Comments on: Yet more reasons not to use Norton. http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/ I will not fix your computer. Tue, 04 Aug 2020 22:34:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.26 By: nailzuk http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-15639 Fri, 21 May 2010 15:00:10 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-15639

norton internet security 2010 is a fine bit of software, i know in days gone by norton was a really bad resource hogger but with 2010 it runs 1 service and uses 6mb of ram when idle i wa really surprised as i have used norton in the past and it was awful, seems like symantec have finally listened to their public, norton internet security 2010 really hits the spot,btw been using it for 5 months and nothing malicious has gotten into my system.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Matt http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1127 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:35:15 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1127

we briefly had norton internet security ’05 on our slightly crappy old desktop (poor thing only has 128mb of ram..) and it made it near impossible to use – [i]everything[/i] took about 10 times longer than it did before.

Now uninstalled and it works fine :D
norton = bloat QED

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Luke http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1119 Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:35:00 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1119

It was meeeeee! Wohoo! :mrgreen:

Wait, was it?

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: ZeWrestler http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1115 Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:36:07 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1115

I wounder what inspired this rant, =)
http://community.livejournal.com/geeks/1075519.html

I’ll be getting to replacing it ASAP.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Luke http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1114 Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:55:53 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1114

Oops! I guess I totally skipped over that section of the paper. :oops: Sorry – my bad.

Great job testing this stuff btw!

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Oli http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1113 Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:41:36 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2006/09/11/yet-more-reasons-not-to-use-norton/#comment-1113

>> Unfortunately they did not release any in depth description of the test procedure used to gather this data

Yes I did…
http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/other/what_slows_windows_down/1

But to make you happy, I’ll include a lot of screenshots detailing the process when I do the next batch.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>