Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 May 2002 16:16:42 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)
Hi Terri.
I've carried out many installations of various versions of Norton AntiVirus,
so I think I'm becoming a (very minor) guru on the subject of putting the
thing it in and taking it out again.8--))

I think you can discount NAV 2000, it doesn't offer as much as 2001 or 2002.

My personal favorite, as far as installability, uninstallability and
usability, would have to be NAV2001.  It runs faster, with less problems,
than 2002.

2002 seems to move very slowly.  However, I understand it works in a
different way to the earlier versions, so I'm giving it the benefit of the
doubt, and optimistically assuming that it does it's job more thoroughly.

2002 can be a real dog to uninstall, and this is absolutely neccessary if
you need to do a reinstall of this version, perhaps in the case of a botched
install, or a very bad crash that neccessitates this action.

I've got the method sussed now, but it's taken me a lot of tries to get it
sorted.  Even then, I ran up against a totally new glitch yesterday
involving msvcp60.dll, but THAT won't happen again, I've got that one
pegged.

(If  some of you want me to post the method, I will - but it's fairly
lengthy so I'll only do it if asked)

So, if it comes to a tossup between 2001 or 2002, I'd go for 2001.

Provided, however, (and I don't profess to be an expert on the EFFICIENCY of
the products), that both are equally effective in detecting and removing
viri. And this is something I've never seen any data on.

I'm currently running 2002 on my own PC's, and can't fault it for
intercepting every little bug that's going (currently vast numbers of the
Klez pest) but it definitely seems to have it's gearbox full of treacle.

PS>As you've noted, the OZ tech support leaves something to be desired.  Our
NZ calls go through to there also, and a very long wait sometimes results in
very little help.

Ian Porter
Computer Guys
Arrowtown
New Zealand
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terri Reid" Subject: [PCSOFT] Norton Antivirus Upgrade


PCSOFT Digest - 5 May 2002 to 6 May 2002 (#2002-127)I have read lately some
discussion regarding the Norton 2002 Antivirus protection.  I currently have
Norton Antivirus 2000, and am running Windows 98.  My subscription is up,
and I am trying to determine whether it is better to continue with the 2000
version or to upgrade to 2002.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions that you may have as it
relates to the trials and tribulations of the upgrade (before I purchase
it).  Do you need to uninstall 2000 prior to installing 2002?  Any tricks to
deal with here?  When checking with Norton here in Australia, the
representative was not entirely sure what needed to be done.  That was a
worry to start!

Thank you for your suggestions and comments.

Regards,
Terri Reid

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                   http://freepctech.com/pcsoft.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV