So will there be an RC2? Or is RTW next?

[nodHead]

Quite like where NOD32 has gone with Version 3.

Only a few minor issues but then it's not RTW yet.

It's been quiet for a few weeks now, so is there an RC2 coming? Or are the rumours true that end of October = RTW? :shifty:

[JeremyWW]

I would guess an RC2 is unlikely. They are planning a November release. I might be wrong though... ;)

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "I would guess an RC2 is unlikely. They are planning a November release. I might be wrong though... ;)" }-
yeah right. I downloaded the suite again last night. Install went fine, then rebooted and everything screaches to a halt. Took forever to remove it. There are some nice features added since the first beta but, the compatibility issues are still just as bad. The AV is really good, but the suite, there is no way it can be done that quick. Hope I am wrong.

[ignote]

I have not had any trouble with the suite. Perhaps my setup is very simple.

[matthewfarmery]

I think there should be an RC2 for the AV, with its high CPU usage for scanning the system with AH enabled, really annoying, if it goes to gold like this, then I will be sticking with 2.7,

[JeremyWW]

-{ Quote: "I think there should be an RC2 for the AV, with its high CPU usage for scanning the system with AH enabled, really annoying, if it goes to gold like this, then I will be sticking with 2.7," }-

No high CPU usage here - what do you call high?

[nodHead]

No I don't see any high cpu usage on my Vista x86 setup.

[trjam]

And that is the problem my friend. I see it on a Toshiba laptop with XP, and a HP Desktop and Vista. You can not release a product unless you are 98 percent sure, it will download, install and work on consumers PCs. And personally, I think right now, they are at the 40 percent mark. But it isnt my company so let us just see what happens. Bottom line is Eset has suffered from the consumer side since June. Marcos and others have worked their ass off. If it had been me, I would have created a new type of suite that was a AV, antispam, sandbox and HIPS. Screw the firewall, as more and more really just dont care or trust them. Their are only a few that actually work. Eset will get this right, but at this point, I would go back to the drawing board on the suite, release the AV, and go from there.

[gH0StrId3R]

yep definitely an RC2 should be released to test everything is fine or not...coz its not fine with RC1

[chrisf8657]

-{ Quote: "No high CPU usage here - what do you call high?" }-

I have the same problem he does with the high CPU utilization with AH enabled.

[Big Apple]

All different experiences with cpu usage etc. have to do with all kind of different configurations and software combinations, installed on a pc and therefore it's not right to kick an AV scanner's ass. It has been stated so many times before.........not every product will perform the same on all brands of computers. There are too many possible conflicts that can affect the performance of any piece of software, including the AV scanners.

"Try before you buy......." is the only way to find out if a product runs properly. So......stop bashing and choose a product that runs right on 'YOUR' computer.

[ChicknDip]

I also wonder if they're gonna refine the AV part, according to most AV-comparatives, NOD32 is subtop regarding detection rates, but is close to the very bottom at cleaning rates.

It's nice to know you're using a good scanner, but once something is on your system, NOD32 leaves you in the bare cold in most cases.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "I also wonder if they're gonna refine the AV part, according to most AV-comparatives, NOD32 is subtop regarding detection rates, but is close to the very bottom at cleaning rates." }-

According to AV-Comparatives, NOD32 received Advanced, Advanced+, Advanced+ for 2007. In 2006, NOD32 received four scores of Advanced+.

[tazdevl]

-{ Quote: "I also wonder if they're gonna refine the AV part, according to most AV-comparatives, NOD32 is subtop regarding detection rates, but is close to the very bottom at cleaning rates.

It's nice to know you're using a good scanner, but once something is on your system, NOD32 leaves you in the bare cold in most cases." }-

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

There is a need for RC2.

[Thankful]

-{ Quote: "You need to work on your reading comprehension.

There is a need for RC2." }-

Couldn't agree more. That was what I was saying.

[JeremyWW]

-{ Quote: "I also wonder if they're gonna refine the AV part, according to most AV-comparatives, NOD32 is subtop regarding detection rates, but is close to the very bottom at cleaning rates.

It's nice to know you're using a good scanner, but once something is on your system, NOD32 leaves you in the bare cold in most cases." }-

This is gross misrepresentation, oh...and it's wrong. Take another look...

First AV Comparatives image is On-Demand, second is retrospective. These are the latest test reults.

[matthewfarmery]

-{ Quote: "No high CPU usage here - what do you call high?" }-


full details here, http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=187383

plus a few other posts that have also reported high CPU usage with AH enabled, if that option unchecked, scanning is fine and fast, with AH enabled, then it also takes a long time to scan all the files, compared to 2.7,

2.7 = 01:26:38
version 3 = 4 hours,

something is seriously up with nod if it takes that long, and I left the computer, I didn't do anything on it during the scan,

[De Hollander]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but looking at VB100 and AV-Comparatives tests methodology, I can't see any references about the cleaning ability’s of ANY AV when there is something on your system.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "I also wonder if they're gonna refine the AV part, according to most AV-comparatives, NOD32 is subtop regarding detection rates, but is close to the very bottom at cleaning rates.

It's nice to know you're using a good scanner, but once something is on your system, NOD32 leaves you in the bare cold in most cases." }-
Agreed. I've learned this the hard way :'(
.