Bill
Wed May 14 21:11:21 PDT 2008
Nonny wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:38:14 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> For the most part, the only good Norton products were those dating back
>> in
>> the DOS days (NDD, SD, DS, etc). Frankly, I'm surprised he isn't
>> embarrassed by all that has happened since Symantec took it over (and
>> still
>> with his name attached).
>
> How do you know that he isn't?
>
> My guess is that he made so much money over the years that he
> couldn't care less about that.
I wouldn't want my name on a product tarnished like that. I'd force them
to remove it - if there was any possibility - or maybe even pay them with a
lump fee, to be done with it. I'm sure he's rich enough to have some
options.
> And I agree... the products were GREAT and HAD to be had when he
> owned the company.
>
>>
>> John wrote:
>>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uYTl35ftIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "John" <a> wrote in message
>>>> news:eVhCpdftIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Found this article while browsing the web today:
>>>>>
http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=153760&WT.svl=news1_2
>>>>>
>>>>> Norton 2008 got a perfect score?? Gee, that's a big surprise. I wonder
>>>>> if
>>>>> the review is biased.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe norton finally has a product with so much overhead
>>>> the machine cannot even get on line...
>>>> then the chances of getting a virus are pretty small <G>
>>>>
>>>
>>> or maybe the CPU is always busy processing a ton of Norton processes, it
>>> doesn't even have time to handle rootkit processes trying to kick in.
>>> Hey,
>>> that is it! :-)