<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Using Norton AV? Get this fix</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=458</link>
	<description>Helping PC users make sense of Microsoft software since 1991</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:54:09 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: michael horowitz</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=458&#038;cpage=1#comment-854</link>
		<dc:creator>michael horowitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=458#comment-854</guid>
		<description>Yes, Norton Anti-Virus is *not* capable of self-updating itself with bug fixes. This is true for all versions of NAV.

Reading the manual for NAV 2004 is an interesting lesson in doublespeak as they try to say this without saying it. For the details on this see the NAV 2004 gripes on computergripes.com. 

NAV has an option to tell the user that bug fixes need to be applied, but it may not always work and may be mis-understood. Then again, why should this be an option at all? I&#039;ve seen an XP machine where  NAV stopped running at boot time after applying some Windows bug fixes. Live update was running fine, NAV was up to date on virus definitions.  Manually running Live Update and applying the outstanding bug fixes to NAV fixed the problem. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Norton Anti-Virus is *not* capable of self-updating itself with bug fixes. This is true for all versions of NAV.</p>
<p>Reading the manual for NAV 2004 is an interesting lesson in doublespeak as they try to say this without saying it. For the details on this see the NAV 2004 gripes on computergripes.com. </p>
<p>NAV has an option to tell the user that bug fixes need to be applied, but it may not always work and may be mis-understood. Then again, why should this be an option at all? I&#8217;ve seen an XP machine where  NAV stopped running at boot time after applying some Windows bug fixes. Live update was running fine, NAV was up to date on virus definitions.  Manually running Live Update and applying the outstanding bug fixes to NAV fixed the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
