I think Norton has always done a GOOD job at what it does, and my problems with Norton - along with many others - has nothing to do with how well it cleans and protects a system.
I haven't used it in 3 or 4 years myself because it did use to be pretty overwhelming on a system. And many users disliked how very nearly impossible it was to actually remove it from the system. Again, this has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the product but rather the management of computer resources.
I personally found that other software out there suited my needs just as well. I currently run Microsoft Security Essentials becuase it is free, effective, and does not eat my system resources alive. I would recommend it to anybody, but I would not suggest that it is as COMPREHENSIVE as Norton (because it is not, but for many users like myself, the most comprehensive tool is not what is needed...this is why so many different tools exist).
If I were having trouble with MS Security Essentials I'd look elsewhere, but I'm fine for now. I have had to manually correct it from time to time, but I've not "blamed" the software for doing it's job, nor blamed other programs for acting in a way that my anti-virus thinks is suspect. I just fix it and move on.
Norton has a bad reputation for a reason, it's well documented on the web and not just imaginary (and to some degree, the same can be said for McAfee). The things that left a bad taste in people's mouths 4 years ago may have been resolved but like me, many people may have found other solutions that work very well for them and give no reason to go back to Norton at the present time.
You say Norton works well for you and that is fine, but on the original topic of this thread, don't expect it to be perfect, and understand that it may make a mistake once in a while that requires you to intervene.
I haven't used it in 3 or 4 years myself because it did use to be pretty overwhelming on a system
Norton used to be a hog. But it rebuilt it's engine from the ground up a few years ago. I reccomend MSSE for consumers, but not businesses, we research AV's annually, and Norton (plain ole AV) has been the best performer for the price for 3 years.
The original topic of the thread was an issue happening today. I am countering what other people have brought into the conversation, runner up advice formed against something that is no longer the currency.
#1 Nothing wrong with Norton. (believe me, 5 years ago I wouldn't believe you if you said I'd be defending Norton).
#2 Windows does not need a reinstall.
Solid software works under combat conditions. If you find yourself repurposing your system in hopes of making a new program work, you're likely to make everything else work as poorly as the new program. Norton's been around since the 80's. CS6 is two weeks old.
Europe, Middle East and Africa