I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
telling me "all required products were not submitted".
What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
Symantec is CORRECT!
The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
Xeno
All companies are very picky about rebates, READ CAREFULLY! I recently
bought the downloadable version of System Works, mailed in the rebate form
and had my $25 in hand within two months. I'm still waiting for my rebates
on some memory and a graphics card that I purchased about the same time, so
actually, Symantec probably does a better job at coming through compared to
other companies!
Leythos wrote:
> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the
>> instructions and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC
>> code.
>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>> Xeno
>
> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read
> something and blaming the vendor :)
Yeah - I was just thinking the same thing.
--
Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. ~Doctor Who~
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> said in
news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the
>> instructions and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC
>> code. Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>> Xeno
>
> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read
> something and blaming the vendor :)
>
Norton sucks any way. They make shit that is sometimes worse than the
things that it is suppose to resolve.
"Xeno Chauvin" <arfulbrank@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
> Symantec is CORRECT!
> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
> Xeno
>
>
Hello X, Perhaps you could use some reading lessons...!
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>> Xeno
>
> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read something
> and blaming the vendor :)
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
My opinion: it's 30% Norton (I mean they DID put in on the box when it
shouldn't have been there in the first place being that it WAS for a
different product) and 70% the user (READ THE THING!) ^_^
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:20:05 -0400, Sir Gis A Bun III
<gis_a_bun@hot_mail_no_spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:23:42 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>In article <oFdFg.5305$Sn3.2566@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>>mint@jelly.net says...
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>>> > In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>> > arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>>> >> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>> >> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>> >> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>> >> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>>> >> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>>> >> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>> >> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>> >> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>> >> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>> >> Symantec is CORRECT!
>>> >> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>> >> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>> >> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>> >> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>> >> Xeno
>>> >
>>> > That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read something
>>> > and blaming the vendor :)
>>> >
>>>
>>> My opinion: it's 30% Norton (I mean they DID put in on the box when it
>>> shouldn't have been there in the first place being that it WAS for a
>>> different product) and 70% the user (READ THE THING!) ^_^
>>
>>Anyone that can't read should not be purchasing anything :)
>
>Agree. Do you see a rebate and buy it BEFORE actually seeing what the
>rebate requires? Or do you [at the store] check out the rebate first
>before buying?
>
>Can't blame Symantec on this.
>
We'd have to see the box to know one way or the other.
Since it was a sticker, the full terms of the rebate may not
have been available at the time of purchase. You're not
supposed to be pulling stickers off of products on retail
shelves, rather buying product before doing so- and once you
have bought product and *defaced* the packaging, it's quite
possible the store will not accept return- nor will many
once the packaging itself has been opened.
So, it is possible the sticker on the outside was not clear
about what this rebate applied to. It is possible that only
after undue burden would the purchaser receive money back by
returning product (if possible at all, some store managers
will simply deny you, leaving a long battle hardly worth the
time).
However, none of this accounts for the purchaser failing to
read the terms of the rebate AFTER it was taken from box and
being filled out for submission. At that point it was the
OP's fault but depending on what came before this point it
could be partially (or wholly) Symantec's fault for
misadvertising on the product.
>
> We'd have to see the box to know one way or the other.
>
> Since it was a sticker, the full terms of the rebate may not
> have been available at the time of purchase. You're not
> supposed to be pulling stickers off of products on retail
> shelves, rather buying product before doing so- and once you
> have bought product and *defaced* the packaging, it's quite
> possible the store will not accept return- nor will many
> once the packaging itself has been opened.
>
> So, it is possible the sticker on the outside was not clear
> about what this rebate applied to. It is possible that only
> after undue burden would the purchaser receive money back by
> returning product (if possible at all, some store managers
> will simply deny you, leaving a long battle hardly worth the
> time).
>
> However, none of this accounts for the purchaser failing to
> read the terms of the rebate AFTER it was taken from box and
> being filled out for submission. At that point it was the
> OP's fault but depending on what came before this point it
> could be partially (or wholly) Symantec's fault for
> misadvertising on the product.
My thinking as well, you just explained it much better ^_^, thats why I say
30% Symantec and 70% user
"Periwinkle" <mint@jelly.net> wrote in message
news:vNrFg.5541$Sn3.2535@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> >
>> We'd have to see the box to know one way or the other.
>>
>> Since it was a sticker, the full terms of the rebate may not
>> have been available at the time of purchase. You're not
>> supposed to be pulling stickers off of products on retail
>> shelves, rather buying product before doing so- and once you
>> have bought product and *defaced* the packaging, it's quite
>> possible the store will not accept return- nor will many
>> once the packaging itself has been opened.
>>
>> So, it is possible the sticker on the outside was not clear
>> about what this rebate applied to. It is possible that only
>> after undue burden would the purchaser receive money back by
>> returning product (if possible at all, some store managers
>> will simply deny you, leaving a long battle hardly worth the
>> time).
>>
>> However, none of this accounts for the purchaser failing to
>> read the terms of the rebate AFTER it was taken from box and
>> being filled out for submission. At that point it was the
>> OP's fault but depending on what came before this point it
>> could be partially (or wholly) Symantec's fault for
>> misadvertising on the product.
>
> My thinking as well, you just explained it much better ^_^, thats why I
> say 30% Symantec and 70% user
If the purchaser purchased the product because of the rebate sticker and
would not have purchased it otherwise and took it home and carefully read
the rebate information, he would not have sent in for the rebate. Would he,
or you, be any less angry with Symantec? I wouldn't.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:12:56 GMT, "Xeno Chauvin"
<arfulbrank@houston.rr.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>Symantec is CORRECT!
>The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>Xeno
To answer the question in the subject line, yes it *is* deceptive
advertising. But then the question remains, who put the rebate sticker
on the box, Symantec or your retailer?
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
"PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote in message
news:jbsFg.35524$so3.5152@southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Periwinkle" <mint@jelly.net> wrote in message
> news:vNrFg.5541$Sn3.2535@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >
>>> We'd have to see the box to know one way or the other.
>>>
>>> Since it was a sticker, the full terms of the rebate may not
>>> have been available at the time of purchase. You're not
>>> supposed to be pulling stickers off of products on retail
>>> shelves, rather buying product before doing so- and once you
>>> have bought product and *defaced* the packaging, it's quite
>>> possible the store will not accept return- nor will many
>>> once the packaging itself has been opened.
>>>
>>> So, it is possible the sticker on the outside was not clear
>>> about what this rebate applied to. It is possible that only
>>> after undue burden would the purchaser receive money back by
>>> returning product (if possible at all, some store managers
>>> will simply deny you, leaving a long battle hardly worth the
>>> time).
>>>
>>> However, none of this accounts for the purchaser failing to
>>> read the terms of the rebate AFTER it was taken from box and
>>> being filled out for submission. At that point it was the
>>> OP's fault but depending on what came before this point it
>>> could be partially (or wholly) Symantec's fault for
>>> misadvertising on the product.
>>
>> My thinking as well, you just explained it much better ^_^, thats why I
>> say 30% Symantec and 70% user
> If the purchaser purchased the product because of the rebate sticker and
> would not have purchased it otherwise and took it home and carefully read
> the rebate information, he would not have sent in for the rebate. Would
> he, or you, be any less angry with Symantec? I wouldn't.
I'm not sure what your saying, call me dense ^_^, but if I read you correct,
then yes I would be angry with Symantec and or the retailer, but I would
have understood what the rebate is for BEFORE sending it in and then I would
NOT have sent it in. However, I would be angry with Symantec, or the
retailer, for the deceptive advertising. Having said that, if the original
poster is angry because Symantec will not give him his rebate, when the
rebate he has BLAH Blah Blah.......this is getting like programming in
assembly language spagettii *ROFLMOL*
I dunno...me...no like when big bad companies take money from Grom. Grom
smash companies and go BAM BAM with big club.
Whatever, its not ALL one persons fault and its not ALL Symantecs fault its
everyones fault...you, me and a dog named Boo. Like the Metallica Album says
"KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!"
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:27:09 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:
>In article <vp8ce29tmpokcar1qgm0el19htm7qhd8es@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> We'd have to see the box to know one way or the other.
>
>I've seen them on many boxes over the years, and I've never counted on
>something that I could not read the details of. In all cases, the
>sticker includes enough information to determine what the rebate is for,
>but you might have to have passed 3rd grade to read it.
Seems a bit arbitrary to conclude that, since the OP's post
displays at least 3rd grade level.
It might really be plainly stated on that sticker, but how
about the first time it ISN'T plainly stated? Seems like
that will catch a few people off guard.
We haven't even scratched the surface of the larger issue
yet, which is: WTF was the OP thinking, paying MONEY for
Norton AV? I'd pay to NOT have that installed on a system
if it came down to it.
Leythos wrote:
> In article <oFdFg.5305$Sn3.2566@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
> mint@jelly.net says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>>> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>>>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the
>>>> instructions and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original
>>>> UPC code.
>>>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>>>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>>> Xeno
>>>
>>> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read
>>> something and blaming the vendor :)
>>>
>>
>> My opinion: it's 30% Norton (I mean they DID put in on the box when
>> it shouldn't have been there in the first place being that it WAS
>> for a different product) and 70% the user (READ THE THING!) ^_^
>
> Anyone that can't read should not be purchasing anything :)
How's that go: Those who don't read are no better off than those who can't.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:20:54 -0400, Sir Gis A Bun III
<gis_a_bun@hot_mail_no_spam.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:56:32 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:12:56 GMT, "Xeno Chauvin"
>><arfulbrank@houston.rr.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>>Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>>back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>>I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>>>and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>>>Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>>telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>>What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>>So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>>Symantec is CORRECT!
>>>The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>>THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>>SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>>ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>>Xeno
>>
>>To answer the question in the subject line, yes it *is* deceptive
>>advertising. But then the question remains, who put the rebate sticker
>>on the box, Symantec or your retailer?
>
>Errr. Most of the time (if not always) the manufacturer - unless it
>was requested after the shipment.
Not always. My local DSE store receives wads of stickers from Symantec
which the staff then affix to the product. It makes sense to do it
this way because old stock can be upgraded during the promotion
period.
>From the Symantec products with rebates I've seen, they are
>(generally) quite visible when it comes to what needs to qualify (i.e.
>"$30 Upgrade Rebate").
My reading of the original post was that the rebate sticker had been
incorrectly affixed to a non-qualifying product. In retrospect,
although it would be unusual, it could be that the rebate was offered
only to those purchasers of NAV who had already bought other Symantec
products. Still, in this case, one would expect that this proviso
would be clearly visible without having to drill down through the fine
print.
>When in doubt, ask the lonely sales guy in the store.
I'd like to see the original rebate sticker.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
This is typical Symantec operations to screw a CUSTOMER out of the promised
rebate. They've been doing stuff like this ever since Norton sold the stuff
to them. He was the only winner.
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>> Xeno
>
> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read something
> and blaming the vendor :)
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
You didn't read the email. The rebate was on the box bought but didn't apply
to that purchase but another different package.
Symatec has been doing this kind of stuff for a long time.
"Steve Bosell" <yar@NOTnehalemtel.net> wrote in message
news:7PSdnSjq89OhhXjZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@neonova.net...
> All companies are very picky about rebates, READ CAREFULLY! I recently
> bought the downloadable version of System Works, mailed in the rebate form
> and had my $25 in hand within two months. I'm still waiting for my
> rebates on some memory and a graphics card that I purchased about the same
> time, so actually, Symantec probably does a better job at coming through
> compared to other companies!
>
I had Norton System Works and when the subscription ran out, it
stopped working completely. I don't mean no more updates, I mean I
couldn't run NDD NSD or the antivirus software. And forget removing
it. I tried to remove it and then install just a new version of
Norton's AV and it said that it couldn't do that because an older
version of Norton was on my system and I needed to remove it. Well,
my attempts to remove it finally led to a HD crash and HD Reformat.
I use to swear by Norton, now I swear at them. I am sure my account
is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
T
D
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:07:14 GMT, "Bullwinkle" <moose@verizon.net>
wrote:
>This is typical Symantec operations to screw a CUSTOMER out of the promised
>rebate. They've been doing stuff like this ever since Norton sold the stuff
>to them. He was the only winner.
>
>
>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com ...
>> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>>> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>> Xeno
>>
>> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read something
>> and blaming the vendor :)
>>
>> --
>>
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:11:10 -0400, Tom Douglous
><Tom_Douglous@indaslammer.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>...now I swear at them. I am sure my account
>>is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
>
>That account is typical. Norton wares = more trouble than
>they're worth.
Who was it once said that "Norton no longer has customers, only
victims..."?
___ _
/ __\ _ _ _ __ | |_
/ / | | | || '_ \ | __|
/ /___ | |_| || | | || |_
\____/ \__,_||_| |_| \__|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:llvqf2l8ps7k4pfcgecoa0531gjr7ij5cm@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:11:10 -0400, Tom Douglous
> <Tom_Douglous@indaslammer.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>...now I swear at them. I am sure my account
>>is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
>
> That account is typical. Norton wares = more trouble than
> they're worth.
Very true. Symantec used to have a utility on it's web site hidden away
somewhere that would uninstall the registry entries left after uninstalling
their products. It was called "symclean". I think I have a copy of it from a
few years ago if anyone wants to give it a shot. If you can't find it on the
Symantec site, just drop me an email and I will send it to you (60-70kb zip
file).
"Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.com> wrote in message
news:3izLg.15944$1f6.4884@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:llvqf2l8ps7k4pfcgecoa0531gjr7ij5cm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:11:10 -0400, Tom Douglous
>> <Tom_Douglous@indaslammer.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>...now I swear at them. I am sure my account
>>>is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
>>
>> That account is typical. Norton wares = more trouble than
>> they're worth.
>
> Very true. Symantec used to have a utility on it's web site hidden away
> somewhere that would uninstall the registry entries left after uninstalling
> their products. It was called "symclean". I think I have a copy of it from a
> few years ago if anyone wants to give it a shot. If you can't find it on the
> Symantec site, just drop me an email and I will send it to you (60-70kb zip
> file).
>
> Ed
>
>Very true. Symantec used to have a utility on it's web site hidden away
>somewhere that would uninstall the registry entries left after uninstalling
>their products. It was called "symclean". I think I have a copy of it from a
>few years ago if anyone wants to give it a shot. If you can't find it on the
>Symantec site, just drop me an email and I will send it to you (60-70kb zip
>file).
There's a fancier one too, the Norton Removal Tool,
which they seem to incrementally update without changing the
filename, which isn't all that great a strategy, but it IS
Symantec we're talking about, so,
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:12:12 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:37:19 GMT, "Ed Medlin"
><ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Very true. Symantec used to have a utility on it's web site hidden away
>>somewhere that would uninstall the registry entries left after uninstalling
>>their products. It was called "symclean". I think I have a copy of it from a
>>few years ago if anyone wants to give it a shot. If you can't find it on the
>>Symantec site, just drop me an email and I will send it to you (60-70kb zip
>>file).
>
>
>There's a fancier one too, the Norton Removal Tool,
>which they seem to incrementally update without changing the
>filename, which isn't all that great a strategy, but it IS
>Symantec we're talking about, so,
>
>ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/englis...gen/SymNRT.exe
>
>Oddly, the newer version's benefit seems to be uninstalling
>older versions of their sofware, from 2003 also.
Howdy,
There are, in fact, a total of three "removal tools."
And I can tell you from sad experience that even after
running all three I still had a Windows XP box tell me that
I was running "Norton Internet Worm Protection" (a product
that I have never actually installed.
The problem was that if I tried to run the XP firewall, I
got an error telling me that I could not launch it because I
was already running another firewall.
A few days ago I purchased a new Dell desktop system. When I
placed the order I explained that I could make the purchase
only if I could be assured that the system had no Symantec
product on it...
I thought I was the only one.
I've used Norton stuff since Norton Commander (Though I switched to
Window Commander then Total Commander.)
I really never heard of anyone having problems.
I've tried the removal tools and even tried manually removing all
references to Norton and Symantec in the windows registry.
But, Norton is like a virus and still there.
How did the program get so twisted? $$ I guess.
But what should I use now to do a disk defrag or for virus protection?
Mr. P Norton, say it ain't so, say it ain't so.
Well no more Norton stuff on my computer or any computers that I have
to support.
RC
I hope I don't get into trouble for being Anti-Symantec, and end up
like Mel G! Sorry was that Politically Incorrect? No offense
intended, but couldn't resist the play on words.
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:11:10 -0400, Tom Douglous
<Tom_Douglous@indaslammer.com> wrote:
>I had Norton System Works and when the subscription ran out, it
>stopped working completely. I don't mean no more updates, I mean I
>couldn't run NDD NSD or the antivirus software. And forget removing
>it. I tried to remove it and then install just a new version of
>Norton's AV and it said that it couldn't do that because an older
>version of Norton was on my system and I needed to remove it. Well,
>my attempts to remove it finally led to a HD crash and HD Reformat.
>I use to swear by Norton, now I swear at them. I am sure my account
>is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
>T
> D
>
>
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:07:14 GMT, "Bullwinkle" <moose@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>This is typical Symantec operations to screw a CUSTOMER out of the promised
>>rebate. They've been doing stuff like this ever since Norton sold the stuff
>>to them. He was the only winner.
>>
>>
>>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.co m...
>>> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>>>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the instructions
>>>> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>>>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>>>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>>> Xeno
>>>
>>> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read something
>>> and blaming the vendor :)
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
> I hope I don't get into trouble for being Anti-Symantec, and end up
> like Mel G! Sorry was that Politically Incorrect? No offense
> intended, but couldn't resist the play on words.
Better watch it, you're not allowed to joke about
anti-Symantecism, unless you are Symantec yourself. If you do,
they will come and monitor your Internet surfing habits.
Peter Norton sold the company to Symantec years ago and has no connection
with it at all.
Symantec has some interesting policies:
They buy up competitors in order to put them out of business. They have a
long history of this.
The main removal tool you have to use is windows explorer and manually
remove any traces of Symantec files. Then a good registry cleaner. Then
defrag the HDD. Then reboot. A long and big operation. Symantec doesn't
make it easier to say goodbye.
At one time the Norton tools were the best on the market now they are the
worst.
It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I still run is
Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition Magic one of
their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they come out with a
competitive product and sink that great program also.
Good luck and regards,
"Ronn Cliborn" <Ronn_Cliborn@Ibeatmykitcar.com> wrote in message
news:i404h2lqogu4v59ku3rqti343lvlp0eok7@4ax.com...
>I thought I was the only one.
> I've used Norton stuff since Norton Commander (Though I switched to
> Window Commander then Total Commander.)
> I really never heard of anyone having problems.
> I've tried the removal tools and even tried manually removing all
> references to Norton and Symantec in the windows registry.
> But, Norton is like a virus and still there.
> How did the program get so twisted? $$ I guess.
>
> But what should I use now to do a disk defrag or for virus protection?
>
> Mr. P Norton, say it ain't so, say it ain't so.
>
> Well no more Norton stuff on my computer or any computers that I have
> to support.
> RC
>
>
> I hope I don't get into trouble for being Anti-Symantec, and end up
> like Mel G! Sorry was that Politically Incorrect? No offense
> intended, but couldn't resist the play on words.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:11:10 -0400, Tom Douglous
> <Tom_Douglous@indaslammer.com> wrote:
>
>>I had Norton System Works and when the subscription ran out, it
>>stopped working completely. I don't mean no more updates, I mean I
>>couldn't run NDD NSD or the antivirus software. And forget removing
>>it. I tried to remove it and then install just a new version of
>>Norton's AV and it said that it couldn't do that because an older
>>version of Norton was on my system and I needed to remove it. Well,
>>my attempts to remove it finally led to a HD crash and HD Reformat.
>>I use to swear by Norton, now I swear at them. I am sure my account
>>is not typical, but I'll not buy another Norton product again.
>>T
>> D
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:07:14 GMT, "Bullwinkle" <moose@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>This is typical Symantec operations to screw a CUSTOMER out of the
>>>promised
>>>rebate. They've been doing stuff like this ever since Norton sold the
>>>stuff
>>>to them. He was the only winner.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>news:Tw8Fg.77071$Eh1.58216@tornado.ohiordc.rr.c om...
>>>> In article <su8Fg.12299$ph.3036@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>>> arfulbrank@houston.rr.com says...
>>>>> I bought a Norton Anti-Virus in early July.
>>>>> Affixed to the box was a sticker telling me I could get
>>>>> back $20 USD and A CLAIM FORM.
>>>>> I dutifully completed all necessary forms submitted, PER the
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> and enclosed a copy of the receipt,and the original UPC code.
>>>>> Today, about 6 weeks after I submitted it I get a card
>>>>> telling me "all required products were not submitted".
>>>>> What the hell does that mean? Oh, "products"?
>>>>> So I read the "form" again and LOW and BEHOLD
>>>>> Symantec is CORRECT!
>>>>> The rebate isn't on Norton Anti-Virus THOUGH IT WAS AFFIXED TO
>>>>> THE BOX, BUT FOR OTHER Norton PRODUCTS.
>>>>> SO NORTON YOU FUCKED ME OUT OF $20.00 but YOU'LL NEVER GET
>>>>> ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.
>>>>> Xeno
>>>>
>>>> That's kind of funny - your posting about your failure to read
>>>> something
>>>> and blaming the vendor :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:22:06 GMT, "Bullwinkle" <moose@verizon.net>
wrote:
>It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I still run is
>Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition Magic one of
>their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they come out with a
>competitive product and sink that great program also.
I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do that,
and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've been
hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:03:28 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
>will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
>including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do that,
>and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
>But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've been
>hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
I've never used Ghost, but Acronis True Image will do that and I have
used that to restore my entire system. I store my backup images on an
external USB hard drive. True Image lets you create a bootable CD that
contains all the necessary drivers to access the USB drive. Restoring
is as simple as booting from the CD, picking the image file from the
USB drive and clicking a few buttons. True Image also lets you mount
an image as another drive letter and then you can explore the image
using Windows Explorer. It behaves just like a normal drive, except
with my version, I can't write new files to the backup image. This is
not a problem as I create a backup every 3 days and main backups for
several months.
Using Ghost 9 here for some time with no difficulties. I run a scheduled
image backup (through Ghost) weekly. My test re-imagings have been 100%
Yes it backs up all the contents of the HD which ofcourse includes the
operating system and very literally everything on the drive.
Charlie
"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:o628h2hub7d5p6fn08erottbn7svt7oqnh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:22:06 GMT, "Bullwinkle" <moose@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It took me a long time to get rid of them. The only programs I still run
>>is
>>Ghost and I'm beginning to like Acronis better and Partition Magic one of
>>their most recent buys and I will not upgrade when they come out with a
>>competitive product and sink that great program also.
>
> I was just composing a post to ask about Ghost. I want something that
> will allow me to do a backup (and restore!) of the entire hard disk
> including Windows. I understand that most backup programs can't do that,
> and a couple of people, including a sysadmin, have pointed me at Ghost.
> But having also been less than impressed by Symantec, I've been
> hesitating. Does Ghost behave itself?
>
> --
> Stephen Poley
>
Symantec deceptive advertising???? 
Linear Mode
