The bug I noted at http://www.bugnet.com/alerts/bugalert_010110.html continued to this day.
There are others as well, but that bug had nothing to do with minimal configurations and cost people dearly as they dragged the now sick machine to the repair shop.
Symantec did those people an disservice.
Bob
In my 24+ years of experience in the microcomputer industry, Norton (Symantec) products have always out performed and have been more stable than any other products I've used from McAfee. Every time I'ved worked on a system with McAfee installed, the system had been hosed by it.
I almost always suggest Symantec Products to new users because they have a better track record with stability and reliability. I can honestly say I have never had to use their tech support via telephone. I have used it via email and have always had excellent response from them.
I also recommend other products to protect new systems with, one in particular is Sunbelt's CounterSpy to protect and rid a system of spyware.
I also don't recommend minimum configurations for systems my customers buy or the ones I build for them. I don't believe in overkill either. A good base system should have an Intel Pentium 4 processor, at least 512 Mb of ram and a good 64 mb Nvidia video card. Norton works well in this configuration.
Some people in this thread have not been happy with Norton because of minimal hardware configurations. Yes, Symantec Products are memory hogs, but you cannot expect a product that does so much so well to not have minimum requirements that have to be met in order to work correctly.

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic