Like Roger, I'm a former NAV customer turned anti-NIS believer (evangelist doesn't seem quite the right word, but the relationship between Symantec and volume PC builders is in my opinion close to conspiracy to obtain money by deception, or maybe plain ordinary blackmail. Fortunately for them IANAL).

But was NIS really the source of a goodwill impairment on that scale? Where's the analysis?

1) what is a goodwill impairment for the financially challenged among us?

2) @Roger Heathcote; nice focus on the home market but I think 'experiences' of the corporate market with Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0 may not be entirely irrlevant (waits for screams of pain).

GNU/Linux, of course!

With the added benefit that my system runs faster than XP with an antivirus taking a % of the CPU every time I open a file.

I understand that Symentec is a computer company, and what the word "goodwill" means, but this appears to lose all meaning when the two are juxtaposed in a single article.

"Goodwill" doesn't mean what you think it means here.

I used to be a Norton customer, going back many years (off and on), and at one point I was actually quite happy with Norton - but not anymore. I'm not a Norton-hater, but I just don't use their products anymore.

Some of the blame for Norton's problems can no doubt be attributed to Microsoft for creating an OS that seemingly can't be adequately protected regardless of users' safe-computing habits (not running as admin, not visiting dodgy sites, not using IE, using Firefox w/NoScript, etc.). Thus causing a growing number of users to abandon Windows altogether, for some other OS for which Norton offers no AV apps. Maybe Norton should get into the Linux AV market ;) to recapture some of that lost revenue ;)

And/or blame the alleged "organized-crime" highly-motivated black-hats who are trying really hard to make money for themselves by compromising your PC (botnets, spam zombies, whatever).

Minor blame goes to Norton itself for irritating buggy products, although their current products are much better than some of their older stuff, IMO. (At least NIS 2009 didn't use 100% CPU, however I'm not sure NIS 2009 actually *protected* against very much, either, if the Norton forums are any indication.)

Bottom line: I just don't think ANY company, Norton or anyone else, is up to the task of defending modern computers. Or, at least, modern Windows. Not so sure I trust Linux (or modern Macs) very much either, with the possible exception of certain Live CD's that have been set up for better security, but even so...