# Symantec.



## aarhus2004 (Jan 10, 2004)

> The operating uses the C:\_RESTORE folder structure for both system restore and system file protection. Any problems you might have had with system restore are almost certainly due to your having *installed malware from Symantec*. Symantec have not produced any worthwhile software and in that time have, by taking over the original companies, destroyed many fine products including *Ghost* and *Partition Magic * and through their LiveUpdate product destroyed many systems especially *Win Me*.


*Mike Maltby
mike.maltbyatmail.com*

Mike is an MVP and this post of his appeared in the Microsoft Public Newsgroups *WindowsME* System Tools. here
on the 19th.Nov.'05 in response to "*Does the OS Make Mysterious Use of System Restore?*"

The highlights are mine.

I understand Symantec has recently acquired Sygate also.


----------



## blues_harp28 (Jan 9, 2005)

Hi..Thanks..good old Symantec..


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Total rubbish, and another unsubstantiated rant against Norton.

His implication is that Norton Software is Malware NOT that Norton installs malware!! I've seen nothing, anywhere that indicates a relationship between Norton and Restore problems. This *MVP* had the opportunity to enlighten us and chose to rant instead.

As well, note from the original post that they had *5 GBs* in the restore files and were experiencing sluggish performance, *and* he uninstalled NSW which "supposedly" solved his shutdown problem. BUT, he then started to get Starup problems that eventually "went away". 
Right!


----------



## Rollin' Rog (Dec 9, 2000)

There certainly can be no relationship between the problem with System Restore and Symantec. And the use of the term "malware" to refer to Symantec may be extreme. But then I've only had personal experience with one of their products: the NAV 2002 version that came preinstalled on my XP system.

It caused "symevent.sys" shutdown Blue Screens all too frequently, and continued to do so even after the "update" that was alleged to correct it.

Since uninstalling NAV about 2 years ago, I think I have had only one STOP error, either startup or shutdown -- as opposed to the one or two a week I was getting with NAV.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Windows ME was wrecked the moment it shipped from the mother ship so I really doubt Symantec products could make it much worse. Peter Norton sold his company and products to Symantec in 1990, but Ghost has still been a great product with the exception of version 9. I really have no warm feelings for their AV product since it is bloated and far too intrusive unless you know what oyu are installing. Symantec also purchased Backup Exec from Veritas as well.


----------



## aarhus2004 (Jan 10, 2004)

^^Bump^^


----------



## thecandyman (Jan 11, 2006)

LOL, how could Symantec have wrecked WindowsME? Like Rockn said WindowsME was ruined by Micro$oft and their haf a$$ programmers which unfortunetly are still being paid and employed because of Micro$ofts damn monopoy...*end rant*


----------



## talon03 (Apr 26, 2005)

Windows is the most popular OS for a reason. Not because it's the best, but because its the easiest


----------



## ACTU (Jun 29, 2005)

WhitPhil said:


> Total rubbish, and another unsubstantiated rant against Norton.
> 
> His implication is that Norton Software is Malware NOT that Norton installs malware!! I've seen nothing, anywhere that indicates a relationship between Norton and Restore problems. This *MVP* had the opportunity to enlighten us and chose to rant instead.
> 
> ...


Ok then look at it this way. Norton is what something like 80 mgs big right? Now Norton also has to much garbage running in the back ground witch by the way sucks the heck out of the system. Pluse Norton does not catch as much junk like say AVG would. My self I rather have a product that works and my compter run faster then to have a program that requires as fee that does not perform.

Trust me my friend Norton is not cracked up to what they say they are.


----------



## AntiM$ (Apr 25, 2005)

talon03 said:


> Windows is the most popular OS for a reason. Not because it's the best, but because its the easiest


Easiest to pirate, for sure!


----------



## ACTU (Jun 29, 2005)

AntiM$ said:


> Easiest to pirate, for sure!


Until you get snagged


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

AntiM$ said:


> Easiest to pirate, for sure!


And that's the easiest way to get an exit pass from this forum.


----------



## AntiM$ (Apr 25, 2005)

Sarcasm. Serious business.


----------



## ACTU (Jun 29, 2005)

Ok can we please get back to the topic at hand here?


----------



## Jay_JWLH (Nov 29, 2005)

talon03 said:


> Windows is the most popular OS for a reason. Not because it's the best, but because its the easiest


This depends on how well you know the OS. My opinion: Apple is good for easy use, but is generally incompatable (or at least less than Windows). Windows has many problems, as you may understand the more you own a computer. Although it has many drivers, it is already ready to get most of your hardware and probibly many other stuff working.

Edit: sorry, only read up to that qoute, then read the rest. Back to the topic then.


----------



## bellgamin (Apr 6, 2001)

Norton is an effective AV, by actual tests at such places as AVcomparatives - classed Standard & VirusGr - #10 rank.

Per Michael *The Gladiator* of Eset:


> Symantec has Peter Ferrie and Peter Szor on their AV staff. Those two are known for years in the AV industry. Both are specialized with parasitic file infectors (polymorphics), which doesn't mean that they only doing this, but it's difficult to find these days experienced people for this purpose. Running such files on an automatic replication system is a task what everyone can do, but analysing it in a proper way with Disassembler and finding tricky parts becomes a bit more difficult
> 
> Homepage of Peter Szor: http://www.peterszor.com
> Homepage of Peter Ferrie: http://pferrie.tripod.com


My problem with Symantec/Norton isn't its effectiveness (it IS a pretty good AV) but with the facts that:

>>(1) Norton is so difficult to uninstall cleanly that I find it hard to believe it isn't by design.

>>(2) Their terrible tech support.


----------



## etaf (Oct 2, 2003)

so how have you managed to completely remove norton from your PC
I dont seem to have done - even using there removal tool 

Is there something that people know toremove everysingle file and reg entry please


----------



## brindle (Jun 14, 2002)

etaf said:


> so how have you managed to completely remove norton from your PC
> I dont seem to have done - even using there removal tool
> 
> Is there something that people know toremove everysingle file and reg entry please


Etaf The only way I've been able to do it is to manually edit the registry. That means every entry for symantec, norton and live update. Then delete all folders relating to these programs. I have done this successfully with aol and incredimail also.
I have never used nor wanted to use symantec uninstall procedure.


----------



## bellgamin (Apr 6, 2001)

A) Trials of firewalls and antivirus programs are ALWAYS loaded with potential problems when it comes to cleanly uninstalling them. Norton and Avast are notorious for causing uninstall problems, but many other security programs can cause problems as well.

B) If you rely exclusively on the uninstall process that is provided with these programs (by using Add/Remove) you are asking for trouble. I try out new security programs VERY often and never never have a problem because I use the following 2-step method...

1) Step 1- I use Rollback PRO to take a system snapshot before installing any security program. Thus, if I quickly decide I don't want to keep the security program, I can easily roll back to the pre-install state of my computer. Doing this doesn't merely uninstall the program. Instead it makes it as though I had NEVER installed the program in the first place.

2) Step 2- I *monitor* the install of each security program using Total Uninstall.

*Important Note-* There are only a few uninstallers that can TRULY uninstall difficult programs. Those few uninstallers must MONITOR your computer during the time when you are installing the program. Monitoring an install is the ONLY way that an uninstaller can possibly detect all the changes that were made during the installation of a program.

*Beware-* Most so-called installers are simply a pretty GUI for the program's own inadequate uninstall process. These installers do NOT monitor during the install of a program. Hence, those installers cannot do anything at all to help you with difficult uninstalls. Frankly, those programs are *rip-offs* with pretty faces.

3) Total Uninstall has a paid version at the following site...
http://www.martau.com/

4) The old version of Total Uninstall was free. I still use it & it works just fine. The newer (paid) version basically adds a prettier GUI & more options, but the old/free version still does a good job for me. The old version is getting very difficult to find. The ONLY download site I know of is at...
http://freeware4u.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=234

5) Another up & coming uninstaller that monitors installs is Zsoft, free at its home page as follows...
http://www.zsoft.dk/index.php?goto=software_details&prog_id=4

C) The reason I use an uninstaller in ADDITION to using Rollback is...

1) If immediately after trying a program I decide to dump it, I use the Rollback snapshot to return my computer to pristine status.

2) If I keep the program for a while and then LATER decide to dump it, I don't want to use the Rollback snapshot. Why? Because doing so will destroy all the changes I have done in the meantime, such as updates to programs, new signatures for my antivirus, and so forth. In those situations, the uninstaller program cleanly removes the program that I want to dump without disturbing other changes in my computer.

D) When using a monitoring uninstaller during an INSTALL, be sure to continue monitoring until the installed program actually runs. If the installed program wants a restart, continue monitoring. The uninstaller is structured to resume monitoring after the restart. Why is this necessary? Because some programs make ADDITIONAL changes to your computer after they begin running. Often these additional changes are the very changes that Add/Remove & the program's own uninstaller do not remove.

E) When using a monitoring uninstaller to UNinstall, here's the method I use...

1) I first use Add/Remove or the program's own uninstaller to uninstall.
2) I then restart the computer.
3) I then use the Total Uninstall to AGAIN uninstall the program. Don't worry -- Total Uninstall won't be confused by the fact that changes already were removed by Add/Remove. Instead. Total Uninstall will simply remove any changes that were overlooked by Add/Remove.


----------

