Xylord Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Norton 360 (newest version, recently-renewed subscription with upgraded software) reports the Technic launcher as both Safe -and- Reliable. So there, I say. SO THERE. S..Some...one...... Is... Actually.... Using... N-n-nor... NORTON AS AN AV? What has this world came to. Bullet to my head. Seriously, if you're using Norton, stop hurting yourself and get something like Avast! or MSE.
jakj Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Seriously, if you're using Norton, stop hurting yourself and get something like Avast! or MSE. My computer, my choice. I've been using Norton products since they were called Symantec and bought Metrowerks which made the compiler I used to program my Macintosh in System 7/8, and they haven't failed me yet. Contrary to popular belief, Norton is just as good an AV/Systool as the rest of them: It just requires a maximum dipshittery level of 4 to successfully operate.
Xylord Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 My computer, my choice. I've been using Norton products since they were called Symantec and bought Metrowerks which made the compiler I used to program my Macintosh in System 7/8, and they haven't failed me yet. Contrary to popular belief, Norton is just as good an AV/Systool as the rest of them: It just requires a maximum dipshittery level of 4 to successfully operate. Your choice indeed. But I'd rather not pay when the free stuff is just as good.
The Count Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 I used Norton because it had the longest free trial. that was before I discovered avast
Forum Administrators KakerMix Posted July 31, 2012 Forum Administrators Posted July 31, 2012 My computer, my choice. I've been using Norton products since they were called Symantec and bought Metrowerks which made the compiler I used to program my Macintosh in System 7/8, and they haven't failed me yet. Contrary to popular belief, Norton is just as good an AV/Systool as the rest of them: It just requires a maximum dipshittery level of 4 to successfully operate. Out of all the spergy things you have ever said or done, you use NORTON as your anti-virus? I've got 12 years of cold, hard computer janitor experience that just can't reconcile that. There is a reason Norton is the joke of all anti-viruses, and it isn't because people like to root for the underdog.
jakj Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Out of all the spergy things you have ever said or done, you use NORTON as your anti-virus? I've got 12 years of cold, hard computer janitor experience that just can't reconcile that. There is a reason Norton is the joke of all anti-viruses, and it isn't because people like to root for the underdog. Late to the party, bud. This is actually the third time I've discussed using Norton here. And like I say, it's never failed me, and I am a low-risk individual, running no open inbound ports of any kind and running very few programs of any kind that I can't verify for myself or that aren't done by huge companies that could be sued. My needs are low, and Norton fills them. I still have not yet been convinced that Norton is inadequate in any way; Perhaps you would provide a link or two to some of your 12 years of experience so I can see for myself what the fuss is about, because so far, all anybody has ever said is "it sucks" and not really why.
Forum Administrators KakerMix Posted July 31, 2012 Forum Administrators Posted July 31, 2012 Oh no, I'm not going down that road, with you especially. There is a reason Norton has that reputation, but if you are happy with it then there is nothing me, nor anyone else, is going to be able to tell you to change your mind. I'd wager you are going to dig in and argue for Norton simply because 'its been fine'. It's kind of your thing :v:
Xylord Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Late to the party, bud. This is actually the third time I've discussed using Norton here. And like I say, it's never failed me, and I am a low-risk individual, running no open inbound ports of any kind and running very few programs of any kind that I can't verify for myself or that aren't done by huge companies that could be sued. My needs are low, and Norton fills them. I still have not yet been convinced that Norton is inadequate in any way; Perhaps you would provide a link or two to some of your 12 years of experience so I can see for myself what the fuss is about, because so far, all anybody has ever said is "it sucks" and not really why. I don't know what happens when you start paying them, but I remember I tried it at the start of my computer life and it was spamming me with annoying messages about scanning and re-scanning my files, verifying the status of my computers security, and of course "updating" to the paying paying version. It didn't hit me as "inefficient", but it's still as annoying as my mother-in-law (Yup, that's a synonym for very annoying). Edit: Better to not go against god-on-earth Kakermix will. :P
freakachu Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 as an It professional, here is why norton sucks: 1) it fails to detect things that other, better AV programs don't miss 2) it is a major and well known AV program and so it is often targeted by malware for evasion and disabling. 3) it is resource intensive, causing unnecessary slow downs in the system. all of these I have personally seen in action and experienced. these are only the ones that are true of the current norton, btw. older versions were far worse, integrating so deep into the system and uninstalling so poorly that often removing the program would break basic functions like networking completely, requiring anything from TCP/IP stack reset to complete OS reinstallation to fix, depending on the system. I don't have links, I myself am an authority on the subject, as it is my job.
jakj Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Oh no, I'm not going down that road, with you especially. There is a reason Norton has that reputation, but if you are happy with it then there is nothing me, nor anyone else, is going to be able to tell you to change your mind. I'd wager you are going to dig in and argue for Norton simply because 'its been fine'. It's kind of your thing I'm slightly disturbed by how well you know me. O_O Fair enough. 1) it fails to detect things that other, better AV programs don't miss (I'll take your word for it.) 2) it is a major and well known AV program and so it is often targeted by malware for evasion and disabling. (This is an excellent point and I hadn't considered it; I'll keep that in mind.) 3) it is resource intensive, causing unnecessary slow downs in the system. (I haven't noticed this, but I haven't looked very hard, as I have never maxxed out my CPU with anything other than video rendering. I tend to do more complex operations rather than more intense ones.) Also fair enough, I suppose. I think Kaker's right, though: For me, it's "good enough", and it's pleasant. I find it aesthetically pleasing and nonintrusive, and reliable, anecdotally.
ledhead900 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I'm slightly disturbed by how well you know me. O_O Fair enough. Also fair enough, I suppose. I think Kaker's right, though: For me, it's "good enough", and it's pleasant. I find it aesthetically pleasing and nonintrusive, and reliable, anecdotally. I side with Kaker on this one as well, I have witnessed all the stuff you have said personally as well and I too have janitor years to know better about that awful software, http://www.malwarebytes.org/ is free for the non real time scanning stuff and its arguably one of the best along side Avast and probably Node32 but Node is a lot heavier than those other two Imo. Though you cannot be swayed so happy scanning I guess.
Xylord Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I side with Kaker on this one as well, I have witnessed all the stuff you have said personally as well and I too have janitor years to know better about that awful software, http://www.malwarebytes.org/ is free for the non real time scanning stuff and its arguably one of the best along side Avast and probably Node32 but Node is a lot heavier than those other two Imo. Though you cannot be swayed so happy scanning I guess. If viruses are mischief, malware is mayhem. Malware doesn’t just want to disrupt your network, it wants your keystrokes, logins, passwords, address book, data, credit card information, favorite t-shirt and possibly your cat. My god.. I always thought that if there was at least one thing safe, it was my cat...
Forum Administrators KakerMix Posted July 31, 2012 Forum Administrators Posted July 31, 2012 I am the password. But are you trust-able?
CarlosArias604 Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Obviously because there are thousands of users even popular Youtubers, Countless Devs, ect. I'm sure they would of found it by now and everyone would know the Technic Launcher is a fraud... Although they use Spout's client so go bug Spout about your questions on the launcher.
The_DarthMoogle Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Obviously because there are thousands of users even popular Youtubers, Countless Devs, ect. I'm sure they would of found it by now and everyone would know the Technic Launcher is a fraud... Although they use Spout's client so go bug Spout about your questions on the launcher. But how do we know YOU aren't the fraud???
Adlersch Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 But how do we know YOU aren't the fraud??? I can't take this any longer! I'm tired of letting other people get the blame! It's me! All the passwords go to me! I've been hacking and reselling Minecraft accounts for $45 USD for 20 years now! I'm sorry my friends. But now that my secret is out, I can no longer stay here.
DELTALON.exe Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I can't take this any longer! I'm tired of letting other people get the blame! It's me! All the passwords go to me! I've been hacking and reselling Minecraft accounts for $45 USD for 20 years now! I'm sorry my friends. But now that my secret is out, I can no longer stay here. You know, at that price you could just buy them normally and resell them for a profit. What made you take other people's accounts?
Adlersch Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 You know, at that price you could just buy them normally and resell them for a profit. What made you take other people's accounts? Supervillainy isn't about what's practical, it's about having the most convoluted evil scheme possible, while still having a profit margin.
DELTALON.exe Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Supervillainy isn't about what's practical, it's about having the most convoluted evil scheme possible, while still having a profit margin. So... my plan to kill people, take their ores, and stick them in a macerator isn't as good as waiting until THEY macerate their ores and smelt them and THEN killing them and taking their stuff to make weapons and armor to kill them and take their ores and macerate the ores I get?
Adlersch Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Now you're getting it. I could just rob a bank and get all the funding I need for my evil project, OR I could build a massive underground evil complex from scratch in order to build superweapons for use in robbing banks (Or, as superweapons, making banks fear me enough to pay me a monthly tithe) for my evil project.
DELTALON.exe Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Now you're getting it. I could just rob a bank and get all the funding I need for my evil project, OR I could build a massive underground evil complex from scratch in order to build superweapons for use in robbing banks (Or, as superweapons, making banks fear me enough to pay me a monthly tithe) for my evil project. Okay... so is it best if I make TNT cannons to fire sand to kill people to steal resources to make weapons to kill people to steal resources to make TNT cannons to fire sand to kill people rather than just using iron swords to steal resources to make TNT cannons to fire sand to kill people?
Recommended Posts