I have a problem with Norton.

JamesSmith said:

Which one is your Antivirus? Defender or Malwarebytes?

View attachment 176792

Click to expand...

The advice is to turn on Defender, Malwarebytes still runs even though it's not "primary".

From the Malwarebytes support forums...

Can MWB's and Defender both run RTP together?​

gunrunnerjohn said:

The advice is to turn on Defender, Malwarebytes still runs even though it's not "primary".

From the Malwarebytes support forums...

Can MWB's and Defender both run ​

Click to expand...

Certainly no harm in having Windows Defender in full protection mode alongside Malwarebytes

Click to expand...

Please make the following change in Malwarebytes if you're using the Premium or Trial version

• Please open Malwarebytes. Click on the small gear icon to open the Settings and go to the Security tab.
• Then turn off "Always register Malwarebytes in the Windows Security Center"
• Restart the computer

Click to expand...

Thanks.

JamesSmith said:

I have a paid version of Malwarebytes and it's configured to run in Windows security centre. Which means windows defender is off.

Click to expand...

I've been running the 2 in tandem many years. Windows Defender and MWB Premium play real well together if you choose to option MWB to run alongside Defender. Toggle off this setting in MWB which should enable Defender. After a restart, if Defender doesn't automatically turn on, go into settings>privacy & security>windows security and manually turn it on.

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has taken the time to help me today.

I have uninstalled Norton 360 using Revo. I have set up windows defender as my Antivirus and firewall. I am running Malwarebytes along side windows Defender.

Goodbye Norton you useless garbage.

JamesSmith said:

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has taken the time to help me today.

I have uninstalled Norton 360 using Revo. I have set up windows defender as my Antivirus and firewall. I am running Malwarebytes along side windows Defender.

Goodbye Norton you useless garbage.

Click to expand...

I remember from the (very) early MS-DOS days when Peter Norton Computing made some really cool & useful software. I don't know if Peter Norton is still with us but if he is I have to wonder how he feels about his name being associated with bloated trashy software.

OldMainframeGuy said:

I remember from the (very) early MS-DOS days when Peter Norton Computing made some really cool & useful software. I don't know if Peter Norton is still with us but if he is I have to wonder how he feels about his name being associated with bloated trashy software.

Click to expand...

Yep, that thought has crossed my mind as well more than once. I used GHOST for years. :)

gunrunnerjohn said:

I used GHOST

Click to expand...

Peter Norton is always given credit for Ghost since his company made it mainstream but it was actually developed by Australian entrepreneur Murray Haszard in 1995. He sold it to Sysmantec in 1998.
Ghost paved the way for all that's come since..

Ghost was the first cloning application I used, since Windows XP days. I was working for a computer store and I remember a special cloning station where we connected IDE hard disks. We connected the source disk and at least four target disks so we could clone a Windows XP installation to many disks at the same time. All we had to do was connect one of the clones in a new computer and give it to the customer. At first boot he had to type the key from the sticker and activate Windows. All the drivers and some applications were pre-installed. Cloning the disk for all the computers of the same model would save us a lot of time since we didn't have to install Windows from scratch.

glasskuter said:

Peter Norton is always given credit for Ghost since his company made it mainstream but it was actually developed by Australian entrepreneur Murray Haszard in 1995. He sold it to Sysmantec in 1998.
Ghost paved the way for all that's come since..

Click to expand...

That's the situation for a lot of software. Microsoft claims credit for MS-DOS, but it was really developed by Seattle Computer Products as 86-DOS. 86-DOS was a clone of CP/M designed to run on the 8086 instead of the 8080. I'm sure the list goes on and on.

Apple sued Microsoft because Windows looked very similar to the first Macintosh OS. Microsoft promised next version will look different and made a success since Windows 3.0 in 1991. Even worse, Apple declared Mac as a "serious" computer for professionals and discouraged gaming. As a result Windows user base was growing and now most computers run a version of Windows followed by a much smaller number of Mac computers and very few running Linux. There were rumors that Microsoft turned a blind eye on Windows 95 illegal copies to increase their user base. And they succeeded. Everyone is familiar with some version of Windows and much fewer are familiar with Mac OS and Linux.

That isn't accurate at all. Almost all of the interface elements had been licensed to Microsoft, so those claims were dismissed. The handful that weren't licensed were deemed not copyrightable. A lot of Apple's work was licensed from Xerox, and only the original copyright holder can sue (not Apple). Microsoft promised nothing.

And in fact, Xerox sued Apple during the Appe-MS suit, and Xerox's claims were dismissed, mostly because it took too long to file. But if Apple had won, then Xerox could have successfully sued Apple for the same reasons Apple sued.

Well, I didn't remember all details, but here is what happened from Google AI:

No, Apple did not sue Microsoft over Windows 1.0. In fact, the two companies had signed a 1985 licensing agreement that permitted Microsoft to use certain visual display elements from the Macintosh Graphical User Interface (GUI) in Windows 1.x. [1, 2, 3]
The actual lawsuit began on March 17, 1988, targeting Windows 2.0. Apple argued that Windows 2.0—which introduced overlapping windows and improved icons—copied too much of the Mac's "look and feel" and exceeded the bounds of their original agreement. Ultimately, the courts ruled in Microsoft's favor, determining that most of the disputed GUI elements were covered by the 1985 license. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Also from Google AI:

While Microsoft actively fought global piracy, industry analysts and tech historians generally agree that Microsoft intentionally tolerated high rates of software piracy in developing regions, most notably in China. The company recognized that unchecked copying helped establish Windows as the de facto computing standard. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

So I wasn't entirely wrong. I had read about these, just didn't remember all the details.