Good-Bye WLOC. Hello, Norton Internet Security 2008 RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I originally purchased WLOC because it was on sale at a local retailer for about $25. It looked like it had a nice interface, had a lot of features - like backup - and most imprtantly would be inherently integrated with windows, since it was a MS product.


    After using it for nearly a year, and with my renewal approaching in June, I've long ago come to the conclusion that this is lame-ware, and would barely be worth $6 on the Dollar Store lame-ware shelf, let alone the $50 renewal - as if it were premium software.


    I ditched WLOC and spent that $50 on Norton Internet Security 2008. It was the easy to use all-in-one features of WLOC, superior protection, and uses about 1/4th the resources of WLOC (can you say msmpeng.exe?)


    Have a renewal coming up? Ditch it for NIS 2008 or Norton 360 and here's why....


    *The detection rates are much worse than 3 separate freeware AV proggys. Just read any AV comparison.


    * Most of it's "features" that you're paying for are merely re-wrapped free MS utilities which are already on windows; Defender AS, Clean-up Junk/Temp files, Defrag and firewall.


    *It's a resource hog. Plain and simple. msmpeng.exe can hog 45,000kb alone.


    *Spy/Malware detection is weak. Several freeware aps like AdAware and Super Anti-Spyware smoke it.


    *The back-up feature sucks and is essentially useless. Will only back-up file types. Trust this BU and you'll be sorry when you "restore". It needs folder and file selection so you back up what you want and nothing don't. Again, freeware like Back4win stomps this thing.


    *Refuses to do a Tune-up or scheduled AV scan if your box is in sleep mode (let alone hibernate). I tried to work around this with task scheduler, creating a task to wake the PC, just before a LOC scan at 1am...all to no avail. Gave up and would have to run a manual scan when I left the PC for the evening. Otherwise it would want to run scan and AV as soon as you woke the PC the next morning.


    *It's a resource hog.


    *The firewall is basic, and merely a re-wrap of windows firewall.


    *It costs $50 (!)  Even if it were $10, it still doesn't do the job of freeware(s) and has no value.


    *Did I mention that it's a resource hog?


    I used Norton System Works and McAfee Suite-Zirras many years ago, and they were ill acting resource hogs. For this reason, I was cautious about NIS 2008 - especially about their increased performance and low resource usage claims. But I DL'd their 15 day trial to give it a shot anyway.


    After about 2 hours of using it, I was sold and paid for the full version even though my LOC subscription was good until June 28th. Clean interface, completely integrated, very low resources and top end protection levels. Norton has certainly come a LONG way and this ap borrows many of the features that I did like about WLOC.


    Their ap rocks and does everything that WLOC is supposed to do - but better.


    As for backups...try Back4Win freeware. Backs up only what you want into a zip file and will put it on any media including external/internal HDD's, and has a tree recovery browser to extract all, some or just a single file from the backup.


    Back to the drawing board MS.

















    Saturday, April 5, 2008 3:08 PM

All replies

  • I moved you post out of the Off Topic folder where you had posted it.

    Thanks for your feedback. While I disagree with much of it, I do agree with some points.

    In any event, you're entitled to your opinion and thanks for trying OneCare and for posting.


    Monday, April 7, 2008 6:11 PM
  • Phiber-Optik,


    Thanks for pointing out that Microsoft's development of OneCare has had exactly the effect desired, along with providing a good basic anti-malware product for the masses, it's also caused the other anti-malware vendors to improve their own products immensly in order to compete. The fact that many of these improvements look like features of OneCare with enhancements is no random occurance, they created the model for others to follow.


    You don't fully understand the malware situation, since it's quite clear by the products you've chosen that you're concerned by detections like cookies and ads, which aren't themselves a threat as even other reputable anti-spyware product developers have stated. You also don't understand that most of the current AV testing is inaccurate at best and virtually pointless in some cases, since it's based on batches of outdated viruses that don't even exist in the wild at this point. It's gotten so bad that recently most of the AntiVirus companies and several of the popular AV testing groups have joined forces to attempt to improve the situation. See the following link for more.




    I understand that someone with the knowledge to find programs like that freeware backup product wouldn't have an interest in OneCare since it wasn't designed for you in the first place. It exists for the "set it and forget it" user with more basic needs like backup of their digital pictures and other common files. Anyone wanting to backup programs and other less common files is really a power user and was never included in the non-technical group of users that OneCare was designed for.


    So again Microsoft has succeded in their real goal, assuring that all users have good protection available to them no matter what their skill or knowledge level. As long as you are well protected and safe they have achieved what they intended, whether you understand this or not.



    Tuesday, April 8, 2008 6:24 AM
  • I also tried NIS2008 and 360 2.0.  Here is what I found.  My 10 meg sevice dropped to about 6.  I went to some *** sites where I knew were some viruses and Norton let me download and open the files.  Onecare at least caught them while being downloaded.  Norton didn't even find the virus when just scanning the zipped file by itself.  So good luck with Norton.


    Tuesday, April 8, 2008 12:11 PM

    While it is true that NAV/NIS/360 uses less RAM but in a trade-off it uses more services.  Granted that the '07-up versions are a lot better than past versions as well.  But WLOC still runs lighter on my machines.  One example is the "hang" in webpage opening using NIS.  I contributed this to the antiphishing filter NIS uses.


    Granted once again that Norton's AM/AS detection rates are higher.  But OC has improved tremedously over the past year and is getting better.  Jimmy Kuo of the MS Antimalware Engineering Team released an interesting blog not too long ago:





    [OCBear, this reminds me of the discussion we once had about testing methods]

    Tuesday, April 8, 2008 5:42 PM