Is NAV 2004 Worth it?

Stu038 · 29-05-2004, 15:20

Time to renew the subscription for Norton Anti virus 2002

2002 seems to be doing the job nicely at the moment, so is there any real benefit to upgrading to 2004? is it any good? or is it a case of don't touch it with your worst enemies PC

Its Ã‚Â£13.81 for another year for 2002 as opposed to Ã‚Â£38.29 just for a spy ware checker and the ability to scan zipped files?

I seem to remember on .com last year several members advising folks to keep away from NAV 2003 is this years just as bad?

Your opinions as always gratefully accepted

**Russ B** · 29-05-2004, 15:28

I had NAV 2003 and it served me fine - never had a problem with it and it picked up each one of the viruses I was sent after someone posted my email address on a discussion forum.

Bought a new pc a few months back and it came with the OEM version of NAV 2004 and the only noticeable difference I found was the spyware checker.

NAV 2004 is good....but IMO not worth spending the extra cash. Stick with 2003.

downquark1 · 29-05-2004, 15:40

I'm still on NAV 2001

**Jefferson T** · 29-05-2004, 15:43

I am using nav 2003 - and nav 2004 on various machines.

I think nav 2003 is just fine and not worth spending more unless you need to.

ntl customer · 29-05-2004, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

I'm still on NAV 2001

So am I.

I have always found that NAV 2002 onwards is severely bloated. Coloured 'OK' buttons and all other things that swallow up memory just plague the Norton line of products now - I wouldn't touch them with a 200 foot bargepole now because they are so bad.

Why do they have all this bloat?

Stu038 · 29-05-2004, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntl customer

Why do they have all this bloat?

The cost of progress I suppose, the faster that processors and gfx cards get the more the programmers waste that power with gimmicks to impress the less technically minded

That said you can't beat a bit of electronic equipment with loads of LED's flashing away on it

Thanks for all the advice folks, looks like I'll just be renewing the subscription

abailey152 · 29-05-2004, 19:46

As long as 2002 does what you want, stick with it. I upgraded to 2004, and it's had one compatibility problem with another utility I used to run (I've now had to change because of this problem), and it does seem slower than 2002.

29-05-2004, 22:03

The question you need to ask yourself is "are the upgrades actually any use to me?"

I've got NAV 2003, but I use Adaware, free from Lavasoft, for Spyware checking and don't particularly have any need to check zipped files (if you're at all worried, always *manually* unzip them and then virus check them, don't run a self-extractor from an unknown source).

Unless you're really worried, I'd stick with what you have already.

Nutty · 31-05-2004, 00:56

I really hate this kind of buisness model. If you have NAV2002, and pay yearly subscription, I dont understand why they dont upgrade it to NAV2003, and NAV2004 as well. Think its a bit cheeky that they dont.

I have NAV2002, and every soo often it seems to go pear shaped, so I'm currently just using my NAT router as protection on my pc.. kids pc still has it installed for parental control. Cant really be bothered to shell out for a new version of 2004.

Darren Wilson · 12-06-2004, 01:05

Have used NAV since the days of DOS & never once had a problem with it. I upgrade every year to the latest version (same with any other software that I use on a daily basis).

**Rob** · 12-06-2004, 01:15

There is some sort of dodge with NAV 2002, I beleive. Basically if you can delete any trace of it having been on your PC, then reload, you can get another years subscription to online updates for free.

It worked on my sister's PC which I just had to reformat cos it got completely borked with spyware and all sorts of junk that hadn't been cleared out since she bougth it 5 years ago (only used for occasional email and WP work so she don't need to upgrade for now).

On that basis NAV 2002 is a good economic program, and probably not worth upgrading

**Frank** · 12-06-2004, 02:10

Tried NAV2004, bloody awful. Now using mcafee av 8.

carlingman · 12-06-2004, 03:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

There is some sort of dodge with NAV 2002, I beleive. Basically if you can delete any trace of it having been on your PC, then reload, you can get another years subscription to online updates for free.

It worked on my sister's PC which I just had to reformat cos it got completely borked with spyware and all sorts of junk that hadn't been cleared out since she bougth it 5 years ago (only used for occasional email and WP work so she don't need to upgrade for now).

On that basis NAV 2002 is a good economic program, and probably not worth upgrading

Similar here, so looks like NAV 2004 is the same.

Well after some problems with XP Pro myself which caused me to format and reinstall XP Pro I have just reinstalled NAV 2004.

Originally installed in Jan 2004 due to expire in Jan 2005 but after a reformat and reinstall it now expires in June 2005.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Tried NAV2004, bloody awful. Now using mcafee av 8.

Jeez someone shoot me as I am going to disagree with Frank.

NAV 2004 is great.

Ps Frank hows life in Canada then.

Stu038 · 12-06-2004, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

There is some sort of dodge with NAV 2002, I beleive. Basically if you can delete any trace of it having been on your PC, then reload, you can get another years subscription to online updates for free.

Done that a couple of times

Unfortunately though, I've recently began to develop a bit of a conscience when it come's to software I use regularly

depressing really isn't it

Shaun · 12-06-2004, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlingman

Jeez someone shoot me as I am going to disagree with Frank.

NAV 2004 is great.

Ps Frank hows life in Canada then.

BANG!!!!!

I'd have to agree, I'm still on 2003 but I find NAV great, but then again its simple like me too.

Oh, and nice to see you about again Frank