nod32

hi
why is nod32 so popular?It is realy good?
Thanks
Nuno

nunoferrao wrote:
> hi
> why is nod32 so popular?It is realy good?
> Thanks
> Nuno
>
>
kaspersky or bitdefender is the way to go.Just my opinion.I just tried a
trial of Nod32 and uninstalled it after 2 days.Alot of things I didn't
like about it.Interface sucks.Error messages on scanning shouldn't be
shown.Too many modules separated.It detects viruses very well,uses less
resources than most but It lacks cosmetics.Kaspersky has really come
around on their lastest version.It's my choice by far.RH710

In article <QHnEh.1376$JB2.748@trnddc07>, RH710
of rh710@mail.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...



> kaspersky or bitdefender is the way to go.Just my opinion.I just tried a
> trial of Nod32 and uninstalled it after 2 days.Alot of things I didn't
> like about it.Interface sucks.Error messages on scanning shouldn't be
> shown.Too many modules separated.It detects viruses very well,uses less
> resources than most but It lacks cosmetics.Kaspersky has really come
> around on their lastest version.It's my choice by far.RH710


So NOD32 is more efficient, but not as good looking as the others you
mention?

Your advice therefore, is to sacrifice detection in favour of something
that looks better?


--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages posted via Google Groups are set to 'auto-ignore'
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:25:03 -0000, nunoferrao wrote:

> hi
> why is nod32 so popular?It is realy good?
> Thanks
> Nuno

Yss, it is.

Simple question, simple answer.

Cheers,

Roy

"nunoferrao" <nunoferrao@oniduo.pt> wrote in message
news:1172435226.356932@localhost...
> hi
> why is nod32 so popular?It is realy good?
> Thanks
> Nuno
>
>

It's one of the top 2 or 3 AV programs currently available. A few people
don't like the interface but it's a set it and forget it program.

I've been using NOD32 for several years now and just bought a 5 license
renewal a few months ago.

This web site will walk you through configuring NOD32:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=37509

Chas.

Tx2 wrote:
> In article <QHnEh.1376$JB2.748@trnddc07>, RH710
> of rh710@mail.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...
>
>
>
>> kaspersky or bitdefender is the way to go.Just my opinion.I just tried a
>> trial of Nod32 and uninstalled it after 2 days.Alot of things I didn't
>> like about it.Interface sucks.Error messages on scanning shouldn't be
>> shown.Too many modules separated.It detects viruses very well,uses less
>> resources than most but It lacks cosmetics.Kaspersky has really come
>> around on their lastest version.It's my choice by far.RH710
>
>
> So NOD32 is more efficient, but not as good looking as the others you
> mention?
>
> Your advice therefore, is to sacrifice detection in favour of something
> that looks better?
>
>
There is no evidence Nod is better than Kaspersky

In article <_0yEh.1811$JB2.534@trnddc07>, RH710
of rh710@mail.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...


> Tx2 wrote:
> > In article <QHnEh.1376$JB2.748@trnddc07>, RH710
> > of rh710@mail.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...
> >
> >
> >
> >> kaspersky or bitdefender is the way to go.Just my opinion.I just tried a
> >> trial of Nod32 and uninstalled it after 2 days.Alot of things I didn't
> >> like about it.Interface sucks.Error messages on scanning shouldn't be
> >> shown.Too many modules separated.It detects viruses very well,uses less
> >> resources than most but It lacks cosmetics.Kaspersky has really come
> >> around on their lastest version.It's my choice by far.RH710
> >
> >
> > So NOD32 is more efficient, but not as good looking as the others you
> > mention?
> >
> > Your advice therefore, is to sacrifice detection in favour of something
> > that looks better?
> >
> >
> There is no evidence Nod is better than Kaspersky

OK, let me rephrase that. Are you dismissing NOD32 because of its 'set
and forget' interface which apparently "sucks", simply in favour of
something that looks better?

FWIW, I have found Kaspersky slowed my machine down, whereas NOD didn't.
AFAIC, they are both equally good at detection, but I preferred the
solution that used less resources in turn being more efficient, than one
which looked good on my desktop but slowed the machine down.

--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages posted via Google Groups are set to 'auto-ignore'
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:27:04 -0000, Tx2
<this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:

>FWIW, I have found Kaspersky slowed my machine down, whereas NOD didn't.
>AFAIC, they are both equally good at detection, but I preferred the
>solution that used less resources in turn being more efficient, than one
>which looked good on my desktop but slowed the machine down.

Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

In article <ul76u2tgde39b95719dob0hkn7sao46oq4@4ax.com>, Art
of null@zilch.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...



> Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
> KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
> isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
> new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.

No, I haven't tried them, and probably won't.

I'm currently more than happy with NOD32, and until there is an
extremely convincing argument as to why not to use it, I guess I always
will be.

Thanks anyway.

--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages posted via Google Groups are set to 'auto-ignore'
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX

Art wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:27:04 -0000, Tx2
> <this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I have found Kaspersky slowed my machine down, whereas NOD didn't.
>> AFAIC, they are both equally good at detection, but I preferred the
>> solution that used less resources in turn being more efficient, than one
>> which looked good on my desktop but slowed the machine down.
>
> Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
> KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
> isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
> new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Art is correct in saying that.I am not condemming anyone for using Eset
Nod32,Just expressing my opinion.Everyone has different likes and
dislikes,and everyone has different habits on the internet,some go to
sites they shouldn't ect,some just use for email and occasional
surfing,some have slower machines that Nod would be perfect for.I wasn't
trying to pick a fight.RH710

In article <atHEh.1840$JB2.424@trnddc07>, RH710
of rh710@mail.com, felt we'd be interested in the following...


> Art wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:27:04 -0000, Tx2
> > <this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, I have found Kaspersky slowed my machine down, whereas NOD didn't.
> >> AFAIC, they are both equally good at detection, but I preferred the
> >> solution that used less resources in turn being more efficient, than one
> >> which looked good on my desktop but slowed the machine down.
> >
> > Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
> > KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
> > isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
> > new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.
> >
> > Art
> > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
> Art is correct in saying that.I am not condemming anyone for using Eset
> Nod32,Just expressing my opinion.Everyone has different likes and
> dislikes,and everyone has different habits on the internet,some go to
> sites they shouldn't ect,some just use for email and occasional
> surfing,some have slower machines that Nod would be perfect for.I wasn't
> trying to pick a fight.RH710

Hey, neither was I :-)

I like NOD in part because I was put off by how slow Kaspersky was, but
I was intrigued by your sentiments; I just wanted clarification of your
post.

--
My reply address is invalid.
Please post replies to the group.
Messages posted via Google Groups are set to 'auto-ignore'
XPS M1710 / 2.16 GHz dual core / 2Gb DDR2 / nVidia GeForce 7950GTX

On 26-Feb-2007, Art <null@zilch.com> wrote:

> Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
> KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
> isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
> new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

I have tried the new KAV6 and it does slow your computer down more than
NOD32 does. I will only use KAV6 on computers I work on. I use KAV because
all you have to do install it and your ready to go. I have not put NOD32 on
other computers only mine because there are quite a few setting to set to
get auto removal of viruses.

I am no expert but I would like to share the result of a simple
experiment that I recently did. I have a collection of 25 malware, 2
or 3 of them are of the same type and variant but infect different
kind of file. This collection of mine comprises mostly ITW
viruses,trojans and worms but quite dangerous nonetheless. I tested
the detection rate of Bitdefender 9 Pro Plus, Avira Antivir PE
Classic, Trend Micro Office Scan and NOD32. All were updated as
current as possible. NOD32 detected 22 of them but managed to remove
only 21. Antivir and Office Scan detected and removed 20 of them while
Bitdefender only managed to detect 15 of them. I havent had the chance
to test KAV but i will in the near future. This simple test are by no
mean professional by standard, even the numbers of malware that I used
are extremely little but it does give a rough impression of the
capabilities of NOD32 since the OP asks about NOD32. IMHO, NOD32 is
excellent in terms of detection rate but has a steep learning curve
when it comes to the interface part. Eset could do well to simplify
the interface since it looks like it is more suited for experts. But
for newbies and average guy on the street, I would say go for Avira
Antivir PE Classic or Premium. It is easy to use and very effective as
well. I never use KAV but from what I heard and read, it is pretty
good as well. The latest tests from reputable souces like AV-
Comparative will give a better picture.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:00:03 GMT, "Gary" <zero@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>On 26-Feb-2007, Art <null@zilch.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you tried KAV or KIS version 6? Or the free AOL AVS based on
>> KAV 6? They are unnoticeable on a reasonably modern machine that
>> isn't resource starved. It's prior versions of KAV not having their
>> new "speedup" technologies that notoriously bog down machines.

>I have tried the new KAV6 and it does slow your computer down more than
>NOD32 does.

What are the specs of _your_ machine? Mine is two years old having a
AMD Duron 1.6 ghz cpu and 256 meg RAM. That's what I mean by a
"reasonably modern" machine. No doubt NOD32 is "lighter" and has
less impact on older under-resourced machines. While the slowdown
effects might be objectively measureable by some means, they are
not subjectively noticeable.

Actually, I think there was a noticeable impact at first until KAV 6
adjusted itself to my machine, as it were. It uses some sort of
checksum method to avoid re-scanning files it has already scanned.
It also is set by default to "get out of the way" when other tasks
are consuming the cpu ... it automatically pauses itself. I'm using
the free AOL AVS product based on KAV 6, BTW.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

On Feb 27, 6:35 am, "nashraf.n...@gmail.com" <nashraf.n...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am no expert but I would like to share the result of a simple
> experiment that I recently did. I have a collection of 25 malware, 2
> or 3 of them are of the same type and variant but infect different
> kind of file. This collection of mine comprises mostly ITW
> viruses,trojans and worms but quite dangerous nonetheless. I tested
> the detection rate ofBitdefender9 Pro Plus, Avira Antivir PE
> Classic, Trend Micro Office Scan and NOD32. All were updated as
> current as possible. NOD32 detected 22 of them but managed to remove
> only 21. Antivir and Office Scan detected and removed 20 of them whileBitdefenderonly managed to detect 15 of them. I havent had the chance
> to test KAV but i will in the near future. This simple test are by no
> mean professional by standard, even the numbers of malware that I used
> are extremely little but it does give a rough impression of the
> capabilities of NOD32 since the OP asks about NOD32. IMHO, NOD32 is
> excellent in terms of detection rate but has a steep learning curve
> when it comes to the interface part. Eset could do well to simplify
> the interface since it looks like it is more suited for experts. But
> for newbies and average guy on the street, I would say go for Avira
> Antivir PE Classic or Premium. It is easy to use and very effective as
> well. I never use KAV but from what I heard and read, it is pretty
> good as well. The latest tests from reputable souces like AV-
> Comparative will give a better picture.

FYI BitDefender 9 is pretty old now. BitDefender 10 has been out for
awhile. If you want to talk about a "legit" testing process, Consumer
Reports threw about 5k unseen viruses at almost all the AV's you
mentioned; BitDefender had the best success rate. You can google for
it.

CR rocks. They did piss off a lot of companies by doing pure heuristic
testing :D