[MW Forums]

Some of Norton Confidential’s features work well, but others are less polished; in addition, the program’s manual is cursory at best, leading users to guess about what protection some features actually offer. more

[davebarnes]

What a waste of $50 USD.
This is correct "true way to prevent phishing attempts comes from educating Internet users; you should never click a link in an e-mail message that asks you to enter your credit card or password on a commercial Web site."

[bigpics]

Norton: still annoying after all these years.....

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
And what makes you think they'll ever change? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jmincey]

A 3.5 mice rating for what strikes me as a lukewarm review at best is quite surprising.

[donikatz]

yes, education is the only real answer. but there's help: Firefox 2 has built-in anti-phishing features ("powered by Google") and there's an available extension that utilizes phishtank.com. yes all FREE. in other words, this product seems to be a ridiculous waste of money.
a more useful review would have compared Norton Confidential and Firefox's own features, esp considering the reviewer specifically notes that Norton installs Firefox and sets it as the default. heck, it could even be that Norton's own filters do nothing and Firefox is doing the anti-phishing. i don't know because the reviewer didn't tell me; didn't even tell me which version of Firefox is installed.
Kirk, you do some great work (and thanks for that!), but tsk tsk on this one...

[kirkmc]

The 3.5 rating is because the program does what it claims, and does so fairly well. I don't, however, think that it is an essential program on its own, as i pointed out. It would make sense as features rolled into a broader Internet security program.
Kirk

[kirkmc]

No, the program is not using Firefox's built-in stuff. I didn't compare the two in my review, because Norton Confidential is doing much more. In addition to checking the way pages are constructed, it uses a URL database for certain sites to ensure that they are valid.
This said, in my tests, Norton Confidential did spot bogus sites in cases where Google (via Gmail) didn't. So while Firefox may be efficient, Norton Confidential does seem a tad better.
But, again, education...
Kirk

[MacGuyver]

Quote:

---

The 3.5 rating is because the program does what it claims, and does so fairly well.

---

I think "fairly well" describes a program that's a little more than the minimum from the highest rating. Based on that sentence alone, I'd give it no more than 3 mice. Add in the sparse manual, and the (in my opinion) rather hefty price tag for what it accomplishes, and I have a hard time beliving it worthy of more than 2 mice (maybe 2.5 mice, tops).
I think the rating should reflect the value of the program to its target audience - in this case, a Mac user with concerns about security. From your description of the program, it seems to be a mediocre value at best.
-- MacGuyver
"But then again, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong."

[toor]

Overrating is typical for a lot of reviews since the earliest days of these magazines.
How any app. that has features that don't work as advertised, and/or has an incomplete or confusing manual, can get more than a 2 ( or poor ) rating is a disservice to both the reader and the industry.
My $0.02 - and the review/reviewer gets a 1/2 mouse.

[macnuke]

my thoughts are if it's Norton.....
I hope the Un-Installer works.

Quote:

---

Some of Norton Confidentials features work well, but others are less polished; in addition, the programs manual is cursory at best, leading users to guess about what protection some features actually offer

---

and I have yet to figure out your mice rating scheme.
how the hell does a piece of software that the average mom n pop would buy, then even you state how crummy the docs are rate that? my dad is the kinda guy that would buy that stuff and then want to shoot the computer.
if the directions suck, and the intuitive level is as low as you state, it shouldn't get that kind of rating.

Macworld has overrated yet another Norton product.......
CANCEL or ALLOW /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[whitedog]

One can quibble over the rating a reviewer gives any product, but even if I didn't read the review I'd not be inclined to buy anything that gets less than four stars.
As for what this product says about Symantec, they seem to be struggling now as they always have to find the appropriate niche for their products. They have a tradition of rushing things to market before the bugs are worked out, shooting themselves in the foot in the process. That they haven't learned better in all these years is a sad testament to their corporate inertia. Even when their products are solid, one has a hard time trusting them because of Symantec's dubious track record.

[ilgaz]

Netbarrier X4/X5 from Intego not only protects private data the same way, it also features a complete software firewall along with threat detection even including IIS based attacks (could serve as early warning).
Its only problem was the price tag ($70) but Norton Confidential makes it look cheap :) They should thank Norton for that price, no kidding.