Symantec software removal issues

Message

jamess · #1 Post by **jamess** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:10 pm

I've got X60s with preloaded software. I've been successful uninstalling most of the crap soft.that comes along, now i am stuck with an issue of Symantec.

I have browsed and read many threads on the topic of antivirus software etc., but have not come to a satisfying conclusion...

What I'd prefer is short load time which now takes far too long in my opinion and i also don't like the Symantec Anti Virus' many additional processes running - my X60s has 78 when restared.
I primarily use this laptop for occasional web browsing, constantly for email, other than that mainly word, excel and stuff. no eMule, torrents or any other higher possibility-virus-threat programs.

Are there any known issues with Symantec Anti Virus removal? Will I be ok simply using Windows Add/Remove programs and kill pretty much everything that has Symantec label?

Thanks a lot

Orevin · #2 Post by **Orevin** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:39 pm

Many users have problems uninstalling Norton AV and other Symantec software. Symantec provides information on their website, how to remove it manually.

#3 Post by **carbon_unit** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:45 pm

Look here: http://tinyurl.com/4kave

jamess · #4 Post by **jamess** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:47 pm

Thanks for the link. will browse the website... and try figuring which "one-complete-simple-and-fast-to-load" antivirus i should install later on.

cheers

#5 Post by **carbon_unit** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:33 pm

I prefer AVG. http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1 for the free one.
Or http://www.grisoft.com/doc/1 if you want to pay.
The pay one is better but the free one is still good.

#6 Post by **Kyocera** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:47 pm

Beware of trying to uninstall using the registry, it takes forever and is a royal pain. Done it.

#7 Post by **carbon_unit** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:46 pm

Before doing a manual uninstall, google for "symnrt" The SYMantec Norton Removal Tool. My link above points to a Symantec automatic removal site.

#8 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:34 pm

The symantec removal tool works quite well and (in my opinion) better than manually through the registry.

On another front: The NUMBER of processes has squat to do with anything. If you don't want Symantec, fine. But reducing processes is a worthless activity that gains nothing. I have 80-odd processes running all the time. NONE of them are crap. NONE of them absorb the PC. ALL of them do something I want. My CPU idles along a zero when I am not using the machine. This is one great myth in this forum that processes are a problem and are crap because they are there. Pure ignorance.
... JD Hurst

tghlk · #9 Post by **tghlk** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:16 pm

jdhurst wrote:The symantec removal tool works quite well and (in my opinion) better than manually through the registry.

On another front: The NUMBER of processes has squat to do with anything. If you don't want Symantec, fine. But reducing processes is a worthless activity that gains nothing. I have 80-odd processes running all the time. NONE of them are crap. NONE of them absorb the PC. ALL of them do something I want. My CPU idles along a zero when I am not using the machine. This is one great myth in this forum that processes are a problem and are crap because they are there. Pure ignorance.
... JD Hurst

I have to disagree. Multitasking means that each process gets a time slice. More processes means more time slicing goes on. In a memory constrained system, reducing processes certainly helps.

#10 Post by **jdhurst** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:09 am

tghlk wrote:<snip>
I have to disagree. Multitasking means that each process gets a time slice. More processes means more time slicing goes on. In a memory constrained system, reducing processes certainly helps.

Since most processes (at any one time, or at idle) are "standing by", the sum of all that time slicing still doesn't show up as much as 1 percent of CPU. Processes do use memory, but memory is cheap.
... JD Hurst

ramian · #11 Post by **ramian** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:08 am

If memory is a problem (i.e. only 256Mb RAM) then you might have a genuine cause to reduce the number of processes running. I had this process-reduction-fever way back when my laptop only had 512Mb RAM as every Mb was precious. Now, with users commonly having upwards of 1Gb of RAM, the issue of running processes is a moot point.

leoblob · #12 Post by **leoblob** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:39 am

I wonder if this interest in reducing the number of running processes is somehow a carry-over idea from the WIN9x days? I ran WIN9x for many years (too many

) and it did seem like more running processes had an adverse effect on how the machine ran... ??

#13 Post by **jdhurst** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:32 pm

512 Mb will run XP, all the processes you want, and reasonably all the applications you want with memory left over. Been there, done that.

768 Mb will run XP, all the processes you want, a number of applications, *and* a complete simultaneous machine like Linux. If you accept some modest paging, it will run a third such machine (three in total).

Fussing with processes is a waste of time 90 percent of the time or more. And that eliminating processes is nirvana is largely a myth.

My comments come from experience. They are in no way theoretical. ... JD Hurst

Rahula · #14 Post by **Rahula** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:20 am

I've always got the impression that the more RAM the better, as it reduces the need to access the HDD, thereby speeding up the processing, reducing battery usage, and minimize HDD heat. So, Mr. Hurst's comments got me curious as it seems that these things I understood about the computer may be myths, and I hope to learn more from his comments.

Example: I noticed in past thinkpad forum postings that everytime a new Thinkpad model comes out there was a lot of buzz, with many users maxing out their RAMs and claiming amazing speed performance from their systems. Many claimed that with more RAM, they could also run more applications simultaneously without suffering speed loss.

From Mr. Hurst's comments, it seems that 512MB RAM (which is the minimum RAM supplied in many present day new Thinkpads) would be sufficient. So, maybe it is not necessary to max out the ram to, say, 1GB or 2GB after all? What are your experiences like? Anyone?

#15 Post by **jdhurst** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:44 am

To add further to this, I ran my IBM Desktop for about a year and half with the paging file set to 256Mb low and 512Mb high. It has 768Mb of ram. In that year and a half, the paging file never grew larger than 256Mb, even though I often run two machines simultaneously via VMware. An extra machine is the biggest memory hog you will likely ever find because you actually assign a fixed amount of memory that gets used.

So, FreeMem Pro tells me I always have spare free ram working with only one machine, and experience tells me that for my use (Office, Email, Internet plus an additional simultaneous machine) does not impinge on the paging file (but does use up most of the 768Mb).

What 1 or 2 Gb would do is provide for even more simultaneous machines, but I have never bothered (laziness on my part).
... JD Hurst

#16 Post by **carbon_unit** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:54 am

Since everyone uses their computer differently, in some cases more memory helps some users. If 512mb was all you ever needed there would not be any way to add additional memory to your computer.
It's a matter of personal preference. If you like more memory then get some, If you think you have enough then don't get some.
One thing is for sure: Once you run out of free memory and start swapping heavily to the hard drive your performance goes way down.

Symantec software removal issues

Symantec software removal issues

Need to max out RAM ?

Who is online