 |
|
|
|
Next: Symantec CEO rips Microsoft...but not by name
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 06, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, photoguy_... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
> We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????
yeah, switch to mac and never install a "security" app. Just be smart
with what you let in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ray wrote:
>> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
>> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
>> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
>> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
>> least, none that come with the modem).
>
> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
in the UK.
>> No games to speak of.
>
> That's what they make game consoles for.
Tell that to all the video cames houses that still make PC games. Or the
8 million World of Warcraft subscribers (PC and Mac only).
>> No tools
>> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
>> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
>> X has the excellent iPhoto).
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
> available with almost every major Linux distribution.
Are you REALLY comparing? So I could take my camcorder to a generic
Linux install anywhere and simply plug it in and record? Dream on. No
installations. No drivers. Just works.
>> Also very little chance they will know
>> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
>> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
>> break.
>
> The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.
Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.
>> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
>> your computer is broken is it?
>
> Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.
Agreed, but that's hardly going to help someone who does an install today.
>> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
>> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
>> ready.
>
> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
My opinion, as a professional user interface design, graphic designer
and computer user.
> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
> your point - but it is totally irrational.
Probably because of the environment? Your demographic?
1) Maybe they don't know any better
2) Public place, it's free, not likely to complain are they
3) All they are doing is looking up information, yes?
Plop an average 15 year old in front of one and see if they agree with
you. Sit your mother in front of one and give her an install disk for a
random application, see if she manages. Then try with Windows.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
### future media, video, flash, animation @
# http://www.northleithmill.com
### music industry web & promotion @
# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk
# Remove NO SPAM to email
# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups
# Copyright (c) digitalharmony |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:41:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
> ray wrote:
>>> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
>>> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
>>> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
>>> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
>>> least, none that come with the modem).
>>
>> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
>> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
>> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
>> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
>
> Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
> in the UK.
>
>
>>> No games to speak of.
>>
>> That's what they make game consoles for.
>
> Tell that to all the video cames houses that still make PC games. Or the
> 8 million World of Warcraft subscribers (PC and Mac only).
>
>>> No tools
>>> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
>>> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
>>> X has the excellent iPhoto).
>>
>> You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
>> available with almost every major Linux distribution.
>
> Are you REALLY comparing? So I could take my camcorder to a generic
> Linux install anywhere and simply plug it in and record? Dream on. No
> installations. No drivers. Just works.
>
>>> Also very little chance they will know
>>> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
>>> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
>>> break.
>>
>> The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.
>
> Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
> don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.
OK - you've just contradicted yourself in one paragraph. Is it about setup
or is it about usability? I can understand why some folks might have a
little difficulty setting up Linux. Once it is set up it is no more
difficult to USE than MS or MAC - just a little different.
>
>>> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
>>> your computer is broken is it?
>>
>> Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.
>
> Agreed, but that's hardly going to help someone who does an install today.
>
>>> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
>>> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
>>> ready.
>>
>> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
>
> My opinion, as a professional user interface design, graphic designer
> and computer user.
>
>> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
>> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
>> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
>> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
>> your point - but it is totally irrational.
>
> Probably because of the environment? Your demographic?
>
> 1) Maybe they don't know any better
> 2) Public place, it's free, not likely to complain are they
Haven't been to a library lately, have you. The patrons generally complain
about all sorts of things. They complain about the one hour session limits
- they complain about the internet filter - but they don't complain about
how the computers work.
> 3) All they are doing is looking up information, yes?
Yes. Looking up information, surfing the internet, using the office apps,
editing photos, doing geneology . . .
>
> Plop an average 15 year old in front of one and see if they agree with
> you. Sit your mother in front of one and give her an install disk for a
> random application, see if she manages. Then try with Windows.
As a matter of fact they computers are usually totally busy from shortly
after school is out until the library closes. Lots of teenagers. They
flock to the place - for one thing, it's a challenge to them to see if
they can break things - so far they have not been able to. BTW - they play
online games etc. and still no complaints.
I'd be happy to sit my mother in front of one, but she died last
September. If you give me a person unfamiliar with Linux and also
unfamiliar with MS, I'd be happy to perform the test - oh, that's right,
I've already done that. Linux is no more difficult to use than MS or MAC -
it's just a little different. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:32 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
> don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.
Ah yes, that reminds me:
A couple of weeks ago I visited the Geological Museum in London. It was
nice to see that since my last visit many years ago, they've embraced
modern technology. The problem was, they'd embraced the wrong OS. There
were at least six terminals running W2000 or XP (I didn't bother looking
closer) - and they'd all crashed! None that I saw were working - IIRC
they all had exception faults.
'Usability', in this case - 0%!
Jim Ford >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 07, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:32:19 GMT, Jim Ford
> <jaford.RemoveThis@watford53.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>>> Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
>>> don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.
>> Ah yes, that reminds me:
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago I visited the Geological Museum in London. It was
>> nice to see that since my last visit many years ago, they've embraced
>> modern technology. The problem was, they'd embraced the wrong OS. There
>> were at least six terminals running W2000 or XP (I didn't bother looking
>> closer) - and they'd all crashed! None that I saw were working - IIRC
>> they all had exception faults.
>>
>> 'Usability', in this case - 0%!
>>
>> Jim Ford
>
> Ac<Diaperboi babbles and give wrong advice again on web$hit>
Fat Diaperb1tch, I thought yer dead diapergranny ghost told you to STFU.
Listen to the petrified b1tch.
> >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 07, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:34 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:35:26 -0600, ray <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
>>>>> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
>>>>> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
>>>>> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
>>>>> least, none that come with the modem).
>
>>>> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
>>>> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
>>>> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
>>>> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
>
>>> Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
>>> in the UK.
><Diaperboi licks ray's as$again>
>
Diaperboi can't you for once pretend to be hetero? >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:12 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 3, 7:42 pm, photoguy_... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
> We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????
Norton has become retarded here lately I have heard many similar
stories, typically i recommend kaspersky antivirus/firewall, basically
because it listens and actually does a better job of detecting any
virus that attacks your machine. after fighting with norton and mcafee
to try to do vpn transfers and neither wanting to allow the connection
i tried kaspersky at a friends recommendation and 1st try it goes:
this could let someone mess with your system do you want to continue
click yes and it learns that yes i want to do this..... i have never
had to repeat myself if i click yes always allow this. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:14 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 7, 1:35 am, ray <r... DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:41:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
> >> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
> >> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
> >> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
> >> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
>
> > Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
> > in the UK.
>
> >>> No games to speak of.
>
> >> That's what they make game consoles for.
>
> > Tell that to all the video games houses that still make PC games. Or the
> > 8 million World of Warcraft subscribers (PC and Mac only).
No reply?
> >>> No tools
> >>> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
> >>> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
> >>> X has the excellent iPhoto).
>
> >> You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
> >> available with almost every major Linux distribution.
>
> > Are you REALLY comparing? So I could take my camcorder to a generic
> > Linux install anywhere and simply plug it in and record? Dream on. No
> > installations. No drivers. Just works.
>
> >>> Also very little chance they will know
> >>> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
> >>> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
> >>> break.
>
> >> The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.
>
> > Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
> > don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.
>
> OK - you've just contradicted yourself in one paragraph. Is it about setup
> or is it about usability? I can understand why some folks might have a
> little difficulty setting up Linux. Once it is set up it is no more
> difficult to USE than MS or MAC - just a little different.
Usability involves setup too, you know. How easy is it to setup Linux?
This is a usability issue too.
If a user wants to add or change something on their computer, is is a
LOT harder under Linux. But if all they do is surf and email, then
most OS's are much the same.
> >>> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
> >>> your computer is broken is it?
>
> >> Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.
>
> > Agreed, but that's hardly going to help someone who does an install today.
>
> >>> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
> >>> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
> >>> ready.
>
> >> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
>
> > My opinion, as a professional user interface design, graphic designer
> > and computer user.
>
> >> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
> >> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
> >> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
> >> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
> >> your point - but it is totally irrational.
>
> > Probably because of the environment? Your demographic?
>
> > 1) Maybe they don't know any better
> > 2) Public place, it's free, not likely to complain are they
>
> Haven't been to a library lately, have you. The patrons generally complain
> about all sorts of things. They complain about the one hour session limits
> - they complain about the internet filter - but they don't complain about
> how the computers work.
Because of the types of people to visit a library. Imagine trying to
use Linux in a cybercafe!
> > 3) All they are doing is looking up information, yes?
>
> Yes. Looking up information, surfing the internet, using the office apps,
> editing photos, doing geneology . . .
You're short-changing your poor users. You could very simply provide
them a FAR better experience if you stop thinking like a techie, and
start thinking more like a user.
> > Plop an average 15 year old in front of one and see if they agree with
> > you. Sit your mother in front of one and give her an install disk for a
> > random application, see if she manages. Then try with Windows.
>
> As a matter of fact they computers are usually totally busy from shortly
> after school is out until the library closes. Lots of teenagers. They
> flock to the place - for one thing, it's a challenge to them to see if
> they can break things - so far they have not been able to. BTW - they play
> online games etc. and still no complaints.
You clearly have no clue what goes on in the real world beyond the
doors of your library. The Internet is a media rich place with all
kinds of services running over it. You're cutting your users off from
a lot of this.
> I'd be happy to sit my mother in front of one, but she died last
> September.
I'm sorry. No disrespect meant, it was just an example.
> If you give me a person unfamiliar with Linux and also
> unfamiliar with MS, I'd be happy to perform the test - oh, that's right,
> I've already done that. Linux is no more difficult to use than MS or MAC -
> it's just a little different.
I don't believe you. I really wish we could sit down and prove this!
But there you go. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Norton Internet Security blocking .aspx pages? - If there is a better newsgroup to post this to, please advise. I am running NIS 2003 with the ad blocking feature enabled (blocks ads and pop-ups). Two web pages I regularly visit will not open unless I disable the ad-blocking feature. These web page....
Norton Internet Security 2005 inserting JavaScript code in.. - This has been a problem for some time. the script is inserted at the beginning and at the end of web pages using JavaScript. This script is inserted as the page is loaded into the browser and causes script in many pages to not run. Anyone know of a..
A simple Norton question about new computer.... - A simple question I cannot find an answer for. I have two computers and the one I am presently using has Norton which I just purchased a couple of weeks ago. I am purchasing a new computer and want to know if I can install the new Norton on the new..
Norton Internet Pro 2004 - Anyone had problems with it hogging resources? CCAPP.exe. Tried all the fixes from Symantec, but it still hogs. Seems the best thing to do is throw it away - anyone wanna buy a licences with 9.5 months updates left?
Norton Internet Security 2005 - Hi, I use Norton Internet Security 2003. In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was less reliable. Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? .. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
