 -1.14 GB that is with VMWARE workstation guest OS, some apps, IE7 and FF2.0 heavily tabbed browsing session. I've noticed Vista will flush memory to make room for and app that uses alot of memory.

As far as Symantec; they have been fraudulent by knowingly selling an anti-virus that was completely infective against viri(viruses, trojans and worms) and bots over the last 5 years. I wouldn't completely blame Symantec because they had every, mal-coder, black hat hacker targeting them since they were the most popular AV. Contrary though Symantec never addressed the problems their AV had and kept selling and now 5 years later people are starting to realize norton sucks( I know some of you have known for a long time.)I'm not mad I have earned money because of them. Now Symantec AV Corp Edition is the Corporate standard that doesn’t make it “work good” or “the best’ . There haven’t been many options over the years. I have been known to have a copy of AVG (when it worked years ago) checking those servers that ran Symantec Corp edition at least AVG didn’t try to delete my edb.log file. Any IT person in the know, knows that’s Symantec products are terrible including MacAfee, Trend products; PC Cillin(except house call is handy). I have found that you cannot rely on on AV for more than a couple of years because as it becomes popular it becomes targeted. Kaspersky has been my choice AV for years, simply because it could detect rootkits. Every blackhat hacker when they write malcode test it against Kasperky. I believe the saying goes ”If it works on Kaspersky it will work on anything” Now that Kaspersky is being targeted it is only a matter of time… unless the husband and wife team at Kapsersky stay up on their game. Of course there are others that work, I’m using NOD32 on W2k3 file servers. Recently there was a AV test and I believe Kaspersky and Symantec actually caught everything. This is the Test where they found that Windows Live One Care failed. So always stay on the lookout for a new AV and scan your computer with another AV once in a while you might just find something that you didn’t know was there.
http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,4928755...
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...
http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2007/02/07/win...





Where's the love?
By ramathorn on 2/16/2007 4:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
I like NIS and have stuck with it for years. I tried PC Cillin, but the lack of ad blocking was driving me nuts. Anyhow, MS and Symantec have been at odds for some time now.

Vista may be the next big thing, but to me it seems all show and no go.




CEOs are so funny
By VIAN on 2/14/07, Rating: 0
By glennpratt on 2/14/2007 3:40:36 PM , Rating: 5
Remember everyone. Don't feed the trolls.


By MonkeyPaw on 2/14/2007 4:28:53 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, thank DT for the comment rating system! However, sometimes I get morbidly curious and will read those posts that get rated down to -1. I guess I just have to see how bad the comment was, if only for a good laugh. :)


By KewlWhip on 2/14/2007 4:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
It really saddens me to see someone so misinformed. It's your right to hate Microsoft but to spread bad information is inexcusable. Locking the Kernel was a necessary step in order to better secure the OS. The fact that Microsoft allowed third parties access to the kernel for so long is what you should be upset about. Microsoft did not gain any leverage for their own AV products by locking down the kernel. All Microsoft AV / Spyware products use the same published APIs as all other third party products. Hence there will be no foundation for an antitrust suit.

I having been running Vista since it went gold in late November and have not had a single problem. I rather enjoy the fact that 12 security patches were released this month and none of them apply to Vista or Office 2007. Your decision not to run Vista is your choice and I’m sure that nothing I say will cause you to reevaluate your decision.

In case anyone was wondering, I am a Microsoft employee (no viral marketing here).


By mindless1 on 2/14/2007 8:59:49 PM , Rating: 1
False, locking the kernel was not a necessary step. Closing security holes themselves is the necessary step, else there will be ways around the other roadblocks given a bit of time.


By Locutus465 on 2/14/2007 10:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
It certainly was a logical step and I for one applaud it (I am a non-MS employee). In fact I think it's a such a good idea the OSS community should take a serious look at this, it's a great security step.


By Tyler 86 on 2/21/2007 10:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
False, locking the kernel was not a necessary step. Closing security holes themselves is the necessary step, else there will be ways around the other roadblocks given a bit of time.
Shit, I voted worth reading on this one by accident.

Opening the kernel is opening security holes.
A closed kernel is a clean kernel.
If you want kernel access, learn assembly.


By ncage on 2/14/2007 10:35:57 PM , Rating: 3
I sum up your post......YOUR AN IDIOT!!!!!!


By johnsonx on 2/14/2007 11:04:23 PM , Rating: 4
The rating system needs to go lower than -1.


If I might be so sarcastic..
By Saist on 2/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: If I might be so sarcastic..
By enlil242 on 2/14/2007 5:35:35 PM , Rating: 4
The only thing people need protection from is, well, from themselves. I ran XP and now run Vista with very minimal "protection." (Avast Home and Winpatrol) And sometimes I wonder why I am even running these as I do not get viruses or Malware. I am a smart computer user. (It helps that I am in the IT industry and have seen stupid users' "effed" up machines from running crappy written freeware and opening email attachments that were obviously malicious) If linux helps you protect yourself against, well, yourself, more power to ya. I happen to like windows ... and since XP, I have had nothing but a postive stable experience. btw, I have ran Ubuntu and OSX without problems. But I cannot do all I need to do with those platforms... Trust me I've tried...


By sieistganzfett on 2/14/2007 7:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not running linux on my computers because the majority runs windows xp. Wine will do nothing for my winmodem (dont feel like paying top dollar for high speed since dsl is nowhere to be found where i live still) and I have no idea how great Wine would be for playing games I like, I would try it though or figure out how to get it working if i had highspeed...

I am an IT tech, I actually have HATED McAfee, Norton, AVG, and Panda for years. The antivirus' footprint for the consumer products is just too big and slows computers down norton antivirus from 2004 and newer, the NIS always slowed computers down). its just like running a high end game on them. HOWEVER, i love McAfee's enterpise antivirus, as well as symantec corp. antivirus, they just seem to run so much better than the junk that is sold to the "home user." I have seen AVG not detect an email virus that both McAfee and Norton found, and that virus really screwed up that pc, i removed it manually since AVG didnt even see it. Even though I fix windows problems constantly, I use windows because my pc does not have their screwed up problems, they screw it up or their bad taste in software screws it up.


RE: If I might be so sarcastic..
By Locutus465 on 2/14/2007 10:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why would that be? If you run Linux the same way most people run XP (think always logging in as root) how is it more inherently more secure than windows?

It doesn't take a lot to secure Windows, decent AV (you can get this for free in the from of AVG), and don't let general users run as administrator.

My parents computer used to alwasy get bogged down with loads of spyware. Last time I reinstalled I set everyone's user accounts as regular users... Since this, while spyware apps still end up in the brower cache etc, they've never been able to get their hooks into the system. Why? Even if they some how get installed, it's only as a regular user account. Not much spyware can do with out full admin privs.


RE: If I might be so sarcastic..
By Nekrik on 2/14/2007 11:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Reason why he hasn't installed Vista is that he's already moved to Linux." -I really hope so, let him give his software away for free in that world. I don't want him screwing up Windows machines anymore than he already has :).

everything that is wrong with the OS is the apps like Norton AV and users who can't secure their own systems.

Symantic should be more concerned abut fixing their own problems and learning how to write an app that doesn't require kernel access.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki