Talk:Norton 360/Archive 1

Beta Versions

Should a beta version be listed under the latest product build? TechOutsider (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

No, the software infobox template has separate parameters for the latest preview and stable releases. I've fixed the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification TechOutsider (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

If your going to add the beta version info ... you didn't state it worked with windows 7 TechOutsider (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

This is just marketing

This is an abuse of Wikipedia and not appropriate.

--Kjb 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I flagged it for being advert. Who wrote the article for Norton Internet Security? they'll fix it up.

- Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree

"Norton 360 is rated much better than NOD32 and is leading in its field of virus protection" What kind of statement is that? Where's the proof? where are the numbers? why is NOD32 the ONLY other AV product mentioned? Why is this sentence tagged on there rather then in it's own heading.

this page IS just marketing. ColbyWolf 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Norton 360 is a program with many problems for the user. It is probably a beta-version that doesn't work as it should do. Symantec makes money with a beta-version ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.90.211 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Norton 360 Icon.png

Image:Norton 360 Icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Compatibility Section

Does anyone oppose removing the Compatibility section? It seems unnecessary, poorly written, and bias. --Kycook (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

removed it. its very content sounds pretty absurd, in the first place, and looked more like a biased and deliberately worded ode to norton. --Hard Core Rikki (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In a retro-spec the section actually encouraged me to re-purcase a firewall I long left behind because of former Norton products being incompatible. It could and probably should be reworded. And even if someone is ANTI Norton it doesn't limit or stop them from adding a similar section in other firewall/anti virus programs. But in a general sense it may allow users more choice when deciding on a secondary firewall or spy ware program. Without fear (or lack of knowledge) of one of the two competing programs to utterly destroy (or disable) the other. So the information should be available for anyone who may wonder if the new 100$ computer program they wanted to buy (or all-ready bought) wont become a new coaster for their Soda. --OSSA88 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed Compatibility Section and removed the Reference pointing to Mcafee and its Incompatibilities. I believe this best for a Mcafee or even on those particular programs' pages (working or not). It should not be compared to a accepted competitor on "hostile grounds" so to speak. --OSSA88 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

2 Logos

Do we need 2 logos in the infobox? Can we choose one? --Kycook (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

System requirements

Is it really necessary to have the system requirements on the article? Most other software articles don't have it, and Norton 360's requirements aren't that special to be mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto.icaza (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Lots of criticism, no citation whatsoever? This needs to be either cited or removed. 193.188.12.15 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is my personal opinion and experience using Norton 360 version 2: I was just told by a Norton tech support person that version 2 only backups files in a non-readable encrypted format only, unlike Norton 360 version 1 which saved backup files in an immediately readable format. I was also told there was no way to change this short of uninstalling 360 version 2 and reinstalling version 1, otherwise I was stuck with only have non-readable encrypted files saved as backup files. I was also told that the only way to "read" the now encrypted only backup files was to do a "restore" which would overwrite everything onto my c: drive, which I'm not willing to do. In my opinion, this software design change is a terrible change and evidences that the development team doesn't understand how its customers use their product. If they wanted to give some of their customers the ability to backup their files in encrypted format, then they should have made it an option for the customer to choose from, i.e. elect readable backup format or encrypted backup format. This, I am told they did not do. In my opinion that is a terrible mistake. I don't use my backup files in that manner. I need to have the backup files immediately readable. I strongly urge Symantec to immediately change their Norton 360 version 2 so customers, like myself, can elect to run their backups in immediately readable format. jphilli8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphilli8 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the following : "Norton 360 has been criticized because of its bloating, which make the system run slower. " should be changed to v1. As v2 is out and this was corrected and was a major selling point of v2. Skiracer712 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclude list

I know this isn't the place but I don't know where else to go, please help me. How the hell do you add anything to the exclude items list? 68.99.172.81 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Independant Scorings

I'm wondering why few if any of the Norton products contain information concerning their scoring in independent score tests.

Other entries such as Kaspersky and Avast! provide this information which is far more useful than a list of features or bulk criticism.

These scores are, after all, the true measurement of how good a Virus program is. 13.20.137.12 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (Signed Anon. JamesR)

I updated it and check Norton AntiVirus under Ind. Assessments for comprehensive information, which I updated 68.17.254.210 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

360 Disk Optimizer

There is no information on the techniques employed by the Norton 360 Disk Optimizer, to optimize file placement. As many of you know, Norton released a product long ago called "Speedisk", which employs quite a engineered approach at optimal file placement. Does anyone know if the speedisk engine exists in Norton 360, or is it different?

Here is a link to a forum, where I created a thread on this topic. yogesh_mohan on this thread has hinted that perhaps Norton 360 simply utilizes the windows defragger engine?

http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=Norton_360&thread.id=6911

More about Speedisk's file placement strategy here:: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q99/speeddisk/speeddisk-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.144.170 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta Versions

Should a beta version be listed under the latest product build? TechOutsider (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

No, the software infobox template has separate parameters for the latest preview and stable releases. I've fixed the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification TechOutsider (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

free Norton upgrade

Shouldn't we mention on the free upgrades for Norton products. I stumbled upon this GENUINE Norton link: http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/support/special/upgrade2007/vista/migration_start.jsp?site=nuc --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)