Virus scanner...which one? My Norton doesn't work in Win2K

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by AndyVX, Nov 26, 2001.

  1. AndyVX

    AndyVX Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2000
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello,

    Wow, the joys of upgrading to a new OS and the joys of software incompatibility.

    I have a retail version of Norton Antivirus that I bought some time ago with my old computer(P166MMX). Anyways, since then I've upgraded computers, and I have just now upgraded from Win98 to Win2K. Luckily all my hardware was supported, but a few software apps weren't(see my other thread about burning software).

    So, my copy of Norton Antivirus doesn't work in Win2K. What would everyone recommend I do? Go out and buy a newer verison, buy a scanner from another company, use AVG the free virus scanner? As of right now, I've just been using PC-Cillin an online virus scanner, but I really would like to have a permanent solution.

    So, what does everyone recommend?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Rob Gillespie

    Rob Gillespie Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1998
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Norton Anti-Virus 2001 works fine in W2K and has more features than the one you're using now. There's a 2002 version out too but I don't know what the differences are.
     
  3. Kimmo Jaskari

    Kimmo Jaskari Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Second the vote for Norton AV. Works fine for me at least.
     
  4. Andrew Pratt

    Andrew Pratt Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1998
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    buy NAV 2002 it will work win XP as well as win2K.
     
  5. Glenn Overholt

    Glenn Overholt Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Andy, I'd go with Norton, but get the new version 2002, as it works with ME and both versions of XP that are out now. There is a great package deal out for their System Works that includes the firewall program as well.

    Norton is pretty slick with all of their versions that are out. I picked up the MS 2k server last year and rudely found out that even though the version of Norton that I had said it would with 2k on the outside of the box, the instructions inside specified 2k Pro only.

    Call me a dummy but they did do that deliberately. Adding 'Pro' to the front of the box would not have set them into a financial rut.

    Glenn
     
  6. Kevin P

    Kevin P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been using Norton Antivirus ever since version 1.0 for Windows 95 and I still think it's the best one out there. The only real advantage of the 2002 version over the 2001 is Windows XP compatibility. They made the GUI ugly in the 2002 version though (it's got this ugly yellow theme to it, yeck! [​IMG] ) Also, the 2002 version defaults to "repair automatically" to make it more user transparent (if it finds a virus, it'll fix it and not even tell you in many cases). I prefer to know when I get a virus, but it can be set to do that too.
    If you're planning on upgrading to XP, get the 2002 version. If not, maybe you can find a discounted copy of the 2001 version somewhere. It's got the same capabilities in terms of virus protection but without the ugly yellow GUI.
    Also, if you need a firewall program (if you're on a broadband internet connection, you do!!), Norton Internet Security combines the firewall and anti-virus into a single package deal.
    KJP[​IMG]
     
  7. Kimmo Jaskari

    Kimmo Jaskari Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are better firewalls available for free, IMHO. Sygate Personal Firewall for instance.
     
  8. Samuel Des

    Samuel Des Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2001
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is Norton a resource hog? I am trying to eliminate as many TSRs (Terminate and Stay Resident) as possible. Is McAffee a good alternative?
     
  9. Kevin P

    Kevin P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Norton AntiVirus isn't very hard on resources. I've never noticed it slow down my PC, but of course if you're running on a 133 MHz Pentium with 32 MB RAM, you might have problems. If you're really concerned about performance you don't have to load the AutoProtect piece, but it does give you "real time" virus protection.

    NAV 2002, even without AutoProtect turned on, can still scan email attachments and Word documents when they are opened, using plugins. Anything else would have to be scanned manually though unless you use the AutoProtect.

    "TSRs" don't cause the issues they used to in the DOS days.

    I don't care much for McAfee--it is much more difficult to keep up to date than Norton. Engine updates have to be downloaded separately from definition updates, and you have to reboot everytime you update. With Norton, you just download the update and run it, or launch LiveUpdate, and you're done. Engine and virus definition updates don't require a reboot, but if there are other updates (patches to the software), it'll ask to reboot for those.

    KJP
     
  10. AndyVX

    AndyVX Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2000
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, looks like I'll be going out and buying Norton Antivirus 2002 then.

    Thanks for the help everyone.
     

Share This Page