NOD32 vs the rest... [Archive] - Wilders Security Forums

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 02:15 AM

For me I found www.virusbtn.com after being infected with a virus while having AVG fully up-to-date, and 5 friends with AVG being infected over the following 5 months.

We then started testing Nod32 and found it to be fanbloodytastic, when used on several gaming machines there was no need to turn it off, whereas both McAfee and Norton you had to.

AMON (the resident scanner) picked up a new In The Wild virus on one of our PC's, approximately 2 days before it was written into the Nod virus signature, and a further day before it became available in Norton, we were bloody impressed!!!

We have now placed Nod on almost 400 PC's in less than 18months, and have not found a single infection, the only exception being a customer that was on the internet for 2 minutes at a time, and Nod had not updated for 4 months (we advise EVERY customer to FORCE Nod to update BEFORE they open their Email client, as an extra step of precaution, and had this customer followed our advice, he too would not have been infected). We updated this PC, ran Nod, and cleaned out the infection.

We constantly have PC's brought into the shop with Norton, McAfee, AVG etc fully up-to-date and yet infected. This is a significant part of our business. We disinfect, update Windows, sell Nod32, install Spybot Search and Destroy and install ZoneAlarm on the customers infected PC, and then advise them how to use and maintain their security.

We advise ALL our clients to have and know how to use the following:

Update Windows
Nod32 Anti-virus
ZoneAlarm Firewall
Spybot Search and Destroy
Spyware Guard (currently under evaluation after a web-browser hijacking by Messenger Plus - update - last week)

I wish you all the best with your choices...

Cheers ;D

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 08:58 AM

First of all, consider that many of the responses you get on this forum will be from sales people (resellers of NOD32). The previous response from Blackspear is an example. Blackspear sometimes mentions "selling" the product in one way or another in posts (not as a disclaimer, but more in passing). However, many of the others do not mention that they sell the product. If this was an ESET website, it would be expected; here, I believe, many people don't understand that the "advice" or "opinion" they receive comes from sales people. Not what you generally expect from a forum. That is one caveat.

Another problem is that despite interface options not necessarily doing what you would expect them to do (file exclusions still not working properly), despite not being able to kill viruses while still in archives (archive must be unpacked for action to take place), despite a major issue with Win98 users having constant crashes in Kernel32 while running NOD32 v2, etc. etc., and despite NOD32 users having pointed these things out since the program was released, none have been adequately addressed. Unless of course you consider that adequate is "Jan" and others constantly saying, in effect, that they'll get to it, but they are busy now or that the issues are simply not important. Thanking us for our patience a couple of times over the same issues is acceptable; after that it's insulting, condescending, and patronizing. See these threads as a couple (out of many) that illustrate and support my statement:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=10337

The thread above was started in mid-June 2003, and if rife with excuses, it-doesn't-matters, and thank-you-for-your-patiences. It runs five pages long. On a related note see thread below:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=15767

Or try this one:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=15118

All the above are current issues (responses/comments added within the last couple of days); more exist. Dig deeper and you'll get even more.

On a positive note: yes, NOD32 is low on CPU and memory usage.
The question remains: is low resource usage the only thing that is important? Maybe responding with fixes to legitimate issues is equally important. Answers like "it doesn't matter" or "we're busy, we'll get to it even though it's been months and months" probably doesn't cut it in the world outside cult software.

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 09:30 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: Blackspear link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99710 date=1068275747]
For me I found www.virusbtn.com after being infected with a virus while having AVG fully up-to-date, and 5 friends with AVG being infected over the following 5 months.

We then started testing Nod32 and found it to be fanbloodytastic, when used on several gaming machines there was no need to turn it off, whereas both McAfee and Norton you had to.

AMON (the resident scanner) picked up a new In The Wild virus on one of our PC's, approximately 2 days before it was written into the Nod virus signature, and a further day before it became available in Norton, we were bloody impressed!!!

We have now placed Nod on almost 400 PC's in less than 18months, and have not found a single infection, the only exception being a customer that was on the internet for 2 minutes at a time, and Nod had not updated for 4 months (we advise EVERY customer to FORCE Nod to update BEFORE they open their Email client, as an extra step of precaution, and had this customer followed our advice, he too would not have been infected). We updated this PC, ran Nod, and cleaned out the infection.

We constantly have PC's brought into the shop with Norton, McAfee, AVG etc fully up-to-date and yet infected. This is a significant part of our business. We disinfect, update Windows, sell Nod32, install Spybot Search and Destroy and install ZoneAlarm on the customers infected PC, and then advise them how to use and maintain their security.

We advise ALL our clients to have and know how to use the following:

Update Windows
Nod32 Anti-virus
ZoneAlarm Firewall
Spybot Search and Destroy
Spyware Guard (currently under evaluation after a web-browser hijacking by Messenger Plus - update - last week)

I wish you all the best with your choices...

Cheers ;D
" }-

--------------------------------------

If I understand correctly, the heuristics are what is supposed to be so advanced about NOD32...........so even though the definitions were not up to date, I would have thought the heuristics would have caught it..........why not??????

Acadia

November 8th, 2003, 09:34 AM

EDIT: Removing this post from this thread.

manOFpeace

November 8th, 2003, 09:44 AM

This may be a little of topic but it seems to be the best place at the moment to ask my question.
sir_carew says Nod32 scans his system in 45 minutes. I often wonder
am I missing something as I can scan in something like 5 mins.30 sec.

I am not disputing sir_carew's post, it's my own I wonder about.
Is there anyone else who can get a scan in my time.
I like to think I am getting the best from my Nod32. ;)

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 10:09 AM

My guess is he used the Advanced Heuristics scanning......it would definitely take a while longer to run........

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 10:38 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99737 date=1068299919]
First of all, consider that many of the responses you get on this forum will be from sales people (resellers of NOD32). The previous response from Blackspear is an example. Blackspear sometimes mentions "selling" the product in one way or another in posts (not as a disclaimer, but more in passing). However, many of the others do not mention that they sell the product. If this was an ESET website, it would be expected; here, I believe, many people don't understand that the "advice" or "opinion" they receive comes from sales people. Not what you generally expect from a forum. That is one caveat. " }-

Yes I am a reseller, as I stated "We have now placed Nod on almost 400 PC's in less than 18months".

How exactly would I benefit from an unknown person somewhere in the world wanting info about Nod??? Makes NO sense to me... All I can advise is my own shops experiences in "The Real World", what ACTUALLY walks through my shop door.

The product has gone through a major design upgrade, so any normal human being would expect there to be teething problems, as well as impatient people irritated by those teething problems. This is just part of life. The product works for my clients, that's all that matters, that's all that I care about, I do not want second best.

-{ Quote: " quoting: GuruGuy link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99741 date=1068301831] If I understand correctly, the heuristics are what is supposed to be so advanced about NOD32...........so even though the definitions were not up to date, I would have thought the heuristics would have caught it..........why not??????
" }-

No, the virus definitions were up to date, AMON picked up a UNKNOWN virus - probably ....... (can't remember what it was now - a few months ago), we were all just damn impressed ;D New virus detection patterns were written for the new ITW virus 2 days later.

Anyway, as pointed out, all are just my experience's with 100's of customers...

Cheers ;D

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 10:45 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: manOFpeace link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99743 date=1068302645]
I am not disputing sir_carew's post, it's my own I wonder about.
Is there anyone else who can get a scan in my time.
I like to think I am getting the best from my Nod32. ;)
" }-

It may just be that you do not have ticked "Scan ALL files (including extensionless files)", Runtime Packers and Archives", these will add time to scanning ;D

Cheers ;D

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 10:52 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: Acadia link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99742 date=1068302074] I like NOD but in my opinion tech support counts as much these days as does good software. " }-

Tech support from Rod in Australia is fantastic, and the same from within this website, that being said, I sent an email to tech support a few months ago and are yet to have a response, think they are probably a little overwhelmed with the new version being released :o

Cheers ;D

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 11:15 AM

For ManofPeace and GuruGuy, I'll try to bring this back on topic eventually (if anyone is really concerned about that) after a couple of opening segue statements:

You cannot compare your system scan time using NOD32 to someone else's if you don't know the number of files scanned or type of files scanned (archives take longer). If you have made sure all scan options are set (advanced heuristcs, scanning archives, all file types scanned (not set by default - you have to set this), etc., then a 5 minute scan simply means you have very few files to scan compared to the other person you mentioned. Here are some examples that I have:

NOD32 v2 takes 17 minutes 38 seconds to scan 104,631 files on drives c, d, e, f, g, & i on my machine; it takes 1 hour, 34 minutes, 50 seconds to scan 388,557 files on drive H on the same machine. The number of files is key, so unless you know settings AND number of files/types, a comparison can't be made.

Here's where we bring the discussion back to NOD vs other AV software:

Note on Drive H that the number of files NOD scanned was 388K. Kaspersky and NAV scan many thousands more files on the same drive (NAV over 450K and Kaspersky scans 527439!). This would account, in part, for the slower scan times that these AVs post - both scan more archives and filetypes and have more definitions in their database. Kaspersky scans all kinds of archives plus it scans for other malware not considered strictly viruses that NOD does not scan for...to make up for this, the recommendation when using NOD32 is to add a Trojan scanner such as TDS-3 to help with these detections. If you have used TDS-3, as I do, you know how slow full system scans can be as it thoroughly searches for trojans.

Also, while several posts from moderators/resellers claim that Outlook *.pst files cannot be scanned because "Microsoft has not released information on it's structure", Kaspersky does indeed scan inside these files:

NOD32 scan of 350MB *.pst file - 1 second scan time, 1 file scanned (meaning no emails were really scanned)

Kaspersky scan of same 350MB *.pst file - 30 minute scan time and it listed each individual email inside the *.pst.

So, once again you can see some differences in ability of scanners and also see another instance of moderators in this forum making excuses as to why NOD32 can't do certain things (scan *.pst files, etc.) when forum users question why NOD32 can't do what it would be expected to do given the options in the setup dialogues.

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 11:30 AM

Said by Blackspear:
"No, the virus definitions were up to date, AMON picked up a UNKNOWN virus - probably ....... (can't remember what it was now - a few months ago), we were all just damn impressed New virus detection patterns were written for the new ITW virus 2 days later."

Sorry, but here :

"and have not found a single infection, the only exception being a customer that was on the internet for 2 minutes at a time, and Nod had not updated for 4 months (we advise EVERY customer to FORCE Nod to update BEFORE they open their Email client, as an extra step of precaution, and had this customer followed our advice, he too would not have been infected). We updated this PC, ran Nod, and cleaned out the infection."

you said that they were NOT up to date and this person was infected......thus my question about the heuristics...........even though the definitions were not up to date, why didn't the heuristics catch this "bug" before it infected the pc????

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 11:53 AM

Blackspear tried to pull one over with this:
-{ Quote: "How exactly would I benefit from an unknown person somewhere in the world wanting info about Nod??? Makes NO sense to me... All I can advise is my own shops experiences in "The Real World", what ACTUALLY walks through my shop door." }-

You can't figure out how defending/promoting a product on a forum available worldwide, including your selling area, benefits you? Well, the rest of us can. And I think the rest of us know you've really got it figured out, too, despite your lame attempt to feign ignorance.

Blackspear joins her confederates in making excuses:
-{ Quote: "
The product has gone through a major design upgrade, so any normal human being would expect there to be teething problems, as well as impatient people irritated by those teething problems. This is just part of life. The product works for my clients, that's all that matters, that's all that I care about, I do not want second best.
" }-

Any normal human having paid for the software will not put up with excuses about "new design" and "teething" problems. That is part of life, sometimes, but an unacceptable part of life. Making excuses like that is also unacceptable.

You have now proven beyond a doubt that your opinion is strictly of the "used-car-salesman selling-a-car" variety. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us normal humans.

optigrab

November 8th, 2003, 12:53 PM

Hi NewNOD,

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99737 date=1068299919]
If this was an ESET website, it would be expected;" }-
I'm under the impression that this is "Official Eset NOD32 Antivirus Forum".

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99737 date=1068299919]
after that it's insulting, condescending, and patronizing. See these threads as a couple (out of many) that illustrate and support my statement" }- The links you provide are many pages of threads; I scanned all of them and did find a lot of "thank-you-for-your-patiences", mostly directed at radicalb21, but I could not find anything that that was "insulting, condescending, and patronizing". Nor could I find any posts in those threads that implied hurt or incensed feelings. Alleging an insulting, condescending, or patronizing attitude is pretty serious, so as a NOD32 user I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific than an invitation to fish through 7 or 8 pages of threads.

The person that started this thread asked "the experts to please explain or provide links to the difference (technically speaking please) between NOD32 & the rest of the Anti-Virus Programs." As a newbie hobbyist, the request is something I'm interested in too, but I don't think that the majority of your post addressed this request in the manner it was intended. In comparison, sir_carew's post was right on the money; it seems like he succinctly captured (to my knowledge) the current state of 'technical' pros and cons to using NOD32.

You do make some valid points:
>file exclusions not working properly since V2 released
>not being able to kill viruses while still in archives
>an issue with crashing Win98 Kernel32
>timeliness of bug fixes

Your case would be more compelling if you highlighted these technical points dispassionately instead of glossing over them to concentrate on intangibles like attitudes and self-interests.

Just my two cents, offered cordially.

Regards,
Optigrab

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 02:01 PM

optigrab cordially wrote (despite his name's reference to "The Jerk"):
-{ Quote: "I'm under the impression that this is "Official Eset NOD32 Antivirus Forum"." }-

Using the term "Official" in the name of a website where I come from does not automatically constitute official sanctioning. If you are slightly familiar with the world of www, you'd know that many celebrity fan sites, for instance, may call themselves the "Official Joe Bob Site" but Joe Bob will disclaim any dealings or connection with said site. The only way this would be an official "Official" website that everyone would understand was connected to Eset and its partners would be for its pages to be part of the www.eset.com (if it existed), or part of the www.nod32.com domain. As far as I can tell, there is not even a link to this site from the Eset site, so how "official" is one supposed to believe this is? I prefer an independent forum (as I thought this site might be due to it's lack of connection to Eset's domain). It's only after hanging out here for a while that one gets the impression that this forum is possibly: 1) Eset's only support system (disguised as a forum); and 2) that many of the "moderators" and participants are actually resellers of the product. Kind of cheesy, really.

Secondly, you quoted me as saying that "after that it's insulting, condescending, and patronizing." Then you acknowledge that the thread links I provided included what I said they would include, but that you didn't find it "insulting, condescending, and patronizing." Problem with all that is you misunderstood my statement and perpetuated that misunderstanding by leaving out the first part of the sentence from which the quote was taken. Here is the entire quote:

"Thanking us for our patience a couple of times over the same issues is acceptable; after that it's insulting, condescending, and patronizing."

What I meant was someone can thank another for patience a couple of times in sincerity or as a stalling tactic, but after a couple of times (remember a lot of these issues have been on the table for six months), thanking someone for patience rather than answering the problem becomes as I said, insulting, condescending, and patronizing. If you went to a car shop to pick up your car (when your car was supposed to be ready) after having repairs made and all you got for the next six months was "thank you for your patience, but we're busy. we'll get to it soon" (regardless of how politely it was said), you would find that the person was insulting your intelligence, condescending and patronizing. You'd probably do something about it, too.

As far as the question of whether I provided an answer to the original poster: yes, I did. The posts I made provide much information and insight because they warn the person: to read carefully all the material; to not take at face value the stock answers; to understand by reading through the threads, without taking my word for it, that many issues exist with this software; and that support for getting them fixed is slow to non-existant. That is much more valuable than:

NAV is slow
Kaspersky is slow
Advanced Heuristics is great

The original poster seemed to seriously want to know about differences, and I'm pointing out that the differences noted in the usual answers posted will not give him a full understanding of whether he wants to use this software. He will have to look through a lot of other posts to build up an opinion...it is not a simple matter of listing things, especially if there is a concern that those answering have ulterior motives for praising NOD32. The ulterior motives are harder to disguise over a length of time and through many different posts, and thus my suggestion to read through them to fully understand.

I also provided him with useful specifics regarding the abilities of the scanner and compared that to the results I got with NAV and Kaspersky.

What did you provide other than a critique of me?

optigrab

November 8th, 2003, 03:04 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=15#msg99797 date=1068318072]
What did you provide other than a critique of me?
" }-

Clearly, I offered:
>support of the points made in sir_carew's post
>support of several points in your post

..and further noted that my participation in this thread was closer the role of the thread's originator (someone trying to gain addition technical insight) rather than as an expert on the merits of the above technical points.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position on the issues in my post.

Cordially, as before,
Optigrab

p.s. As a fan of The Jerk, I'd expect you understand that the reference is self-deprecating, both here and in the movie. Hopefully the moniker is never an indication of the tone of my remarks.

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 03:13 PM

As cordial as ever (no sarcasm intended), OptiGrab wrote:

-{ Quote: "....I'd expect you understand that the reference is self-deprecating, both here and in the movie. Hopefully the moniker is never an indication of the tone of my remarks. " }-

Just wanted to let you know in a semi-funny (maybe not?) way that
I caught the reference. Your cordial ("non-jerky" tone) does not escape me.

testg

November 8th, 2003, 03:43 PM

Ok here is mine (I swear I should create an account here but am too lazy).
Nod32 support sometimes is slow even when virii is send to them. 85% of the time they update it within a week or couple of days when the new code is sent but 15% of the time they never do. I had many cases when after I've send a virii or a trojan, I've waited two weeks, scanned the files I've send with Norton, Bitdefender, KAV and got detections (yes I've send the files to them too thus they added the files within a week). Then I scan them with NOd32 and still no detection (Except on occasions when I scan with /ah then I get the generic newHEUR code). So I resend the code to Nod32 asking them What's up with that...it's only then that they add it. AT which point I come to the conclusion that some of the mails NOD gets are deleted (probably by mistake but still).
Nod32 still can't scan IMAP files, even after I fetch the file to my computer...well of course when I open the file it might get detected by AMON but I want the /AH capability of IMON and not AMON to scan it...since what if the stuff I am openning is a worm? and AMON doesn't have the defs and regular Heuritics are not strong enough to catch it?
So if you are using IMAP as your mail client then get an additional mail scanner (I use Norton 2k4) in addition to Nod32. (Nod32 is my real time scanner due to it's lower resources but Norton 2k4 is my backup scanner).

Try Nod32 for the 30 days and test a few files BUT as with all AV/AT programs DON'T FULLY TRUST IT. Since your AV/AT is as good as the definitions, some companies get their detection sooner others later. The only good defense is haveing one real time scanner and a few different backup scanners...but that requires $$$. Thus if you want high performance then you can use NOD32 due to it's low impact on resources but DON'T TRUST the fact that you might be virii free. As a backup visit a free Net scanner and scan yourself every few weeks. Ex.
www.Bitdefender.com www.pandasoftware.com www.antivirus.com www.symantec.com

Cheers,

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 05:11 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: GuruGuy link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99763 date=1068309038]
Said by Blackspear:
"No, the virus definitions were up to date, AMON picked up a UNKNOWN virus - probably ....... (can't remember what it was now - a few months ago), we were all just damn impressed New virus detection patterns were written for the new ITW virus 2 days later."

Sorry, but here :

"and have not found a single infection, the only exception being a customer that was on the internet for 2 minutes at a time, and Nod had not updated for 4 months (we advise EVERY customer to FORCE Nod to update BEFORE they open their Email client, as an extra step of precaution, and had this customer followed our advice, he too would not have been infected). We updated this PC, ran Nod, and cleaned out the infection."

you said that they were NOT up to date and this person was infected......thus my question about the heuristics...........even though the definitions were not up to date, why didn't the heuristics catch this "bug" before it infected the pc???? " }-

Our PC's were fully up to date, and hueristic's picked up the new virus that wasn't written into the virus definitions as an "Unknown virus, probably...."

My customers PC was 4 months out of date, and became infected (mildly), with an update to Nod and the latest definitions the virus was deleted.

All I'm telling you is experiences...

Cheers ;D

zappa

November 8th, 2003, 05:29 PM

-{ Quote: "" }-

I am not a reseller.
My first AV was_____ then I went to Norton which I dumped and happily for for NOD32. I am a home user not a reseller who will pay more for the better product when more is not that much considering what is at stake.

I use Win98.
Initially, I had to uninstall and install Nod32 V2 when it first came out. Consider, in comparison, the issues I had with Norton and 1 re install for NOD is not big deal.

NOD32 is the best AV. No infections. My email gets as many worm variants as there are out there and Nod32 has caught every single one every time.

Support issues will always exist for yahoos like me. This forum and the people/experts/professionals who post in it can help people like me in their time of need. The kind souls who take their persoanl time to help people like me are exceptionally knowledgable about Nod32 and if they are resellers more power to them in selling the best product. Seems like selling the best product makes them smarter then the folks selling the number 2 and 3 AV's.

Folks like Jan help tons of people all the time and I wish they would get a commish from esset for every post they answer as they deserve it. Who needs to contact Esset when a forum like this exists? I did not install the V2 beta until it V2 was released to the public.

A quick story about Esset and support. I am not very computer literate but can click a mouse which makes me dangerous. I live in Los Angeles and noted on my NOD32 invoice a San Diego phone number for Esset.

Not being the shy type when I had a brain fart in making Nod32 V1 work with Netscape email I called the San Diego Esset phone number looking for help. It was after 4:00 PM on a Friday afternoon and I figured to get voice mail. Nope. Got a VP for Esset who was all ears and who went beyond what I expected in his effort to help me. A heckofa nice guy.

It ends up that Mickey the Man helped me configure my Netscape email. Mickey is another kind soul who helps many clueless folks like me. Mickey responded to my query I posted that Friday night in a (different) Nod32 forum and before this forum existed. Mickey responded to me on Saturday and by that night I was good to go. Very cool of him. Esset support was all over me the Monday morning that followed and as a result of my Friday afternoon phone call but by then my issue was moot.

This forum is the best place on the web to get info about Nod32 apart from having a phone numeber for the Esset home office in Europe. Will every issue get resolved every time but then again that expectation is unreasonable in my humble opinion since there are issues more likely that are in the user bucket of issues and not program issues.

I have found that 99% of all web based email mail support does not meet my needs. I rely on the old fashioned method of a phone call not email.

In my effort to be honest about Nod32 V2 performance and or issues since my initial install-uninstall-install here goes. Negative issues or performance problems. None, zip and or zero. Good issues are no infections, tons of nasties in quarantine and or deleted.

Sorry, I forgot one thing others have mentioned in this forum in reagrds to Win98 OS. After I boot to desktop and on the initial NOD scan and also when Nod is doing the auto update my mouse will bounce around a little for 20 -30 seconds at which time I scratch my... head and or pet my dogs and give them a snack. My dogs like the fact my mouse bounces now and again and they look forward to it for sure. (I have Nod set for auto update every hour and at boot completion as I am paranoid.) Then again my mouse is at least 4 years old too so.....

I have received no form of compensation from Esset for the postive remarks about their program. It is now time for me to give my dogs a snack.
regards,
zappa, augie and buddy

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 05:32 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99767 date=1068310415]
Blackspear tried to pull one over with this:
-{ Quote: "How exactly would I benefit from an unknown person somewhere in the world wanting info about Nod??? Makes NO sense to me... All I can advise is my own shops experiences in "The Real World", what ACTUALLY walks through my shop door. " }-

You can't figure out how defending/promoting a product on a forum available worldwide, including your selling area, benefits you? Well, the rest of us can. And I think the rest of us know you've really got it figured out, too, despite your lame attempt to feign ignorance. " }-

Actually NO it does NOT benefit me in any manner or form, this person just wanted info, I gave him my personal and business experience.

-{ Quote: "Blackspear joins her confederates in making excuses:" }-

If you look at my gender symbol you will see I'm of the male species ;D Same with what my profile reads ;D

-{ Quote: " The product has gone through a major design upgrade, so any normal human being would expect there to be teething problems, as well as impatient people irritated by those teething problems. This is just part of life. The product works for my clients, that's all that matters, that's all that I care about, I do not want second best.

Any normal human having paid for the software will not put up with excuses about "new design" and "teething" problems. That is part of life, sometimes, but an unacceptable part of life. Making excuses like that is also unacceptable. " }-

I'm not making excuses for anyone, just saying with a major design upgrade, teething problems are expected. So get over it.

-{ Quote: " You have now proven beyond a doubt that your opinion is strictly of the "used-car-salesman selling-a-car" variety. Thanks for clarifying that for the rest of us normal humans. " }-

You seem to have a real problem with Nod, so why are you still here??? I offered an opinion of what I personally have experienced and what 100's of clients walking through my door have experienced.

I used to sell an AV that was fairly good here in Australia, tech support though, even for dealers was abismil, they went through a major design upgrade, then made an update over a long weekend and managed to crash EVERY single PC that I had sold with XP on it, they didn't do this once, but at least 3 times over the coming months. In the first instance I put it down to teething problems, the second and third instance was just incompetance. I stopped selling the product and started trialling AVG, when I got infected, it just pissed me off, at which point I went looking for testing sites and found www.virusbtn.com We have used McAfee and Norton and were not impressed. We then started trialling Nod and ended up selling the product many months later. Our clients just want their PC's to work and be protected.

Cheers ;D

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 05:45 PM

Well said Zappa. Like I said, support from Rod here in Australia is fantastic, and the guys on this site that take time out of ther own lives to help people like you and me, my hat off to them ;D

Email support does have to be improved, even an auto-responder to advise that the email is being looked at and someone will reply shortly, would be a start...

Cheers ;D

crazykidjoe

November 8th, 2003, 06:37 PM

Eset support has always been exceptional when I was an NOD32 user. Rod, Jan and others always provided excellent support. c

Corndog

November 8th, 2003, 06:55 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: testg link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=15#msg99818 date=1068324191]Since your AV/AT is as good as the definitions, some companies get their detection sooner others later.
" }-

NOD32 has a hueristic scanner that does NOT depend on the definition database! It does quite well without it but the definition database is an enhancement to it.

Acadia

November 8th, 2003, 06:58 PM

EDIT: Removing this post from this thread.

sig

November 8th, 2003, 07:21 PM

NewNOD: this is ESET's Official forum which is why the mods in this forum are ESET staff and resellers (although as you've noticed other resellers often post here asking for assistance or providing input, and often their questions or comments include that info so one cannot just assume they are posing as shills, especially when they are discussing problems and their clients).

While the USA site and some others do not link directly to this site, the Oz site and perhaps a couple others do. That is a failing (among many others) of the main USA and other regional ESET sites. But this isn't a fan forum IMO, as one can tell by the many issues or criticisms raised here by users and other parties. ;)

testg

November 8th, 2003, 08:01 PM

-{ Quote: "NOD32 has a hueristic scanner that does NOT depend on the definition database! It does quite well without it but the definition database is an enhancement to it. " }-

Yes I know, but so does Norto's BloodHound, MacAffe's whatever. EVery AV theese days have a heuritics scanner since only a few bytes added to a viral code end will bypass post definitions thus Heuritics are a common thing. I know that Nod32 has a stron Heuritics scanner but in my everyday life where I get new virrii and trojans from people the heurtics even the /ah flag detects the new code just ~20% of the time if that. Therefore the remaining 80%+ is up to the definitions.
If one company releases the Defs sooner then the other, then the company that did release the defs have ~100% chance of detecting the infiltration whereupon the company that did not must relay on heuritics which on occasions are only 20% effective.

I am not saying that NOD32 is bad I am just stateing that it's illogical to place your faith into one company, it's good to have an open mind since this is not a perfect world and thus perfection is impossible to attain. All things being equal NOD32 is a very good anti-virus, it does have it's drawbacks and it sometimes misses a few infections but so does the other companies product. Sometimes Nod32 might detect a bug that Norton, Kav, Bitdefender, Vexira, Sophos, F-prot, Panda, Macaffe, Atrend, Command does not and sometimes it's the opposite. There is many AV programs out there each with it's own heuritics algorithms some are better and some are worse but heuritics are nothing compared to solid definitions.

Mele20

November 8th, 2003, 08:25 PM

>Using the term "Official" in the name of a web site where I come from does not automatically constitute official sanctioning. If you are slightly familiar with the world of www, you'd know that many celebrity fan sites, for instance, may call themselves the "Official Joe Bob Site" but Joe Bob will disclaim any dealings or connection with said site. The only way this would be an official " web site that everyone would understand was connected to Eset and its partners would be for its pages to be part of the www.eset.com (if it existed), or part of the www.nod32.com domain. As far as I can tell, there is not even a link to this site from the Eset site, so how "official" is one supposed to believe this is?

This is the Official NOD32 forum. How do I know? Because I was the catalyst that got this forum created. :)
A little over a year ago, I was trialling NOD32 and I sent Eset, by email, some undetected samples. I also posted in the UNOFFICIAL NOD32 forum at Becky's. I then began discussing this in one of the first of the many "notorious" threads at DSLReports on NOD32. I didn't receive any response from Eset about my submission and didn't get any official Eset response at Becky's either. Two weeks went by with no response from Eset. Enter Rodzilla. Rod is awesome in action. He called Anton in New Orleans (the Eset biggies were all there for a major virus conference) and Anton called home to find out why I had been ignored by tech support. Turned out it was one of those human errors. Eset experts had looked at my submission and found that, although every other av I had run the samples by detected most or all of these, NOD32 detected two and did not detect the other two because they were corrupt/empty samples. NOD32 ignored them for this reason as being corrupt/empty they were harmless as they could not be executed. Then the Eset expert forgot to tell tech support so they could notify me by email.

This incident was the catalyst for Rod. He had been wanting to set up an official Eset NOD 32 forum and hadn't had the time. Becky's had Eset moderators there on a sporadic basis and Rod felt this was not good. He wanted an official forum. After my experience, which was upsetting to me and had me thinking I would not use NOD32 beyond the trial, and got negative exposure for NOD32, he felt it was even more imperative to set this up immediately. That is what he proceeded to do singlehandly and he chose this site to host the forum primarily because it is an excellent security site and also because he has great respect and friendship for Paul and has known him for many years.

After getting the forum set up in record time, I think, he then proceeded to convince many of the Eset owner/sellers around the globe to join as Mods here which I think is a big plus and a wonderful accomplishment as this forum has benefited a lot from having more than just Eset techs as the Mods. (This is not in any way to say that Jan's help here isn't excellent and much needed and appreciated...I think Jan's presence is essential). However, I think we also benefit from the other mods we have. For instance, we users probably wouldn't have access to Paolo's shell extension for the advanced heuristics if Rod hadn't encouraged NOD32 owners like him to become mods here in this forum.

So, yes, this IS the Official NOD32 forum. Rod's Australia NOD32 site provides an official link to this forum as the official support forum. Why the U.S. site doesn't do this? I have no idea and I have suggested that they do so.

As to the problem discussed in this thread about W98 and NOD32 causing kernal32 errors, I have W98SE on the box that I have NOD32 on and I have not had any problem of this nature with either version 1 or 2. In fact, one of the main reasons I like NOD32 so much is that it is the ONLY av I have tried that doesn't cause moderate to severe problems on W98! It runs smoothly, and uses less resources than many other av especially if you turn off windows graphics in version 2. I had the problem with the mouse stuttering when downloading new definitions in version 1 but I have not had that problem in version 2 and the downloads are so fast that it was a minor problem when I had it.

tempnexus

November 8th, 2003, 08:57 PM

I fully share the views of TESTG....oh wait. ;D

Blackspear

November 8th, 2003, 09:17 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: tempnexus link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=15#msg99911 date=1068343032]
I fully share the views of TESTG....oh wait. ;D " }-

LOL TestG, and oh, welcome Temp ;)

NewNOD

November 8th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Okay...for everyone who wants to tell me this is the Official forum:

1) Thank you;
2) It's not necessary.

I know this is the "official" website forum for NOD32, but not for any other reason than I have been reading since May/June 2003.

In my previous posts where the "officialness" of the website was discussed, I was pointing out that regardless of the title of the forum (official in the title doesn't necessarily mean anything), by all other appearances, especially to new participants or people who drop by only occasionally, this forum looks to be an independent forum. As such, some people may not realize that the "advice" and "opinions" they are recieving may be coming from individuals/moderators with a vested interest in the product.

If the website domain were ESET or NOD32, the connection between the forum, the company and its partners would be fairly evident. As it stands this is not evident until one reads the forum for a while.

And yes, to the optimist, setting up a NOD32 forum on www.wilderssecurity.com and "inviting" resellers/partners to moderate seems like a good idea. What with all the expertise they can provide and all.

To the cynical, skeptical, realist it looks like a half-baked attempt to disguise a marketing tool as a forum. Bet ol' Rod had a really hard time convincing a bunch a resellers that a forum where they could promote their product was a good idea.

sig

November 8th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Gee, I'd think seeing some users and resellers posting about problems or complaining about a lack of timely effective support from ESET might have the opposite impact. ;)

But your objections re: "officialness" also apply to the open TDS forum here, the Trojan Hunter forum at Gladiator's (it may still be there with Magnus moderating, I haven't checked lately) as well as the two PSC forums at MTM's and the former Gladiator's sites where the CEO is the forum mod. In none of these cases do I believe there is any propensity to be deceptive by having their forums hosted on third party boards and the presence of other users and vendor reps is generally considered a plus for those who visit and seek assistance.

There also are some other software vendor owned and run sites (not necessarily in this field) where no criticism or uncomfortable questions are allowed. I don't believe that is generally the case with these other venues as a visitor can usually readily see for himself.

In no case where any software vendor of any kind of product provides support, would one expect any vendor rep to say, "I confess, our product is crap and we're hanging on by our fingernails." (However refreshing that might be to see. LOL) But owning up to limitations or problems and then addressing them in a timely and effective manner is a factor that can be objectively judged by both users, potential users and lookiloos alike.

The advantage of an open forum, wherever it may be hosted, is that anyone can see for himself and make his own decision if a product is something he wants to try and/or keep based on a number of factors.

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 09:54 PM

As far as official forum goes, I posed this exact questin to Larry McJanet at NOD USA. His response was:

"I guess it is a matter of definition - I know that one of the senior guys monitors and works that site but for
my definition the official support site is Support@eset.com"

sig

November 8th, 2003, 10:10 PM

Well here's where ESET was actively seeking and taking reports during its version 2 beta trials. And if I recall correctly long ago ESET announced that Jan was assigned to provide forum support. That's fairly official. ;)

In part the forum was started to take some of the workload off of support@Eset through peer to peer support as well as vendor and reseller direct support. And perhaps it also was a bit of a PR move, although PRwise ESET appears a bit tonedeaf IMO.

Additionally, sometimes customers succeed in getting support from ESET as a result of posting here when Paul Wilders provides a bit of a friendly prod when reps here or support@eset have been not as timely in providing an effective response.

So this is an ESET official response venue and is not comparable to posting at dslr and on occasion happening to get a response from a ZoneLabs or Symantec employee.

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 10:15 PM

I forgot to add that this info from Larry McJanet at NOD was dated Oct 28th, 2003.

sig

November 8th, 2003, 10:20 PM

That makes no difference, whether it was today or 3 months ago, if Larry wants to quibble about semantics.

But given that's his stance, I recommend everyone who posts here also send an email with his/her questions and issues to support@eset.com ;D

GuruGuy

November 8th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Yes, I would agree. In fact, I have previously seen that mentioned here several times when things can't be answered by posting in this forum, etc...

LowWaterMark

November 8th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Okay, now if we can get back on track... :D

The question of this thread is not whether this is or is not an official Eset support mechanism, or who thinks it is, how it got here, or what it's place is in the overall scheme of NOD32 support. The topic at hand is asking for pros and cons regarding NOD32 versus "the rest" (the rest being "all other AV products"). So, if we can get back to that...

sig

November 8th, 2003, 10:56 PM

To be a bit more serious in my response, there are a lot of basic questions that can be dealt with here and so siphoned off from the more formal direct support line. So the forum benefits both users and ESET staff in that respect. Although as noted, most ESET websites make no mention of the support forum at all.

Some issues posted here need more info, investigation and/or review by technical staff so on occasion some of those raised here do get dealt with on a one on one basis, just as if they had been emailed to ESET directly.

The two venues compliment each other but this forum can be best viewed as augmenting direct one on one vendor support ; it doesn't replace it.

sig

November 8th, 2003, 11:59 PM

Sorry, LWM, you are correct. I shall eat my cookies in shame. And then explode. ;)

Frankly, as regards the original poster I suspect that your safe computing habits probably would keep you in good stead regardless of what reputable AV you use. Are you looking for something better or simply different?

If you already are rather cautious in your habits and limit the potential avenues for exploitation by malware, you might be looking for something lighter on your system that still gives you reasonable protection. NOD would probably fit that bill, especially if you already run an AT like TDS, Trojan Hunter or BOClean.

One NOD feature that appears to be a significant improvement and according to reports has assisted in catching new email borne worms, before updated virus signature definitions were available, is version 2's advanced heuristics used in IMON, the POP 3 email scanner. Now if you don't use an email client to view your email, this may not be of assistance to you. If you do and in your opinion you might be most likely to see email borne malware rather than trojans stuffed in warez or other common sources of malware (such as Kazaa, for one example), then you might want to give NOD a look.

If people are content with their AV and it and their own cautious computing habits have served well for years I don't encourage them to switch just for the sake of change.

Each AV has its own strengths and weaknesses or drawbacks. KAV is highly regarded but run at full strength is reportedly heavy on resources. Some people don't want to deal with that or their older systems don't allow it. Sometimes NOD's heuristics "beat" KAV's and McAfee's when a newly introduced email virus is on the loose and updates have not yet been issued Usually though these companies do a very good job at updating against the latest ITW threats. NOD IMO doesn't compete with KAV or McAfee in terms of trojans and runtime packers and that sort of thing. But I've not seen any trojans and more exotic stuff in ordinary daily use in years of relatively cautious computing. And I have an AT just in case I do.

And NAV 2004 reportedly is much improved with new features that some find useful.

As viewing some of the comments and threads here will reveal, NOD still does have some quirks. For some they pose a problem, for others not. So while I use it and have had no real issues with it, it might not meet others' preferences when compared to the GUI and features of say NAV for example. Can one be well protected using NOD and practicing safe hex? Sure. But you've evidently already found that to also be the case with NAV. Often the user is far more important a factor than the brand of AV one uses.

Sorry to not have been more helpful.

Q Section

November 9th, 2003, 12:30 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: testg link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=15#msg99818 date=1068324191]Nod32 still can't scan IMAP files, even after I fetch the file to my computer...well of course when I open the file it might get detected by AMON but I want the /AH capability of IMON and not AMON to scan it...since what if the stuff I am openning is a worm? and AMON doesn't have the defs and regular Heuritics are not strong enough to catch it?
" }-

An additional possibility is WormGuard (http://wormguard.diamondcs.com.au/) from DiamondCS.

-{ Quote: " quoting: Acadia link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=0#msg99742 date=1068302074]
two issues that effect my old Win98 system. " }-

Sorry to hear of Win98 problems. We use 98SE (is yours SE?) and we have no problems.

And a general response:
Most people (whether they realise it or not) desire just one programme to accomplish many security/privacy tasks. What they want is one program to be an effective:

Firewall
Anti-Virus
Anti-Trojan
Anti-Worm
Anti-Spyware
Privacy Protector and
Browser Protector

It would truly be quite a programme and perhaps one day we shall have such a wonder. Meanwhile - if we are fully layered then we shall have the best opportunity to withstand every threat to our computer.

Best wishes

manOFpeace

November 9th, 2003, 06:42 AM

My thanks to GuruGuy, Blackspear and NewNod for replies. I think that
is everybody. ;)

Paul Wilders

November 9th, 2003, 08:38 AM

Indeed this is the one and only Official Eset/NOD32 forum - everyone may notice one of the CEO's - Anton Zajac - is part of the Moderating team over here as well.

As for the history as of why and how these forums have been set up, I must say it's slightly different from what Mele described. In the end, that doesn't matter: fact is the Official Eset forums are over here, and nowhere else ;).

Furthermore let me point you to the fact, while resellers are indeed competent Moderators on this forum (and I fail to see any harm in that; on the contrary), especially assigned techs are participating as well: Jan and Marcos for example. And they are doing a splendid job.

Apart from that, NOD32 users are participating in helping one another out - the way it's intended and should be in a support forum.

Finally: indeed releasing a brand new product version (as version 2 is) comes with hickups. That's business as usual for new releases from fairly all software. For that reason we have (the now dormant) Beta forum, which actually helped alot in pinpointing possible or real problems, bugs etc. That said: there surely still is work to do in regard to Version 2.

Although everyone encountering a (sometimes personal) problem/issue wants to see it checked and addressed, priorities have to be set (and that's business as usual as well). Eset is the one and only to make this priority list, and subsequently will handle issues according to their priority list. IMO it's only fair to acknowledge they can't address all issues at the same time. Be assured Eset will (and is) tackling issues which have been checked and acknowledged - at the same time, this does take time. In this context, providing Eset time seems the normal way to go. I for one am convinced it will end in an even better NOD32.

regards.

paul

Acadia

November 9th, 2003, 09:02 AM

EDIT: Removing this post from this thread.

Paul Wilders

November 9th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Acadia,

That's a rather pessimist view - and built on presumptions ;). I'm pretty sure the future will prove you wrong as for Eset is concerned.

regards.

paul

Acadia

November 9th, 2003, 09:55 AM

Here's to hoping that you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong! :)

Acadia

NewNOD

November 9th, 2003, 10:00 AM

For Paul Wilders:

I wrote the following comments last night, but by the time I was ready to post, I saw LowWaterMark's request for everyone to get back on topic. So, I honored that. However, seeing your (Paul's) response, I feel compelled to go ahead with my post. What struck me is your inability to acknowledge that getting sales people involved might give out the wrong signals. How many people here would criticize certain magazines for accepting advertising from companies' whose software is reviewed / praised favorably in those magazines? It happens all the time, but people are aware of it and adjust their skepticism accordingly. I have noted your denial of the events as Mele20 saw them regarding the establishment of this forum (which probably is a good thing), but with that said, here goes:

______

Sig wrote regarding my "objections" (really just observations) about a forum modded by resellers and the implications that may have in certain situations:

-{ Quote: "But your objections re: "officialness" also apply to the open TDS forum here, the Trojan Hunter forum at Gladiator's (it may still be there with Magnus moderating, I haven't checked lately) as well as the two PSC forums at MTM's and the former Gladiator's sites where the CEO is the forum mod. In none of these cases do I believe there is any propensity to be deceptive by having their forums hosted on third party boards and the presence of other users and vendor reps is generally considered a plus for those who visit and seek assistance.
" }-

I never said they didn't apply to other similarly structured forums. It's as simple as this: if you know who you are dealing with, you will ask certain questions and avoid others. When someone asks a "compare & contrast" question on a forum like this, I think it's only fair to point out that the answers will be coming, in some cases, from people with a vested interest in the product. Anyone willing to ask such a question is likely to have come here thinking that there was no relationship between this site and Eset or its partners.

According to GuruGuy, even Eset's rep distances his company from this forum in correspondence, probably at the insistance of an attorney or two. If Eset really wanted to provide this forum in a proper way (and not a low budget way), it would have been set up under Eset's domain staffed by technical people. No one would be asking opinion-based questions because they would understand that such a question would get an obviously biased answer. So based on Guru's info and on the expose from Mele20, this is the "official site but not really the official site". The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing. Eset benefits from certain aspects (like the beta testing info) without officially recognizing the forum as theirs (thus avoiding any potential black eyes from misinformation, bad information, slow reponses etc. given out in the forum), and the resellers benefit by using it to promote the product (which ultimately benefits Eset). And, Wilders benefits by selling space and bandwidth. Nice set-up. The forum user benefits or suffers depending on his ability to filter the sales promotions from unbiased opinions/advice.

Based on what Mele20 said (referring to Rod/zilla setting up this forum):

-{ Quote: "That is what he proceeded to do singlehandly and he chose this site to host the forum primarily because it is an excellent security site and also because he has great respect and friendship for Paul and has known him for many years.
" }-

one could take this a step further by asking whether the integrity of the entire Wilders site is above reproach...or not. Is Mele20 referring to Paul as in Paul Wilders? Is his friendship with Rod something to consider when reading that Wilders.org ranks NOD32 as the "best choice" for anti-virus software? Are these facts coincidental: Wormguard, TDS-3 (I use this product), and NOD32 all have their forums hosted by Wilders Security and they all have been given the Wilders.org "best" ranking.

None of the above proves anything... but any good consumer would have to take these things into consideration when reading the reviews. Having sales people involved will always bring a taint to the discussion of any product, and that is a well recognized.

GuruGuy

November 9th, 2003, 11:31 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100039 date=1068390058]
For Paul Wilders:

I wrote the following comments last night, but by the time I was ready to post, I saw LowWaterMark's request for everyone to get back on topic. So, I honored that. However, seeing your (Paul's) response, I feel compelled to go ahead with my post. What struck me is your inability to acknowledge that getting sales people involved might give out the wrong signals. How many people here would criticize certain magazines for accepting advertising from companies' whose software is reviewed / praised favorably in those magazines? It happens all the time, but people are aware of it and adjust their skepticism accordingly. I have noted your denial of the events as Mele20 saw them regarding the establishment of this forum (which probably is a good thing), but with that said, here goes:

______

Sig wrote regarding my "objections" (really just observations) about a forum modded by resellers and the implications that may have in certain situations:

-{ Quote: "But your objections re: "officialness" also apply to the open TDS forum here, the Trojan Hunter forum at Gladiator's (it may still be there with Magnus moderating, I haven't checked lately) as well as the two PSC forums at MTM's and the former Gladiator's sites where the CEO is the forum mod. In none of these cases do I believe there is any propensity to be deceptive by having their forums hosted on third party boards and the presence of other users and vendor reps is generally considered a plus for those who visit and seek assistance.
" }-

I never said they didn't apply to other similarly structured forums. It's as simple as this: if you know who you are dealing with, you will ask certain questions and avoid others. When someone asks a "compare & contrast" question on a forum like this, I think it's only fair to point out that the answers will be coming, in some cases, from people with a vested interest in the product. Anyone willing to ask such a question is likely to have come here thinking that there was no relationship between this site and Eset or its partners.

According to GuruGuy, even Eset's rep distances his company from this forum in correspondence, probably at the insistance of an attorney or two. If Eset really wanted to provide this forum in a proper way (and not a low budget way), it would have been set up under Eset's domain staffed by technical people. No one would be asking opinion-based questions because they would understand that such a question would get an obviously biased answer. So based on Guru's info and on the expose from Mele20, this is the "official site but not really the official site". The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing. Eset benefits from certain aspects (like the beta testing info) without officially recognizing the forum as theirs (thus avoiding any potential black eyes from misinformation, bad information, slow reponses etc. given out in the forum), and the resellers benefit by using it to promote the product (which ultimately benefits Eset). And, Wilders benefits by selling space and bandwidth. Nice set-up. The forum user benefits or suffers depending on his ability to filter the sales promotions from unbiased opinions/advice.

Based on what Mele20 said (referring to Rod/zilla setting up this forum):

-{ Quote: "That is what he proceeded to do singlehandly and he chose this site to host the forum primarily because it is an excellent security site and also because he has great respect and friendship for Paul and has known him for many years.
" }-

one could take this a step further by asking whether the integrity of the entire Wilders site is above reproach...or not. Is Mele20 referring to Paul as in Paul Wilders? Is his friendship with Rod something to consider when reading that Wilders.org ranks NOD32 as the "best choice" for anti-virus software? Are these facts coincidental: Wormguard, TDS-3 (I use this product), and NOD32 all have their forums hosted by Wilders Security and they all have been given the Wilders.org "best" ranking.

None of the above proves anything... but any good consumer would have to take these things into consideration when reading the reviews. Having sales people involved will always bring a taint to the discussion of any product, and that is a well recognized.
" }-

Very well said!

Paul Wilders

November 9th, 2003, 12:11 PM

NewNod,

-{ Quote: "I feel compelled to go ahead with my post. What struck me is your inability to acknowledge that getting sales people involved might give out the wrong signals." }-

It's not a matter of ïnability - merely the result we look upon this issue from a different perspective. This is a support forum; resellers are very able to provide support on many ocassions on various issues, as happens very frequently. For that reason many of them are dediacted Moderators on this forum - and rightly so.

-{ Quote: "How many people here would criticize certain magazines for accepting advertising from companies' whose software is reviewed / praised favorably in those magazines? It happens all the time, but people are aware of it and adjust their skepticism accordingly" }-

Once again: you focus on sales - this support forum focusses on support, for registered and trial users alike.

-{ Quote: "Sig wrote regarding my "objections" (really just observations) about a forum modded by resellers and the implications that may have in certain situations:

But your objections re: "officialness" also apply to the open TDS forum here, the Trojan Hunter forum at Gladiator's (it may still be there with Magnus moderating, I haven't checked lately) as well as the two PSC forums at MTM's and the former Gladiator's sites where the CEO is the forum mod. In none of these cases do I believe there is any propensity to be deceptive by having their forums hosted on third party boards and the presence of other users and vendor reps is generally considered a plus for those who visit and seek assistance." }-

-{ Quote: "I never said they didn't apply to other similarly structured forums. It's as simple as this: if you know who you are dealing with, you will ask certain questions and avoid others. When someone asks a "compare & contrast" question on a forum like this, I think it's only fair to point out that the answers will be coming, in some cases, from people with a vested interest in the product." }-

Partly true. Quite rightly, you state ïn "some cases". Indeed it comes with the territory asking for sort of a comparison chart over on a dedicated support forum, answers will come from people with a vested interest in the software; people should be aware they are in the Official Eset/NOD32 support forum in the first place. Partly untrue: anyone is able to notice comments are coming from actual NOD32 users - and their input should be valued at the same level. In the end, it's a perfect balance.

But my first remark stays up: there's a distinction between your focus (sales) and our focus: support.

-{ Quote: "Anyone willing to ask such a question is likely to have come here thinking that there was no relationship between this site and Eset or its partners." }-

The relationship is quite clear: support is what this forum is for first and foremost, provided by resellers, Eset techs or otherwise.

-{ Quote: "According to GuruGuy, even Eset's rep distances his company from this forum in correspondence, probably at the insistance of an attorney or two. If Eset really wanted to provide this forum in a proper way (and not a low budget way), it would have been set up under Eset's domain staffed by technical people." }-

No offense, but I don't have anything to do with statements fro GuruGuy. It's really plain and simple: this support forum has been setup as the only Official Eset Support Forum as a result from contacts with the Eset CEO's. As stated before, one of them is actually one of the Moderators over here.

As for your remark in regard to "provide a forum in a proper way": a) this is far from a "low budget way". This board is hosted on a dedicated server b) the exposure having the forum on this board is far greater then starting up a board under Eset's domain (which is an argument for most commercial support forums hosted on this board - a valid argument in my view c) this forum is staffed by one and the same technical Eset people that would staff a support forum on the Eset domain.

-{ Quote: "So based on Guru's info and on the expose from Mele20, this is the "official site but not really the official site". The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing." }-

Wrong conclusion: We have it in writing ;)

-{ Quote: "
The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing. Eset benefits from certain aspects (like the beta testing info) without officially recognizing the forum as theirs (thus avoiding any potential black eyes from misinformation, bad information, slow reponses etc. given out in the forum), and the resellers benefit by using it to promote the product (which ultimately benefits Eset)." }-

See my last comment above - wrong assumption.

-{ Quote: " And, Wilders benefits by selling space and bandwidth." }-

Please provide facts backing this up. If you can't, an apology is the least I expect. We are non profit, and don't sell anything. These kind of unfounded statements are taken seriously since it questions our goal and intention from the start: being non profit.

-{ Quote: "Based on what Mele20 said (referring to Rod/zilla setting up this forum):" }-

-{ Quote: "That is what he proceeded to do singlehandly and he chose this site to host the forum primarily because it is an excellent security site and also because he has great respect and friendship for Paul and has known him for many years." }-

-{ Quote: "one could take this a step further by asking whether the integrity of the entire Wilders site is above reproach...or not. Is Mele20 referring to Paul as in Paul Wilders? Is his friendship with Rod something to consider when reading that Wilders.org ranks NOD32 as the "best choice" for anti-virus software? Are these facts coincidental: Wormguard, TDS-3 (I use this product), and NOD32 all have their forums hosted by Wilders Security and they all have been given the Wilders.org "best" ranking." }-

Once more you failed to do proper research. Anyone could have checked our ratings have been up long before we hosted their support forums. It's a pitty to see someone post like this without even checking out things first - the way one may expect.

-{ Quote: " None of the above proves anything..." }-

Actually it does prove at least one thing: you failed to do your homework before posting. Hopefully a lesson learned...

regards.

paul

tempnexus

November 9th, 2003, 12:12 PM

Very well said indeed.

I am a proud Nod32 owner and I do have my doubts on occassions. I am not into blind product loyalty since afterall they didn't give me the product for free I had to pay for it, thus every day of my life I look around what's out there. Thus when my subscription runs out I be more informed if I should stay with NOd32 or switch to something other. I will go to whoever offers a better peformance and better quality within the same price range or even a bit higher...since afterall it's my money. Haveing said that, Nod32 has been very good to me but I hold some of the views stated by NewNOD.
I must say that your last post have been very good.

Cheers,

GuruGuy

November 9th, 2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:
So based on Guru's info and on the expose from Mele20, this is the "official site but not really the official site". The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing.

Wrong conclusion: We have it in writing

---------------------------------

Paul,

If that's the case, I'm confused as to why Larry McJannet, a VP with NOD32, would state to me otherwise. I too have it in writing....an email dated Oct 28, 2003. Is he that misinformed and distanced from his company that he doesn't know the official support forum for NOD32? I think not! Maybe it's that "matter of definition" that he referred to............

NewNOD

November 9th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Paul Wilders responded to a couple of my comments regarding concern that he was unable (unwilling / deliberately obtuse) to understand that allowing sales people to get involved with this forum can send the wrong signals (i.e., create perceptions that may or may not be valid):

-{ Quote: "It's not a matter of ïnability - merely the result we look upon this issue from a different perspective. This is a support forum; resellers are very able to provide support on many ocassions on various issues, as happens very frequently. For that reason many of them are dediacted Moderators on this forum - and rightly so." }-

He also responded with:

-{ Quote: "Once again: you focus on sales - this support forum focusses on support, for registered and trial users alike." }-

I do not focus on sales. The perception is that this forum does. One "official" tech person (Jan?) and many resellers manning the guns, so to speak. Hmmm...maybe it's not just a perception.

Obviously, your words are spoken like a true salesman (by definition, they are great at blowing smoke). By your standards, I should believe that the guy in the bad suit trying to sell me a Cadillac is there to "support" me.

-{ Quote: "
As for your remark in regard to "provide a forum in a proper way": a) this is far from a "low budget way". This board is hosted on a dedicated server b) the exposure having the forum on this board is far greater then starting up a board under Eset's domain (which is an argument for most commercial support forums hosted on this board - a valid argument in my view c) this forum is staffed by one and the same technical Eset people that would staff a support forum on the Eset domain." }-

Are you suggesting that Eset buying or leasing its own hardware, software, and paying its own IT people to run a dedicated forum is less expensive than running it through a 3rd-party board?

Are you suggesting that Eset hiring more than one technical person (by that I mean Eset employees on Eset's payroll) to man the dedicated forum is less expensive than farming out one tech person to monitor this board with help from a bunch of off-the-payroll resellers (who only get paid through sales of the product)?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Are you suggesting that this forum gets far more exposure than a dedicated Eset forum and that would be the reason a commercial endeavor would use it? You mean a company that truly is only interested in providing support doesn't think that people who have downloaded the software for trial or purchase can go back to find that site (Eset's site) when support is needed? Perhaps using the 3rd-party board is to expose others to NOD32 who happen to visit your site for other reasons? But then that might put the focus on sales. And surely, this altruistic endeavor would never focus on sales...it's as you said, all about support.

Responding to my comments on the info GuruGuy received from Larry McJannet (a VP with NOD32 per GuruGuy), Paul Wilders wrote:

-{ Quote: "
Wrong conclusion: We have it in writing
" }-

I'll mostly defer to GuruGuy on this one. Evidently, there is a question as to what it is you have in writing. I'm sure you have something...you do in fact have one of Eset's guys posting on this site. Does what you have impose any liability on Eset or bind them to anything said or done here (rhetorical question)? If not, that's probably why a VP might state that this wasn't the official site. As you'll probably let me know, this is just conjecture and a guess on my part.

-{ Quote: "Please provide facts backing this up. If you can't, an apology is the least I expect. We are non profit, and don't sell anything. These kind of unfounded statements are taken seriously since it questions our goal and intention from the start: being non profit." }-

Hmm. You don't sell anything? You garner no benefit whatsoever, not even in promoting yourself in any ancillary activities as being the owner of this site? You don't even recoup expenses for services / material (of any kind) rendered, something that is perfectly acceptable under the definition of non-profit? I bow to you in awe and apologize! Sincerely.

-{ Quote: "
Actually it does prove at least one thing: you failed to do your homework before posting. Hopefully a lesson learned..." }-

I wasn't required to do homework as I wasn't trying to "prove" anything about you or your business (non-profit or otherwise). I was pointing out that the way this forum is set up presents a lot of questions about built-in biases and salesmanship. Your (I'll say it again) inability to recognize and acknowledge these issues in a straight-forward manner says much more than I could "prove" with homework...they are very basic and simple issues. It cripples this forum's credibility with people having half-a-brain and you are expecting us to be much more gullible than a 5-year-old.

By the way, does Paul Wilders appearance in many of the threads on this site regarding Eset's business (or defense of Eset's business) seem a little at odds with the concept of "unbiased"?Seems to me that, if for no other reason than for appearances sake, the owner of the hosting website would not venture into the fray.

Here's are two examples of Paul Wilders' comments from this thread alone:
-{ Quote: "Finally: indeed releasing a brand new product version (as version 2 is) comes with hickups. That's business as usual for new releases from fairly all software. For that reason we have (the now dormant) Beta forum, which actually helped alot in pinpointing possible or real problems, bugs etc. That said: there surely still is work to do in regard to Version 2.

Although everyone encountering a (sometimes personal) problem/issue wants to see it checked and addressed, priorities have to be set (and that's business as usual as well). Eset is the one and only to make this priority list, and subsequently will handle issues according to their priority list. IMO it's only fair to acknowledge they can't address all issues at the same time. Be assured Eset will (and is) tackling issues which have been checked and acknowledged - at the same time, this does take time. In this context, providing Eset time seems the normal way to go. I for one am convinced it will end in an even better NOD32.
" }-

More excuse making, but that time it was coming from Paul Wilders.

And here is Paul Wilders responding to Acadia's contention that certain issues were being ignored by Eset:

-{ Quote: "That's a rather pessimist view - and built on presumptions . I'm pretty sure the future will prove you wrong as for Eset is concerned." }-

Presumptions?! How about facts. Still no fixes for many problems pointed out six months ago. How far in the future are you suggesting Acadia wait? Even if these old problems were fixed today, Acadia's comment is still valid.

So, how can Paul Wilders claim unbiased responses from resellers when his own seem so biased. It doesn't make any sense that he would even jump into the discussion with these types of comments. Unbelievable.

sig

November 9th, 2003, 05:32 PM

GuruGuy, I'm sure it's a matter of "definition" and semantics as previously noted. Again, if you want support from ESET you can post here and see if you get a response from anyone, including an ESET-assigned support person (Jan or Marcos). And/or you can email support@eset directly which is the more conventional approach (and one hopes perhaps the most assured method of getting a response from an ESET tech).

Sometimes people mention that they've posted their question here because they hadn't yet received a response to their previous email to ESET support or the response from ESET support was as useful as ---- on a bull. ;) (Which is unfortunate, but I've heard that from some users.) And in fairness, some other people say they've gotten great and timely responses as a result of emailing ESET support.

One can take one's choice depending upon the issue. For serious problems I'd email support directly. For suggestions on what settings to use (and when) other than the default settings, I'd post here where other users could probably provide me with suggestions as well. It's a matter of choice. :)

(BTW, surely I'm not the only one who recalls the old Official ESET support forum at the old Becky's forums? Was there this much crabbing then at the hosts for simply hosting it?)

Acadia

November 9th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Whoooooa Newnod. While I appreciate your concern, please don’t bring me into this issue with Paul. I have the greatest respect for Paul and what he is doing with his Forum; my issue is with ESET. I have found many answers to many problems at Wilderssecurity with all sorts of software; the only ones not answered were software problems with companies that are either dragging their feet or don’t care. I believe that Paul SINCERELY believes that ESET will fix my problems, along with other’s problems. I hope he is correct, I’ve seen time prove him correct with other issues. If, on the other hand, I am correct ( and I hope I’m not) and ESET is ignoring us Win98 users, this has nothing to do with Paul or this Forum, and there is no way in heck that anyone can convince me that Paul is covering up for or protecting ESET. Again I appreciate your concern.

Acadia

jocera

November 9th, 2003, 06:38 PM

NewNod... seems to me you argue only for the sake of arguement. Some of the things you focus on, in my opinion, are petty and small.

I, for one, do NOT care whether this is the Official NOD forum or if some of the people posting here are salesmen. Support is given here whenever I have asked for it, and for me, that is what's important.

I would suggest locking this thread because, to be frank, your arguments, though interesting in the beginning, are starting to bore me. However, the moderators here allow all opinions to be heard, mine as well as yours... good and bad, right and wrong, pro and con... like a good forum should.

NewNOD

November 9th, 2003, 07:38 PM

Sorry, Acadia (really).

I'm sure Paul understands that the rant is mine and that I used his response to you as an example for my purposes. I'm just tired of reading excuse after excuse in this "support" forum.

Certainly time will fix just about anything. Let an issue go very long in computerland and it naturally becomes moot. In a short while, Eset will have to issue a new release to work with Longhorn...then the excuse makers will chime in again to claim that all the new "hiccups" are normal, and that in "time" they will be fixed. Everyone will forget that issues with Win98 existed, and voila, time will have "healed" all.

Jocera,

I wasn't trying to entertain you. Some serious subjects are boring. I'm bored, too. Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago. I don't think complaining about people offering excuses rather than action (which I contend the set-up of this forum fosters) is petty; I fully support your ignorant right to believe and argue that it is.

Guess I'll leave it up to Radicalb21 to carry on for a while. I admire his tenacity in pursuing some of these issues. I can only stay focused for short bursts on NOD32; I've got another life. Guess this burst is about up as my forehead is bleeding from butting it up against a wall.

See ya.

Acadia

November 9th, 2003, 07:54 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
Sorry, Acadia (really).
" }-

No problem, take care.

Acadia

sig

November 9th, 2003, 09:08 PM

"Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago"

So that's what all that was about? Wasn't particularly clear given your discussion of forums, resellers, suggestions of shilling, alleged undisclosed pecuniary interests, etc.

Seems rather a roundabout way of simply saying one is dissatisfied with the product and the service and it's simply unacceptable.

rodzilla

November 9th, 2003, 09:29 PM

I was the prime mover behind relocating Eset Support to Wilders. I've known Paul for years, and I'd been talking with him about the possibility of doing this for some time before it all came together.

As Paul pointed out, Wilders now hosts the official Eset Support Forum ... not because Eset is too cheap to host it on their own servers but because Paul and several Wilders regulars had for some time been unofficially supporting NOD32 users and making a bloody good job of it. The previous support forum just wasn't working, and we had to make a move. Anton and I discussed our options at length and had decided that a support forum which included the Wilders guys would serve NOD32 users better than an "Eset only" forum. We were moving towards this (slowly ... we had a lot of other things going on at the time) when Mele's unresolved problem gave me a wake-up call and prompted me to give it high priority.

Paul isn't paid one cent to host the Eset forum. OK ... so maybe he gets a few more users because of it ... but that's the way things go on the Internet ... relationships are often symbiotic.

There is no sinister connection between my friendship with Paul and Wilders ranking NOD32 #1 in its tests. Wilders was ranking NOD32 #1 long before the Eset forum was hosted here, and even before I had anything to do with NOD32.

NOD32 isn't 100% perfect, and obviously our support isn't 100% perfect ... sorry about that ... but Paul has been one of the Good Guys in the security world for years, and he doesn't deserve to have **** thrown at him by people who conjure up conspiracies out of thin air!

rodzilla

November 9th, 2003, 09:38 PM

> I'm bored, too. Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago.

Easy solution ... email me with your NOD32 User Name from your license and a list of your complaints. I'll have them checked out, and if they prevented you from using NOD32 for the past six months then I'll tack another six months on the end of your license.

whatever

November 9th, 2003, 10:19 PM

I found this thread very interesting, The last post by Rod was the best post of the lot, I am glad to see someone from Eset willing to work out issues with their customers, and offering to give their customer what they paid for.

That was a very nice gester, hopefully all will work out for the best.

jocera

November 10th, 2003, 12:29 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
I wasn't trying to entertain you." }-
I'm sure you couldn't, even if you tried.

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
Some serious subjects are boring. I'm bored, too. Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago." }-
Oh, now I see where this comes from... timely introduction.

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
I don't think complaining about people offering excuses rather than action (which I contend the set-up of this forum fosters) is petty;" }-
That's what you ASSume I thought was petty?

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
I fully support your ignorant right to believe and argue that it is." }-
I would have phrased it, "I fully support your right to ignorantly believe and argue...," but so be it. Oh my, was that petty?

LOL, you're response doesn't surprise me in the least... in fact, I find it predictable... and boring.

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=45#msg100182 date=1068424689]
Guess this burst is about up as my forehead is bleeding from butting it up against a wall." }-
Oh, you'll recover, it's probably an old wound.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 01:36 AM

I said I was gone for a while, but I feel I owe Rodzilla a response to his offer.

First, since I'm here, let me respond to Sig's comment:
-{ Quote: ""Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago"

So that's what all that was about? Wasn't particularly clear given your discussion of forums, resellers, suggestions of shilling, alleged undisclosed pecuniary interests, etc.

Seems rather a roundabout way of simply saying one is dissatisfied with the product and the service and it's simply unacceptable.
" }-

Don't try to discredit the comments and arguments made by me in the course of this thread simply because I happen to have a technical issue with the software (is that so odd? why would I have started reading the forum in the first place?). The issue with the software led me to this forum, but the lack of a fixes has kept me coming back for months hoping that I might finally find something done. Over that time, I formulated an opinion about the forum's structure and efficacy; you have read that opinion here and obviously you have disagreed. My comments in this thread were thoughtful and initially began as a caveat (applicable in many different situations) to the original poster that some of the opinions/answers may come from people with a commercial interest in the software (as resellers), and as such, he should be more thorough in his search for an answer to his query (i.e., he should read a lot of the past posts, etc.). I did not spend the time and energy writing that first post and subsequent posts as an alternate to simply complaining about my particular technical issue with the software.

Is that acceptable to you?
______________________

Rodzilla,

-{ Quote: "...but Paul has been one of the Good Guys in the security world for years, and he doesn't deserve to have **** thrown at him by people who conjure up conspiracies out of thin air! " }-

Recognizing puff from facts is always difficult. This forum potentially contains a lot of puff, simply by virtue of its structure (resellers being atop the heirarchy here). Additional concern is thrown into the mix when this simple concept isn't acknowledged by the likes of Paul Wilders, but instead the forum is defended as something of an ideal model. Maybe it's all he or Eset has to work with, but it's far from ideal. There is no conspiracy theory, it's just common sense.

Now to your offer (keep in mind my answer to Sig above as you read this):

I appreciate the gesture, but I'm not looking for license extensions or refunds or the like. Once again, that "solution" comes from the reseller-centric focus / attitude of Eset and this forum. And anyway, what good would a license extension do for broken software? I and others need a technical fix, as in programming, as in a patch or update to the software. Let's have some emphasis on that. Did Eset fire all its programmers after initial development, or what? Speaking for myself, I need a patch so the software works on my Win98 machine (Kernel32 errors - main issue causing crashes, lockups), I need a patch so the file exclusions work (on all OSs) without having to jack around with short path names, and there are a variety of other problems that alone couldn't be considered major but in aggregate become a deal killer. The suggested fixes thus far, if any, have been to turn off or not use certain features (turning IMON off to prevent Kernel32 errors comes to mind...that solution does not work 100% here).

I'm not married to NOD32, and obviously I purchased and have been running an alternate AV in the interim. I have periodically uninstalled the current AV and reinstalled NOD32 to see if fixes were implemented, but none have been or at least none that work.

So thanks, but I'll keep reading and waiting. Maybe some things will eventually happen.

And yes, Sig, I will probably be bored waiting. Is that acceptable?

Mele20

November 10th, 2003, 02:27 AM

>I and others need a technical fix, as in programming, as in a patch or update to the software.

Who are all these users who have W98 that are in desperate need of this patch? I don't recall many complaints here from W98 users. To the contrary, most W98 users seem to be very happy with NOD32 because it is so light on resources which most av today are not and which is extremely important on W98/ME. Plus, it is fast on W98 machines many of which are old and don't have much CPU power.

I have W98SE and I don't need any patch or any update from Eset in order for NOD32 to work not only just fine but better than any other av I have used. You make it sound as though you are speaking for all W98 users. Well, you don't speak for me and I suspect you don't speak for the majority of W98 users who have a license for NOD32. If there were all these W98 users who could not use NOD32, and had to purchase another av while they waited for a patch, this forum would be inundated with complaints related solely to NOD32 on W98.

I will grant you that perhaps I don't get Kernal32 errors because I don't use IMON, but a user, IMO, is better off not using an email scanner be it NOD32's or any av's. Email scanners are redundant and thus totally unnecessary. If safe computing is practiced then advanced heurisitics can still be used because all email attachments will be saved to the hard drive before opening and all downloaded files and attachments will be scanned first using adv. heuristics. So why are you so concerned about Kernal32 errors when the solution is simple and is what should practiced anyhow? Ask any Microsoft MVP who deals with Outlook/OE and they will immediately tell you that you shouldn't use an email scanner because it is one of the major causes of OE breaking and mail being lost and destroyed. You indicated that disabling IMON worked but not 100%. Then, if this is case, post your errors here and maybe someone can figure out what is causing the occasional problem.

You also mentioned file exclusion problems and that I wouldn't know about because I don't exclude any files from being scanned (isn't this what the av is for?). But you said that you could work around it by using short path names so I am puzzled as to why this is anything more than a minor irritant.

I have a few things I would like to see fixed but they don't relate just to W98 and NOD32. The only irritating thing I can come up with that is specific to NOD32 on W98 is that even after this was pointed out in beta, the programmers left Windows graphics on by default. That absolutely must be turned off for W98 and it should have been off by default in the release version 2.

I hope your problems with NOD32 are resolved soon, but I cannot agree with you when you say that W98 users are waiting for and need a patch. I need nothing of the sort and doubt seriously that most other W98 users need this either.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 04:02 AM

Concentric (Rod?),

No. I have a license. This email was sent to me 6/2003 from Eset Software (Subject Line: ESET LLC Online - Bank Order)

Dear valued client,

Thank you for purchasing the NOD32 Antivirus System - the only antivirus
program in the world which has not missed a single "In The Wild" virus in
more than four years in independent tests conducted by the prestigious
antivirus industry trade journal, Virus Bulletin. ( www.virusbtn.com )

Our mission is to provide you with the world's best antivirus protection,
on an on-going basis. We're confident that you won't be disappointed
with NOD32's performance - now, or in the future.

You are hereby granted an End User License to use NOD32 on:
1 - computer(s) until 13 June 2004

Download the latest commercial version for your computer's operating
system from http://www.nod32.com/index_dw.htm using your private
User Name and Password, provided below.

Product Platform: Windows 9x/NT/ME/2000/XP/MSDOS
User Name: AV-2******
Password: **********

Please keep your User Name and Password confidential.

You will not need to download the program again if this is a License
renewal - simply enter your new User Name and Password in the
NOD32 Control Center.

IMPORTANT!
Uninstall any other antivirus software, including NOD32 trial versions,
before installation!

For more information on installation and setup, please read the
NOD32 Installation Guides.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/ans/nod32_inst.htm )

To keep up to date with NOD32's state-of-the-art antivirus protection,
make sure all relevant parameters of the NOD32 Control Center are
set correctly. NOD32CC makes updates and program upgrades a
true "set and forget" task - automatically downloading incremental
antivirus updates and automatically upgrading the NOD32 System
engines as required.

NOTE FOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATORS: It is very important that
you read the NOD32 Control Center User Manual before installation.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/ans/nod32cc_inst.htm )

The POP3 Scanner auto-detects both Outlook and Outlook Express
mailboxes. However, the Outlook 2002 email client (from Microsoft
Office XP) must be configured manually. Manual configuration also
applies to most aftermarket email clients. For further information,
please download and read the POP3 Scanner Manual.
( http://www.nod32.com/pop3_man.exe )

Should you have any questions or need assistance, please see the
FAQ/Support section of our website.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/support.htm )

You are welcome to visit the Official NOD32 Support Forum if you'd
like to discuss your issues with other users. This multi-lingual forum
is also monitored by Eset Moderators.
( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/index.php?board=35 )

Best regards,

Eset Team
We protect your digital worlds!
______________________________

Come on, Mele20. I don't speak for all Win98 users. I speak for me, mostly. But I certainly don't speak for Win98 users who don't even use IMON or file exclusions, two things that I pointed out as needing fixed. How is the fact that you don't use the features (by your own admission) relevant? Does that make the problem nonexistent? What kind of argument were you trying to make with that load of BS?

Here are some links to discussions of the problem (and Mele20 posted in 2 of them):

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=14292;start=msg90255#msg90255

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=13572;start=msg86536#msg86536

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=12522;start=msg80686#msg80686

From the above thread, Mele20 says:
-{ Quote: " NOD32 runs better on my W98SE than any other av and I have tried just about all of them recently except for Kaspersky which I know would be too powerful for my older box. Having said this though, I guess I should point out that I did not install IMON. I didn't do this because of known issues with it in W98SE as I didn't know until I read this thread now that there are issues. I didn't install IMON because it is not needed.
" }-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=11583;start=30

Acadia mentions this in the current thread:

-{ Quote: "we 98 users are being put on the back burner which is why I am seriously wondering if they will ever bother to fix the 98 problems; after all, Win98 is slowly fading away and most new potential customers are using XP, so they want to fix the XP bugs first so they can make the sales. Waiting, and waiting, and waiting …." }-

No need for personal insults. Pieter

Pieter_Arntz

November 10th, 2003, 04:21 AM

I did some editing in this thread, and wanted to let you know, I'm not particularly pleased to see where it is heading.

I would like to ask you all to refrain from insults and stick to the topic.

TIA,

Pieter

Blackspear

November 10th, 2003, 04:31 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: rodzilla link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=60#msg100201 date=1068431887] Easy solution ... email me with your NOD32 User Name from your license and a list of your complaints. I'll have them checked out, and if they prevented you from using NOD32 for the past six months then I'll tack another six months on the end of your license.
" }-

NewNod, Rod offered to look at your problems, and you chose to ignore his offer and continue moaning instead.

Why don't you take up his offer and see what he can do for you???

By the way, as a small reseller purchasing from Rod, if the almighty buck was my motive, then I'd be selling Norton quicker than you could say vegemite. I can make more than quadruple the profit, than that I receive from selling Nod...

Cheers ;D

Acadia

November 10th, 2003, 08:17 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: Pieter_Arntz link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=60#msg100245 date=1068456063]
I'm not particularly pleased to see where it is heading.
" }-

Indeed, and I have removed some of my posts as a result of where this is heading; I didn't like them being used as ammo for other's more insulting posts.

Acadia

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 11:03 AM

Sorry, Pieter. And thanks.

I have posted quite a bit here without resorting to name calling, except in the instance you noted above.

I used the word "goof" to describe a guest (logged in with the name Concentric) who threatened physical action against me; Concentric suggested that it would have been one of the senior members taking the action against me had that senior member not recently become such a nice person. Concentric also called me a liar saying I didn't really have a license to NOD32; we all know he was blowing smoke, but I don't think my calling Concentric a "goof" for his threats was out of line. You deleted Concentric's post, so thank you. Perhaps where you thought I crossed the line was also applying the term "goof" to another member who denied having knowledge of a problem I described with Nod32 / Win98 , yet that member had posted in other threads referencing that very same problem. I was mistaken for using that term, although I thought it adequately described someone who forgets what he wrote just a few months before. I think the Concentric post got me fired up; the entire offending phrase in which I used the word "goof" was one sentence written in haste and I was tired. Sorry for the excuse. Lesson learned.

__________________

Blackspear,

I explained my reasoning for not bothering with the license extension offer in my post to Rodzilla. While his gesture is nice, it doesn't help solve the real problem. Sorry, it just doesn't.

__________________

Acadia,

Once again, apologies. I thought your concern earlier with me quoting you
was that it came in the context of my posts to Paul Wilders. I now understand you just don't want me quoting you at all. The most recent instance of me quoting you was used to illustrate the existance of other Win98 users who are having problems with NOD32. It was completely separate and apart from the one-line insult (not of you) that I described above and that has since been replaced by an admonishment from Pieter. I will not quote you anymore, but certainly it was not worth deleting some of your previous posts? Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by deleting previous posts?

Later

tempnexus

November 10th, 2003, 11:23 AM

Yes I agree with NewNOD that extending the useraccount is nice but what would be better is actually fixing the problem in the first place.
My major problem now is The EXLUSION error.
As explained here http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=16091
The nod32 detects the crypto dll as an unknown virri which is great if it was one (Heuritics set to deep and also tested with Normal...no I don't want to disable them since they are one of the main reasons why I use Nod32).
Thus now I would like to exclude that file from scanning but no matter how hard I try it just won't work. The AV constatly prompts me that there is infection present. Yes I know I can send the file to eset (Which I did) and they will fix it, but wouldn't it be better if the exlusions worked in the first place? Then I wouldn't have to wait days before the issue is resolved.
Besides that so far I have no problems (except the ones mentioned previously which are inherent to all AV programs).

Q Section

November 10th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Greetings NewNOD

We are using NOD32 on this computer which is using WIN98SE. We have no problems, we use IMON, we scan all file extensions and do not disable Windows graphics.

Do you have Win98 or Win98SE? We will gladly see if there is some file situation or Windows configuration on your computer that is causing a problem if you wish.

Mele20

-{ Quote: " quoting: Mele20 link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=60#msg100237 date=1068449273]
I have a few things I would like to see fixed but they don't relate just to W98 and NOD32. The only irritating thing I can come up with that is specific to NOD32 on W98 is that even after this was pointed out in beta, the programmers left Windows graphics on by default. That absolutely must be turned off for W98 and it should have been off by default in the release version 2.
" }-

What do you mean by Windows graphics exactly?
Thank you.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 11:56 AM

The man formerly known as TestG said:
-{ Quote: "The nod32 detects the crypto dll as an unknown virri which is great if it was one (Heuritics set to deep and also tested with Normal...no I don't want to disable them since they are one of the main reasons why I use Nod32).
Thus now I would like to exclude that file from scanning but no matter how hard I try it just won't work. The AV constatly prompts me that there is infection present. " }-

Don't know if "trying hard" includes an an attempt to get this workaround to do the trick (the DOS short path workaround I mentioned in my post to Rodzilla). I can't take credit for it, but I got it to work somewhat with JVTools executable (still a little stutter). But other files I've tried still get scanned, so it's hit and miss for me. Here's a link:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=15707

If you've already tried it, sorry.

As you know, a proper fix would be much more helpful rather than a workaround that only works-around some of the time.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 01:01 PM

-{ Quote: "Do you have Win98 or Win98SE? We will gladly see if there is some file situation or Windows configuration on your computer that is causing a problem if you wish." }-

I appreciate the offer. Let me suggest we take this to the following thread:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=13572;start=msg86605#msg86605

Maybe you can take a few minutes to read over it. I also provided some other relevant links in a previous post, but the one above may be the best for these purposes.

I'll post with some info, and if after reading the rest of that thread you feel you can still be helpful, feel free to jump in. I feel, as you ultimately may feel, that this is really a job for Jan (assuming Jan is an ESET software programmer) or another programmer. If you are one of those, then GREAT.

Thanks.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 01:04 PM

Sorry. My last post was intended for QSection, if that wasn't clear.

Thanks.

Q Section

November 10th, 2003, 01:45 PM

NewNOD
A few things come to mind not in any particular order.

First - perhaps your Kernel32.dll is damaged. To reload it you can follow these instructions (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=146419&product=w98).

Second - perhaps another Windows file is damaged or has the wrong version (due to a download changing it). Have you tried Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Tools>System File Checker? Although this is a more difficult possible solution (because one must make an unguided decision about which files to choose) it very well may be the answer. We know of a few people who have had various problems resolved by this fix.

Please consider these possibilities and post your reply to them.

By the way - we are unfortunately not programmers nor do we sell or work for ESET or Wilders (just in case anyone was wondering). 8)

There may be another one or two things we can suggest but we need to check our archives first.

Best wishes.

NewNOD

November 10th, 2003, 02:07 PM

Hey, QSection.

I posted this earlier in response to your first offer of help:
-{ Quote: "I appreciate the offer. Let me suggest we take this to the following thread:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=13572;start=msg86605#msg86605

Maybe you can take a few minutes to read over it. I also provided some other relevant links in a previous post, but the one above may be the best for these purposes.

I'll post with some info, and if after reading the rest of that thread you feel you can still be helpful, feel free to jump in. I feel, as you ultimately may feel, that this is really a job for Jan (assuming Jan is an ESET software programmer) or another programmer. If you are one of those, then GREAT.

Thanks.
" }-

Looks like we got crossed up. I already posted quite a bit of info on the other thread which is one of the threads specifically about Kernel32 errors.

Please see that thread, and I'll see your remarks over there. Thanks.

Blackspear

November 10th, 2003, 03:31 PM

-{ Quote: " quoting: NewNOD link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=60#msg100298 date=1068480202] I explained my reasoning for not bothering with the license extension offer in my post to Rodzilla. While his gesture is nice, it doesn't help solve the real problem. Sorry, it just doesn't. " }-

I saw that you weren't interested in a license extension, that you just want the product to work on your machine... Rod asked for a list of what was going on with your PC...

Cheers ;D

Mele20

November 10th, 2003, 04:02 PM

>What do you mean by Windows graphics exactly?
Thank you.
QSection, all I meant was that if I were to enable "Use of graphics" in the NOD32 System Setup Panel, I would find myself with about 60% resources free on boot instead of 84% free which is what I have with that disabled. When we tested beta 1, the first thing many of us W98/SE users noted was that the beta used an inordinate amount of resources. This only affected us W98/SE/M E users. (Deliberate space between letters M E to avoid posting bug).

NOD32 version 1, gave me 86% resources free on boot and that was with the POP mail scanner enabled. The huge drop in available resources for us W98 users, for version 2 beta one, was crippling. That is until someone, Marti I think it was, figured out that all we needed to do was uncheck that box for "use of graphics" to get most of our resources back. Version 2 beta (with IMON enabled) still was a big hit on resources compared to version one and to some other current av. When I unchecked the box, I went to 76% resources free. Still not good enough. I did not test version 2 beta 2 or use NOD32 for a while partly because of this problem. I used another av that gave me 88% resources free on boot with the POP scanner in use.

I came back to NOD32 this summer and when installing version 2, I refused the install of IMON and I noted with satisfaction that I had 84% resources free on boot which is acceptable.

Q Section

November 11th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Mele20
At this session we have now had this computer on for about 1 hour and we will check system rescources. BRB. OK just checked and just now we have 54% free.

We will now shut off/disable "Use of graphics" and see what resources we have. BRB. Ok we now have 56% free.

Next we will completely shut down NOD32 and report. BRB. Well now we have 58% free. Hmmm...So many Win98SE problems but not here! ??? :)

Some of the main things we found necessary to check were compatability with other programs and corrupted or wrong or newer versions (some newer files were not working properly so we put back the older/original versions) of Windows files (dll's)(checked by using System File Checker in Windows). Have you taken all these things into account?

Best wishes

BTW - we have now turned NOD32 back on with Gaphics enabled and after checking again find we now have 54% free again. We realise 54% is not so very good but the computer runs pretty well and faster than an out of the box XP with no tweaking. We have a Pentium II - 450 mHz and 320 MB ram. 8)

Mele20

November 11th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Did you reboot after shutting off Windows graphics? If you are seeing only 54% resources free after shutdown and reboot what else are you running at boot? On a W98 system you should have at least 80% resources free on boot. My ISP, Road Runner insists on that and ideally you should have as close to 90% resources free on boot as possible. I have never gone below 83% free on boot until I tried the beta of NOD32. You probably have a lot running on boot that is unnecessary and should be turned off in msconfig/start. If you are starting out with only 54% resources free then it won't take many open applications to get your resources so low that you begin to get "out of memory" errors (really means out of resources) and other problems.

But if you are happy then that is what matters!

I no longer have to worry about system resources. I am typing this on my new XPPro box. :)

GuruGuy

November 11th, 2003, 06:12 AM

-{ Quote: " quoting: Mele20 link=board=39;threadid=16010;start=75#msg100492 date=1068538990]
Did you reboot after shutting off Windows graphics? If you are seeing only 54% resources free after shutdown and reboot what else are you running at boot? On a W98 system you should have at least 80% resources free on boot. My ISP, Road Runner insists on that and ideally you should have as close to 90% resources free on boot as possible. I have never gone below 83% free on boot until I tried the beta of NOD32. You probably have a lot running on boot that is unnecessary and should be turned off in msconfig/start. If you are starting out with only 54% resources free then it won't take many open applications to get your resources so low that you begin to get "out of memory" errors (really means out of resources) and other problems.

But if you are happy then that is what matters!

I no longer have to worry about system resources. I am typing this on my new XPPro box. :)

" }-

Mele,
There is no mention of a reboot here.........

"Mele20
At this session we have now had this computer on for about 1 hour and we will check system rescources. BRB. OK just checked and just now we have 54% free.

We will now shut off/disable "Use of graphics" and see what resources we have. BRB. Ok we now have 56% free.

Next we will completely shut down NOD32 and report. BRB. Well now we have 58% free"