f



MS .... this is a joke, right?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/

Norton Personal Firewall 2002 edition?????

I 'accidentally' found this page after the SP2 update inserted a link on 
my "Links" toolbar in IE6. 

I don't use IE these days, preferring Firefox, but was just 'cleaning 
up' after installing SP2 on my system when i noticed this.

Does Symantec even support 2002 on the firewall? They don't support NAV 
2002 anymore.
0
8/21/2004 10:42:44 AM
comp.security.misc 4155 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

20 Replies
265 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 32

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:42:44 +0100, Tx2 wrote:

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/
> 
> Norton Personal Firewall 2002 edition?????
> 
> I 'accidentally' found this page after the SP2 update inserted a link on 
> my "Links" toolbar in IE6. 
> 
> I don't use IE these days, preferring Firefox, but was just 'cleaning 
> up' after installing SP2 on my system when i noticed this.
> 
> Does Symantec even support 2002 on the firewall? They don't support NAV 
> 2002 anymore.

That was the version that was available when XP was released and the first
version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP ready as
well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two from the
vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to by a
current version instead of an older one. 
  
-- 
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
0
sharonfDEL (40)
8/21/2004 1:26:25 PM
In article <egG47I4hEHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, 
sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org, a.k.a Sharon F says...

 
> That was the version that was available when XP was released and the first
> version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP ready as
> well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two from the
> vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to by a
> current version instead of an older one.

I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is 
not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why on 
earth are MS *still* recommending it?

The stupidity of the situation is that MS will be 'forcing' users of SP2 
to that web site with the inclusion of the new link i described, and 
then the 'uninformed' will be requesting "a copy of Norton Personal 
Firewall 2002 please" from their local store.

After all, it is what MS suggest they do ...

If you actually click the "Featured Product" link to the NPF2002 page, 
you will find MS then mention "securing your PC with NPF2002" when they 
have recently been making so much noise about the one built into XP.

The new, uneducated, or misinformed user doesn't stand a chance of 
getting clue!

If they [MS] must have a web site recommending ware such as Norton or 
Jasc Paint Shop Pro, they could at least have the courtesy to keep it 
current.
0
8/21/2004 1:51:53 PM
MS don't support it. Norton paid to have it TESTED. It obviously still =
passes the testing. Complain to symantec.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.1b9163d42dddb7f2989aca@news.individual.net...
> In article <egG47I4hEHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,=20
> sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org, a.k.a Sharon F says...
>=20
> =20
> > That was the version that was available when XP was released and the =
first
> > version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP =
ready as
> > well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two =
from the
> > vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to =
by a
> > current version instead of an older one.
>=20
> I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is =

> not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why =
on=20
> earth are MS *still* recommending it?
>=20
> The stupidity of the situation is that MS will be 'forcing' users of =
SP2=20
> to that web site with the inclusion of the new link i described, and=20
> then the 'uninformed' will be requesting "a copy of Norton Personal=20
> Firewall 2002 please" from their local store.
>=20
> After all, it is what MS suggest they do ...
>=20
> If you actually click the "Featured Product" link to the NPF2002 page, =

> you will find MS then mention "securing your PC with NPF2002" when =
they=20
> have recently been making so much noise about the one built into XP.
>=20
> The new, uneducated, or misinformed user doesn't stand a chance of=20
> getting clue!
>=20
> If they [MS] must have a web site recommending ware such as Norton or=20
> Jasc Paint Shop Pro, they could at least have the courtesy to keep it=20
> current.
0
david6430 (65)
8/21/2004 3:04:08 PM
In article <#VA9hA5hEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, david@mvps.org, 
a.k.a David Candy says...

> MS don't support it. Norton paid to have it TESTED. 
> It obviously still passes the testing. Complain to symantec.

You miss the point *entirely*
0
8/21/2004 3:12:45 PM
No I don't, you do. Norton paid to have it there. They need to say they =
don't want it anymore.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.1b9176cb49e1ffc5989acd@news.individual.net...
> In article <#VA9hA5hEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, david@mvps.org,=20
> a.k.a David Candy says...
>=20
> > MS don't support it. Norton paid to have it TESTED.=20
> > It obviously still passes the testing. Complain to symantec.
>=20
> You miss the point *entirely*
0
david6430 (65)
8/21/2004 3:39:28 PM
Greetings --

    No, we get the point:  you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake, 
and couldn't wait to do a little bashing.  News flash:  Microsoft 
employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes.  Just like the 
rest of us.

Bruce Chambers
-- 
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on 
having both at once. - RAH


"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1b9176cb49e1ffc5989acd@news.individual.net...
>
> You miss the point *entirely* 


0
8/21/2004 3:43:48 PM
In article <O81jmW5hEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, 
bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com, a.k.a Bruce Chambers says...


> No, we get the point:  you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake, 
> and couldn't wait to do a little bashing.  News flash:  Microsoft 
> employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes.  Just like the 
> rest of us.


Firstly .... i don't do "bashing" ... that is for people who wish to 
waste time. 

My life revolves around supporting MS Products, and dealing the fallout 
from idiots who create havoc by writing viruses and malware.

I actually *like* and *enjoy* using a lot of MS products, so please, 
don't even suggest i would waste my time "bashing" such a monolithic 
organisation. To what end would it achieve?

Microsoft need to attend to a little more detail to maintaining 
*current* information, and not recommending 2 year old products via a 
link that has been placed on my machine by a *new* service pack.

And yes, we all make mistakes, i acknowledge that. So what do we do? 
Ignore them, or learn from them?
0
8/21/2004 3:56:41 PM
In article <#ciqRU5hEHA.2340@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, david@mvps.org, 
a.k.a David Candy says...

> No I don't, you do. Norton paid to have it there. 
> They need to say they don't want it anymore

Which isn't what you said in your first reply ...

Doesn't anyone at MS know how to compose an email, or pick up the phone 
and say to Symantec "excuse me but we are advertising a very old product 
of yours on our web site ...."

I never said MS support the product. I never mentioned anything about 
anyone paying to have it tested, or whether it passes tests to warrant 
being there.

Again, you missed the point entirely AFAIC ... 
0
8/21/2004 4:05:03 PM
That is why there are disclaimers.  From the bottom of the page:

      The product pictures and descriptions are provided by the =
manufacturers of the products. The Windows Catalog is provided for =
informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no representations and =
warranties, either expressed, implied, or statutory, regarding the =
products, manufacturers, compatibility of the products available within, =
or the Windows Catalog. Information within the Windows Catalog, =
including products listed and compatibility data, is subject to change =
without notice. This program testing in no way guarantees compatibility =
between data, systems, or software and in no way replaces the necessity =
of full testing of the products listed in the Windows Catalog. Actual =
end user compatibility may vary. The inclusion of a product or =
manufacturer does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the product or =
manufacturer.=20

    =20
      The links in this catalog will let you leave Microsoft's site. =
These sites are not under the control of Microsoft and Microsoft is not =
responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in =
a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Microsoft is not =
responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received =
from any linked site. Microsoft is providing these links to you only as =
a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement =
of Microsoft of the site or the products contained therein.=20


--=20
Just my 2=A2 worth,
          Jeff
__________in response to__________
"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.1b918113b5329d32989ad0@news.individual.net...
| In article <O81jmW5hEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,=20
| bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com, a.k.a Bruce Chambers says...
|=20
|=20
| > No, we get the point:  you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake,=20
| > and couldn't wait to do a little bashing.  News flash:  Microsoft=20
| > employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes.  Just like the=20
| > rest of us.
|=20
|=20
| Firstly .... i don't do "bashing" ... that is for people who wish to=20
| waste time.=20
|=20
| My life revolves around supporting MS Products, and dealing the =
fallout=20
| from idiots who create havoc by writing viruses and malware.
|=20
| I actually *like* and *enjoy* using a lot of MS products, so please,=20
| don't even suggest i would waste my time "bashing" such a monolithic=20
| organisation. To what end would it achieve?
|=20
| Microsoft need to attend to a little more detail to maintaining=20
| *current* information, and not recommending 2 year old products via a=20
| link that has been placed on my machine by a *new* service pack.
|=20
| And yes, we all make mistakes, i acknowledge that. So what do we do?=20
| Ignore them, or learn from them?
0
ISO
8/21/2004 6:00:32 PM
In article <MPG.1b9176cb49e1ffc5989acd@news.individual.net>, 
tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com says...
> In article <#VA9hA5hEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, david@mvps.org, 
> a.k.a David Candy says...
> 
> > MS don't support it. Norton paid to have it TESTED. 
> > It obviously still passes the testing. Complain to symantec.
> 
> You miss the point *entirely*

I think the point was that you don't understand the document.

People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, just 
because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the 
fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still use 
old version of Norton 200X on their machines.

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/21/2004 6:08:57 PM
In article <MPG.1b918305a662d763989ad1@news.individual.net>, 
tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com says...
> Doesn't anyone at MS know how to compose an email, or pick up the phone 
> and say to Symantec "excuse me but we are advertising a very old product 
> of yours on our web site ...."

Let see, a vendor asks a reseller or other to post a notice/link to a 
product on their site. They pay for the link, and may pay for a period 
of time. The reseller (or web host) is under no obligation to determine 
if the product is still available, still meaningful, etc...

Maybe you, a concerned reader, should contact Symantec and let them know 
that they (Symantec) forgot to end the notification on MS's web site for 
a product they no longer provide.

On the other hand, since it clearly shows that Norton is supported, it 
could be that future products are supported and it's a good (cheap) way 
to continue to market the product (at no additional cost). Look at all 
the free press it's getting in this group because of it :)

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/21/2004 6:15:27 PM
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:51:53 +0100, Tx2 wrote:

> I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is 
> not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why on 
> earth are MS *still* recommending it?

Think of the listing more as a "minimum version" (similar to a minimum
system requirement). There is no recommendation on those pages. The
"designed for XP Pro" is a qualification that has to be met on the vendor's
side of things. 

The blurb explaining the "designed for Windows (insert version here)"
insignia doesn't go into great depth but this kind of rating has been
around since at least Win95. "Old time" Windows users will recognize what's
going on with this page but (and I think this is what you're trying to say)
it could be confusing to new users. 
  
-- 
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
0
sharonfDEL (40)
8/21/2004 10:05:33 PM
� mrtee � wrote:
> That is why there are disclaimers.  From the bottom of the page:
>
>       The product pictures and descriptions are provided by the
> manufacturers of the products. The Windows Catalog is provided for
> informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no representations
> and warranties, either expressed, implied, or statutory, regarding
> the products, manufacturers, compatibility of the products available
> within, or the Windows Catalog. Information within the Windows
> Catalog, including products listed and compatibility data, is subject
> to change without notice. This program testing in no way guarantees
> compatibility between data, systems, or software and in no way
> replaces the necessity of full testing of the products listed in the
> Windows Catalog. Actual end user compatibility may vary. The
> inclusion of a product or manufacturer does not imply endorsement of
> Microsoft of the product or manufacturer.
>
>       The links in this catalog will let you leave Microsoft's site.
> These sites are not under the control of Microsoft and Microsoft is
> not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link
> contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites.
> Microsoft is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of
> transmission received from any linked site. Microsoft is providing
> these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any
> link does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the site or the
> products contained therein.

Hmm..
I would think that covers it pretty well.

-- 
<- Shenan ->
-- 
The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of
completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any
kind, express or implied.  In other words, read up before you take any
advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions.


0
8/21/2004 10:45:50 PM
In article <uwBlYC9hEHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, 
news_helper@hushmail.com, a.k.a Shenan Stanley says...

> Hmm..
> I would think that covers it pretty well.


So, as an MS arse sucking advertiser, you'd be happy to advertise 
something that is 2 years out of date?
0
8/21/2004 11:24:21 PM
In article <uAeAoi6hEHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, =?ISO-8859-15?B?
uyBtcnRlZSCr?= <hingelicker at new.rr.com>, a.k.a  says...

[snipped some top posting amateur bollocks]

> That is why there are disclaimers.  From the bottom of the page:

oh goodie, that excuses MS from a complete fuck up of a web site which 
recommends 2 year old software as a security solution ...

fucking comical that anyone with an ounce of sense would agree with it.

Are the majority of posters here of american nationality btw?
0
8/21/2004 11:27:43 PM
In article <MPG.1b91318bacffb3f9989728@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, 
void@nowhere.com, a.k.a Leythos says...


> I think the point was that you don't understand the document.

I have no problem understanding a recommendationn for an out of date 
product brought to my attention via an up-to-date SP install ...

> People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, just 
> because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the 
> fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still use 
> old version of Norton 200X on their machines.

It's no longer supported by Symantec, yet MS offer it as a link 
installed with the latest service pack .... 

Either MS, Symantec or you are stupid ... which is it?
0
8/21/2004 11:32:03 PM
In article <uscnHr8hEHA.1096@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, 
sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org, a.k.a Sharon F says...


> There is no recommendation on those pages.

Not in so many words...
0
8/21/2004 11:36:33 PM
Shenan Stanley says...
> Hmm..
> I would think that covers it pretty well.

Tx2 wrote:
> So, as an MS arse sucking advertiser, you'd be happy to advertise
> something that is 2 years out of date?

Is this what you are calling Symantec?
Because if they are interested in getting it changed, they surely would.
If Microsoft was interested in changing it, they surely would.

If you are interested in changing it so much, perhaps you should do
something about it other than complain on a public newsgroup where Microsoft
employees hardly ever respond in comparison to other users like yourself?

-- 
<- Shenan ->
-- 
The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of
completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any
kind, express or implied.  In other words, read up before you take any
advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions.


0
8/22/2004 12:26:32 AM
You get to the page from help on non SP-2 computers. So it's not new.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.1b91ebca63759cad989adc@news.individual.net...
> In article <MPG.1b91318bacffb3f9989728@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,=20
> void@nowhere.com, a.k.a Leythos says...
>=20
>=20
> > I think the point was that you don't understand the document.
>=20
> I have no problem understanding a recommendationn for an out of date=20
> product brought to my attention via an up-to-date SP install ...
>=20
> > People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, =
just=20
> > because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the =

> > fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still =
use=20
> > old version of Norton 200X on their machines.
>=20
> It's no longer supported by Symantec, yet MS offer it as a link=20
> installed with the latest service pack ....=20
>=20
> Either MS, Symantec or you are stupid ... which is it?
0
david6430 (65)
8/22/2004 3:05:28 AM
In article <MPG.1b91ebca63759cad989adc@news.individual.net>, 
tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1b91318bacffb3f9989728@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, 
> void@nowhere.com, a.k.a Leythos says...
> 
> 
> > I think the point was that you don't understand the document.
> 
> I have no problem understanding a recommendationn for an out of date 
> product brought to my attention via an up-to-date SP install ...
> 
> > People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, just 
> > because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the 
> > fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still use 
> > old version of Norton 200X on their machines.
> 
> It's no longer supported by Symantec, yet MS offer it as a link 
> installed with the latest service pack .... 
> 
> Either MS, Symantec or you are stupid ... which is it?

It's not me or MS, the product is still a viable product that can be 
installed on XP and not cause any problems. The fact that you can't 
directly purchase the product any longer means nothing. I have a box of 
Norton AV 2000,2001,2002,2004 sitting on the shelf right now. The fact 
that the 2002 product appears in the SP2 notice only means that it's a 
viable product for XP and SP2, it has nothing to do with it being 
available.

Once you understand this you won't have to act/look so childish and 
start insulting people, unless that was your intent all along.

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
0
void9321 (1523)
8/22/2004 12:56:47 PM
Reply: