pc-cillin2002 vs nav2002

[Mina Guindy]

i want to buy an av but cannot make up my mind between nav2002 and pc-cillin2002.
kindly advise which.
(virus detection and tech. support are most important factors to me)

[UNICRON]

Let the flood of personal opinions commence!

I like NOD32: www.nod32.com

this site does comparisions. Take it with a grain of salt because other tests get different results (like the one Technodrome willpost ;))


http://www.virusbtn.com/

[Technodrome]

Tech Support is pretty much the same. Some people are claiming that Trend is faster on responding... I can't vouch 100% on this one...

Norton is doing better on detecting ITW viruses (like UNICRON pointed)
PC-Cillin is doing little bit better on detecting backdoors and Trojans.

Overall similar products.
If you really like to choose between these 2 product then go with Norton 2002.

There are better choices.....

Technodrome

[Mina Guindy]

what about panda platinium??
is it as good as NAV or Pc-cillin??

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: "what about panda platinium??
is it as good as NAV or Pc-cillin??" }-

As for ITW viruses: have a look at:

www.virusbtn.com/100/vb100sum.html

As you might notice, Panda did choose not to put up their product(s) up for testing..

regards.

paul

[wizard]

The choice between PC-Cillin and NAV is very simple:

go with NOD32 (see Unicorn's posting). *;D

NOD32 is faster, more reliable, has stronger heuristics and it has a licence model that allows you to get within 1 year all updates and not like NAV only signature updates.

wizard

[Technodrome]

Check these out !
Kaspersky Anti-Virus
DrWeb32
RAV 8
F-Secure
Command Antivirus

BTW: Panda antivirus is good choice.

Technodrome

[wizard]

-{ Quote: "BTW: Panda antivirus is good choice.
" }-

I do not think so. Independent Panda reviews are hard to find and when checking the last tests from av-test.org Panda was more average than real good. Pure polymorphic virus detection.

wizard

[Technodrome]

More then average?

ITW detection - 100%
Zoo Viruses - 96.8%

I'd say this is little bit more then average!

Check-Mark levels 1,2 and Trojan.

Numerous independent reviews and awards ( hard to miss them)

ICSA labs Certification

Very good standing against http://www.trojaner-info.de tests (when tested)
Very good standing against http://www.rokop-security.de/ tests (when tested)

And so on….

This is more then average!

Technodrome

[eyespy]

Here's my 2 cents....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * I would rather PC-CILLIN over NAV any day of the week. I just plain don't like NAV bloatware.
My personal preference is F-Prot (not just the DOS version).
At this moment I am Test Driving Dr. Web 4.28. It's very fast, has the options I'm looking for (no Bloatware), and updates are a snap. Also, it draws very little mem resources and is very stable !!
I like it...a lot
* * * * * *Bill :)

[Scratchy]

Hi Everyone,

If forced to choose I would pick PC-cillin over NAV.

F-Prot (Windows version) has been working beautifully on my Windows 98 machine for the past 18 months. *When it was time to renew my license I tried nearly every other AV, and for me the choice was clear. I signed on for another year with F-Prot. Tech support is rarely needed, which is good, because they can be slow to respond.

Kaspersky is my second-opinion scanner. *I've seen some complaints regarding KAV tech support, which surprises me. I have contacted them by email on two or three occasions and have gotten a response within a couple of hours each time.

Best of luck with whatever AV solution you choose!

Scratchy

[wizard]

-{ Quote: "More then average?

ITW detection - 100%
Zoo Viruses - 96.8%" }-

Let's go a little bit in detail:

Do you think this is still a good result?

Polymorphic viruses: 77,2 %
File viruses: 91,8 %

For me this sounds not like a good result in virus detection.

-{ Quote: "I'd say this is little bit more then average!" }-

Depends on how you read a test. For me it seems Panda AV has a lack of knowledge on complex malware.

-{ Quote: "
Check-Mark levels 1,2 and Trojan." }-

This is a paid test. Not an independent one.

wizard

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " Let's go a little bit in detail:

Do you think this is still a good result?

Polymorphic viruses: 77,2 %
File viruses: 91,8 %

For me this sounds not like a good result in virus
detection." }-

This is poor explanation for one to say about particular product. When you dislike product you always pointing to the weak side of AV product. This particular test gives you details that clearly show advantages or disadvantages of Panda Antivirus among others. So why not mention advantages? Does it cost too much?

I think is fair to say that Panda AV is good Product.


-{ Quote: "This is a paid test. Not an independent one." }-

So is Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn.com and I don't see point in this.

Technodrome

[Paul Wilders]

I like mods having a different opinion! *;).

That said: since we need the both of you dearly, don't put up a fight, will you? *8)

regards.

paul

[wizard]

-{ Quote: "So why not mention advantages? [/qb]" }-

I can not see any advantages for Panda AV. Nothing really special where I can say this is a powerful feature.

-{ Quote: "I think is fair to say that Panda AV is good Product." }-

Call it good or call it average - for me there is only one anti virus category that counts: very good. And I think here we agree: Panda AV is not a very good program. :)

-{ Quote: "So is Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn.com and I don't see point in this." }-

Virus Bulletin is independent. The Checkmark results are really an industry test. You send in a product and pay money and then you become the certificate. There are no 'loosers' in this kind of industry test. Only winners.

wizard

[Technodrome]

Virus bulletin is owned by Sophos. VB is independent as much as Check-Mark and ICSA.


Check-Mark is using the same date as Virus Bulletin. Virus Data that is collected by The WildList Organization International.

AV Products don’t get certified until they meet all requirements. They are losers until they got certified.
Check out and see who is certified for 04/02 and who is not…

Technodrome

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: "I like mods having a different opinion! *;).

That said: since we need the both of you dearly, don't put up a fight, will you? *8)

regards.

paul" }-

No fight needed Paul *;)
Just opinions and facts

Technodrome

[wizard]

-{ Quote: "Virus bulletin is owned by Sophos.[/qb]" }-

Not 100% true. But this does not really matter. I think you do not get the point I want to tell.

-{ Quote: " VB is independent as much as Check-Mark and ICSA." }-

Untrue because they do not earn money with the testing.

-{ Quote: "
Check-Mark is using the same date as Virus Bulletin. Virus Data that is collected by The WildList Organization International." }-

Does not matter. VB do not give samples back to av companies after the testing.

-{ Quote: "AV Products don’t get certified until they meet all requirements. They are losers until they got certified.
Check out and see who is certified for 04/02 and who is not…" }-

These industry test work all the same. You pay money and your product gets tested. If it fails you get a detailed report what is missed including the samples. AV company fixes it and gives it back for testing and getting the certificate afterwards. That's the way all industry tests work. This does not matter if it is ISO 9001 for a logistics company or for an av company. Good reasons not to trust industry certification at all.

wizard

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: "


These industry test work all the same. You pay money and your product gets tested. If it fails you get a detailed report what is missed including the samples. AV company fixes it and gives it back for testing and getting the certificate afterwards.

" }-

Using Check-Mark or ICSA Labs results AV Company is improving their products. As far as I am concerned that is a good thing!

100% YES, VIRUS BULLETIN IS OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN SOPHOS. This is old news I assumed you knew....

How can you be so sure about something that you don't have a clue Wizard?

Technodrome

[Paul Wilders]

Right dear mods,

Let's conclude it's just alright to "agree to disagree".

regards.

paul

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: "Right dear mods,

Let's conclude it's just alright to "agree to disagree".

regards.

paul" }-

Of course it is. There were a few points made by Wizard that I disagree…Other then that it’s all silk…

Technodrome

[Paul Wilders]

;D *;D

regards.

paul

[wizard]

-{ Quote: "
100% YES, VIRUS BULLETIN IS OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN SOPHOS. This is old news I assumed you knew...." }-

This is a little bit more complicated. Sophos 'sponsor' Virus Bulettin but does not own it.

wizard

[Paul Wilders]

...and they lived long and happily together *8)

regards.

paul

[Technodrome]

Exactly Paul ! *:)