PC Mag Review of ESS

[bmex63]

Hello all,

This is my first time posting in these forums. I find these forums very helpful. Thanks to all who share info. Today I found that PC Mag reviewed the new Eset Smart Security. I figured some would be interested in reading the review.

PC Mag Review (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2214773,00.asp?kc=PCRSS02129TX1K0000530)

Don't forget that this is the same mag that gave NIS 2008 it's editors choice award....

What are your thoughts on the article?

~bmex63

[trjam]

looks fairly accurate to me and Norton is also a very good product. Geez, they really did bash it.

[rahx]

Well, I still think independent tests are more credible.

Tests like PCMag may very likely use samples in favor of other products.

[bmex63]

Yea they sure did bash it. I was really disappointed after reading this article. I still believe in the power of Eset and it's minimal resources...but :-\ . I wonder if they'll review the standalone product?

[nodyforever]

I am sure what the Eset is going to improve enough have internal informations what they say that everything is going to return to a normal one of which it is the Eset they have to understand also that in 15 years it simply was an alone antivirus and this is only the beginning of a revolution, which I ask for you is that they find the maximum of mistakes what to discover and they turn back to the Eset.


Sorry my this English is my sincere opinion

[SteveBlanchard]

Had a quick read. 1st of many "poor" reviews I'm afraid. I wonder whether the author has posted here? majority of the comments appear straight out of this forum?

[s4u]

They really bashed it. O well it is only a one man's opinion

[SteveBlanchard]

True, but one man can ruin a companies product. Mind you there are a few hickups he didn't mention about ESS likebeing able to kill ekm.exe in task/process manager.

[sjgore]

I thought that was a well-written balanced review, to be honest. The reviewer was clearly more than happy to give ESS a chance, and didn't seem to have it in for the product from the start, unlike some reviewers and their articles. There were plenty of positive comments about ESS, but also plenty of not-so-positive comments (I wouldn't necessarily say negative, more "constructive criticism").

I still have no regrets about buying my 3-PC license last week, although I'm perhaps glad that I only went for the 1-year license and not the 2-year. I look forward to seeing ESS go from strength to strength over the coming year.

Steve.

[crummock]

Like you I have no regrets over buying the licence as I'm sure ESET will rectify any deficiencies.

The real problem with ESS and EAV, as I've said before, is the approach taken by the staff who frequent this forum. Sometimes they can be fantastic and helpful but unfortunately a lot of the time they give the impression that we should be grateful that they let us use their product.

Take the current issue about the kernel being terminated.... over 24 hours on the forum now and not on single response from ESET staff and this is supposed to be THEIR support forum.

If only they attended to customer service they would be unstoppable.

[Steel]

Are the (AV- Modules/ engines ) inside ESS exactly the same as in the V3 AV ?

If yes, how can the results be so catastrophal ?

Please an official word from ESET !!!

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "Are the (AV- Modules/ engines ) inside ESS exactly the same as in the V3 AV ?

If yes, how can the results be so catastrophal ?

Please an official word from ESET !!!" }-


Yes (ESS=NOD32 v3 engine=EA's engine) .

In the Antivirus test they give ESS 4/5 . Perhaps you simply don't understand the other part (e.g. when the revierer says that it left so many registry entries and data afterwards) .

E.g. : the spyware Surfside Kick
This stuff "installs" registry entries for it so that it works easier , it creates files in the %windir% or in the system dir , a folder in %ProgramFiles% .
ESS will detect and eliminate only the dangerous stuff - only the dangerous DLL files in the %ProgramFiles% , will only delete dangerous files in %windir% and system folder.Eset SS will not delete all registry entries and will not delete the folder %ProgramFiles%/Surfside Kick/

ESS have eliminated the dangerous part , the other things are just a cleanup , the rest of the things don't pose a risk for the user.If they don't post a risk , why detect them ??


http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=129155
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=735201&postcount=10

[TJP]

I believe it to be a fair review of a product in its infancy.

ESS has its share of issues (documented in the review and within this forum) but it will get better as time goes on, just like Nod32 before it.

Cheers.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "I believe it to be a fair review of a product in its infancy.

ESS has its share of issues (documented in the review and within this forum) but it will get better as time goes on, just like Nod32 before it.

Cheers.
" }-
Very good point. No matter what issues some may have, the bottom line is it is going to get better as each day goes by.

[SteveBlanchard]

I doubt the reveiw will be on ESET's award pages!!!

[MasterTB]

-{ Quote: "Yes (ESS=NOD32 v3 engine=EA's engine) .

ESS have eliminated the dangerous part , the other things are just a cleanup , the rest of the things don't pose a risk for the user.If they don't post a risk , why detect them ??" }-

Totally Agreed!! their job is to keep out or remove DANGEROUS stuff from your machine, and if they do, THEY SUCCEED, it is as simple as that.

[ugly]

I don't think is that simple !
Ex.: malware designed to run at PC start up - even if you delete the program ,it will try to run every time you start your computer ( and probable give you an error) ....do you need something like that ?
I'd rather go with an antivirus that clean all traces of a malware.
But that is me. ;)

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "Hello all,

This is my first time posting in these forums. I find these forums very helpful. Thanks to all who share info. Today I found that PC Mag reviewed the new Eset Smart Security. I figured some would be interested in reading the review.

PC Mag Review (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2214773,00.asp?kc=PCRSS02129TX1K0000530)

Don't forget that this is the same mag that gave NIS 2008 it's editors choice award....

What are your thoughts on the article?

~bmex63" }-
As a previous subscriber to PC Mag, I began to think over time that they gave the job of doing software reviews to the office boy. Too many times they gave glowing reviews to security software, declaring it Number #1 when in fact it was creating havoc on peoples computers and it was trash in reality, and they trashed great security software in other issues. I wouldn't buy any security software on the strength of their reviews. However, as an Eset user for one year, I just renewed my registration for two more years. That's a review.

[grizz]

is that place sponsored by norton, norton ads all over the place :shifty:
i had norton nis 2008 on 1 of the comps here biggest mistake ever.
thought it was supposed to be a lot smoother this year, the comp was like treacle with it installed, best thing i did was remove it.
i'll be sticking with ess even after reading that ;)

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "is that place sponsored by norton, norton ads all over the place :shifty: " }-

Most of the ads are to support Symantec . One can easily meet McAfee pop-up , too or Trend Micro animation 8)

Have a look at the screenshot ;D ;D ;D (sorry for the off-topic)

[Melchi501]

"Too many times they gave glowing reviews to security software, declaring it Number #1 when in fact it was creating havoc on peoples computers..."

It was my experience with NIS in my new computer.

[grizz]

-{ Quote: "Most of the ads are to support Symantec . One can easily meet McAfee pop-up , too or Trend Micro animation 8)" }-

you sure it's not symantec supporting them ;D

[larryb52]

I put little confidence in Pc Mag's review, they lost credibility years ago & for crying out loud the new versions been out 9 days a bit too soon to be 'that' critical. It will improve & I do have confidence in that...

[psychokilla]

Considering when I went to view the site there was a huge monolithic Norton advert next to the review, I think I would take anything they say with a pinch, no, in fact a vat, of salt

[solcroft]

It's surprising that criticism of the article revolves around how PCMag is "biased" towards other vendors due to "advertising". Does this mean that nobody is unable to factually dispute the article, and thus has to fall back on shady insinuations?

[grizz]

well it didn't inspire confidence when i was greeted by not 1 but 3 ads for
norton on that page alone, and then in the review it goes on about norton getting 10 out of 10, how many more ways do they need to push it before it becomes obvious;)
that and the fact we had nis2008 on a comp here and it was awful
i'm certainly glad it wasn't my comp

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "well it didn't inspire confidence when i was greeted by not 1 but 3 ads for
norton on that page alone, and then in the review it goes on about norton getting 10 out of 10, how many more ways do they need to push it before it becomes obvious;)" }-
So you're saying that, contrary to the article's claims, ESS is a top-notch spyware detector and remover, and its firewall provides state-of-the-art outbound protection?

[nodyforever]

The ESS only it has 1 week of life, taking away 8 months what it was in the embryo


;D 8) :P :D

[grizz]

-{ Quote: "So you're saying that, contrary to the article's claims, ESS is a top-notch spyware detector and remover, and its firewall provides state-of-the-art outbound protection?" }-
not saying that at all but a review should do what it intended to do, review the software not advertise another at the same time.
nod might not be perfect but norton is far from it, and not forgetting norton have had years of experience and it's still a bloated computer hog.
and as for state of the art what software is.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "not saying that at all but a review should do what it intended to do, review the software not advertise another at the same time." }-
This is so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

First off, I'm sure the reviewer had no control what banner ads from which advertising companies were going to be placed alongside his text when he submitted the article to his editors. That was up to the webmaster, and the server bots which crawled the article for keywords to deliver related ad banners.

Secondly, the article itself did a fine job of reviewing ESS, the comments spot-on, and I see no elements of advertising for any competiting vendors. People who oppose the review due to emotional (instead of factual) reasons and groping for just about any John and Joe excuse to discredit the review may disagree.

Third, you say that you don't disagree with the review, so why are you here nitpicking? Either the review is a truthful and honest representation of ESS, or it is not. And if it is not, I want to hear logical arguments as to why it isn't instead of the usual worthless fanboy rantings. Simple as that. I cannot see what reason is there to come in swinging with completely off-topic blows against Symantec.

Let's act like the educated, civilized human beings we are, shall we?

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "not saying that at all but a review should do what it intended to do, review the software not advertise another at the same time.
nod might not be perfect but norton is far from it, and not forgetting norton have had years of experience and it's still a bloated computer hog." }-Apparently Norton doesn't fit this description anymore although I haven't run it since the 2003 version. As far as advertising goes the reviewer seems enamoured with Panda. But who knows maybe Panda deserved the praise it received.

[Capp]

I'm not going to rag on Norton, but I did use it for an extended period of time before I started selling and using NOD32.
I would say after about 2002-03, Norton went downhill very quickly. It became the definition of bloatware.

I am using Eset Smart Security on all my systems now and not one time have I run into any problems. It installed flawlessly with no trouble and activated everything seemlessly.

You should never take 1 magazine's review as the definitive review. You will get as many different reviews as there are reviewers. Its just going to happen. My personal review is that it's an awesome product that has set the bar high and will continue to impress.

[kwg]

Why is almost no one addressing the question posed by the original poster?

-{ Quote: "What are your thoughts on the article?" }-

Like the original poster, I'd like to know whether the criticisms in the article have merit. Whether other products are advertised on the Ziff-Davis site is immaterial to the content of the article itself.

So far, I haven't read a single rational criticism of any claim made in the article itself. Indeed, my own experiences with ESS are in agreement with the reviewer's claims. As someone who owns an ESS license into 2010, I'd like to read intelligent comments about ESS. Comments about Symantec products are irrelevant to my concerns.

I wish the moderators would recognize that many of the posts in this topic are irrelevant to the original poster's question.

[grizz]

worthless fanboy rantings is going a bit far :P
i didn't say i agree or disagree with the reviewer.
ok maybe i lost the plot after seeing 3 popups for norton in the middle of a review.
i'm pretty new to nod so not quite a fanboy...........yet ;)
anyway i'll bite my lip and say no more because it looks like this will drag on otherwise :)

[ronjor]

Given the past history of magazine and computer site reviews of ESET products, and the following intervention by ESET questioning the methods used, the apologies from reviewers that followed, and so on, I would say, and this is a personal opinion, the best way to judge any software is to try it for yourself.

Magazines are a business, pure and simple.

[kwg]

-{ Quote: "Magazines are a business, pure and simple." }-

I agree completely. However, Ziff-Davis has on occasion published an article based on facts and experience. I submit that the review of ESS is one such article. The original poster wanted to know whether the specific claims in the Ziff-Davis article had merit. I think they do, since they are in concord with my own experiences with ESS.

I wish members of this forum would address the specific claims in the article rather than present the cop-out, non-intellectual assertion that Ziff-Davis is simply biased.

Please, what about the specific claims in the article itself?

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "cop-out, non-intellectual assertion" }-The article wasn't very intellectually stimulating for me personally. It is one persons opinion with no testing criteria that I can see. -{ Quote: "Please, what about the specific claims in the article itself?" }-The answer to that question will come in time.

Please note the comparisons with other programs in the article. Clearly commercially orientated and not needed in a fair review.

[kwg]

-{ Quote: "The article wasn't very intellectually stimulating for me personally. It is one persons opinion with no testing criteria that I can see." }-

I agree that the testing criteria have not been explicitly disclosed in the article itself. However, if you were to contact Ziff-Davis, you would probably be provided with those criteria. I see no evidence that Ziff-Davis is hiding those criteria.

Since my own experiences with ESS, as a four-year licensee of ESET products, agree with the reviewer's observations, my inclination is to believe the conclusions of the reviewer rather than the unsubstantiated claims of members of these forums.

-{ Quote: "Please note the comparisons with other programs in the article. Clearly commercially orientated and not needed in a fair review." }-

Can you cite a specific claim in the article with which you disagree? What evidence can you cite to support your counter-claim?

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "specific claim in the article with which you disagree?" }-I don't necessarily disagree with the claims as much as the tone of the article.

Criticism of any product can be useful to make it better. When you criticize a product and then throw in a numbered rating using other products, it invalidates the whole article as far as I personally am concerned. -{ Quote: "my inclination is to believe the conclusions of the reviewer rather than the unsubstantiated claims of members of these forums." }-Users are usually honest in their experiences with software. Those that aren't will quickly be spotted by other users.

[kwg]

-{ Quote: "I don't necessarily disagree with the claims as much as the tone of the article." }-

Why should the tone you perceive in the article (a tone which I do not perceive) matter when you do not dispute the claims of the article? The original poster wanted to know whether the claims are correct, not whether the tone of the article is agreeable.

Why are the moderators of these forums allowing the discussion to drift away from the specific question posed by the original poster?

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "I don't necessarily disagree with the claims as much as the tone of the article." }-
In other words, it's not that the article itself is inaccurate, it's just that you don't appreciate the fact that the review didn't paint ESS as a stellar top-of-the-line product?

-{ Quote: "Criticism of any product can be useful to make it better. When you criticize a product and then throw in a numbered rating using other products, it invalidates the whole article as far as I personally am concerned." }-
And why is that? The reviewer used numbered ratings to measure ESS' ability to detect and remove spyware. This is not a subjective matter, and instead of just labeling a product as "excellent", "fair" or "poor", a numerical score on a set rating scale can be easily applied based on predefined criteria. Other antivirus reviews use numerical ratings to measure detection and removal rates as well; does this fact invalidate them all too?

You're more than welcome to your opinion, but I'd like to hear the reasoning you use to justify it, as I'm sure it'll be very interesting indeed.

[kwg]

-{ Quote: "You're more than welcome to your opinion, but I'd like to hear the reasoning you use to justify it, as I'm sure it'll be very interesting indeed." }-

Just two days ago I e-mailed my clients the link to this topic as evidence that they should subscribe to ESET Smart Security. Unfortunately, at a loss of hundreds of dollars to ESET, I must cite the same link as evidence that they should not subscribe to ESET Smart Security. The arguments posted by romjor are evidence enough that ESET security has nothing substantial to stand on.

[solcroft]

As far as ditching ESS due to a magazine review and a moderator's rather... interesting comments, I have to disagree.

ESS' main shortcomings as identified by the review were poor malware cleanup, poor firewall controls and outbound protection, and a jumpy spam filter. I personally do not place too much importance on cleanup, as the way I prefer to use antivirus software is to let them detect and stop infections in the first place, instead of installing them after infection occurs and hoping they can clean up the mess. I use HIPS/behavior blockers to stop processes from tampering with each other on the application level, and I prefer a firewall that only has direct outbound control instead of the full bells and whistles. As for the spam filter, my mail is filtered at the server level, and I couldn't care less even if ESS completely lacked this feature.

A review can be completely accurate, yet irrelevant. For my computing environment and personal preferences, this happens to be the case, and ESS' flaws as pinpointed by the review do not matter to me. Eset has always pursued its own strange policies with its products and services (eschewing outbound firewall protection, slow and often nonexistent response to user-submitted samples), and dissension to these policies are often handled in a brusque, "we know better than you" manner, but for the moment I will still recommend Eset products to people who ask me about them, with no reservations.

[sjgore]

Did any of you actually read the whole article? (I can tell one or two have, but most seem to be posting in ignorance).

As I've previously said, it is well-balanced, with plenty of positive comments, but also lots of contructive criticism. I'm an ESET fan like most of you are, but you've got to be able to acknowledge that ESS and NOD32 aren't perfect.

It also depends on what your priorities are for certain features. For example: For me, memory footprint is more important than leak test results, and efficient use of system resources is more important than anti-spam capabilities.

Steve.

[The Nodder]

I have not used the Norton AV, but I found that McAfee is a diabolically awfull shocking excuse for a program.

I was on holiday & staying in a Bed and breakfast in England ( the UK ).
The man of the house was having a problem with his PC, he happened to mention
that to me so I offered any help I could give. He accepted my offer.

He was having great difficulty with a program, we could not solve the problems. I suggested he get NOD32. He said, why should I buy that when I have one. I can't recall what one he had, that was 4 years ago. He was indignant at me for suggesting it & would not do it.
So the time came for us ( my wife & I )to return home.
However, many times we spoke to each other on the phone & again I advised NOD32 when he repeated that he couldn't get that program to work and the support for it was useless.

So, the day dawned when he phoned me to tell me he was going out to buy NOD32, I told him he would not regret it.

When he returned home he phoned me, with a very angry tone in his voice. He asked the salesman what was the best anti-virus program, he bought McAfee because the salesman had not heard of NOD 32 and it must be no good or he would have heard of it. I could not get through to him, he really was angry.
So he installed it. I got phone call after phone call that he couldn't get it to work.

Then we went on holiday & we stayed with him for a week.
Naturally the PC was mentioned. We were only staying with him for 1 week but I spent 2 full days with him & his PC. I tried to get McAfee to work, no way.

I have never seen anything like it and I doubt if I ever will again. He was driven crazy by the setting up of it. It wouldn't store his username & password. He had to enter them for nearly everything he wanted to do. He could get nothing done. It was so complicated & complex I could not believe it. He phoned the support , this was vastly overpriced, in the UK £1 per minute. After 15 minutes he had to hang up. There was nothing problematic in the computer, it was the program.

I again recommended NOD32, I was expecting a big argument, and got one.
However, next day he asked was NOD any good. I must have said the correct things, then he asked me to let him think on it for a few minutes. Then he asked where could he get it, I replied online.

So he went online & I guided him through the process, he paid for it, downloaded & installed it. In 3 minutes it was working as it should do, not a problem. I said, there you are, that's it. Then he got his username & password by email & we entered them, was he pleased or what.
He could not believe it. He really was amazed, he shook my hand and said he should have listened to me sooner. It continues to work to this day and he will never change to another.

[rolarocka]

that's the biggest plus with nod32. it simply works and works and works....

[kwg]

In less than a minute, I can use Microsoft Visual Studio to create a Windows application that does nothing, but still claims to offer security and keeps on working. Really, the "keeps on working" argument is nonsense if the functionality is missing.

The article cited by the original poster identifies many areas in which ESS keeps on working but lacks functionality (and security) compared to competing products.

I have been using NOD32 for two years. During these years, I have consistently recommended NOD32 to my clients and friends. Last week I upgraded my own computers to ESS with a two-year license renewal. I remain an enthusiastic supporter of ESET products.

However, my enthusiasm for ESET products does not blind me to the shortcomings of the current version of ESS.

As for "keeps on working," you can read here about how ESS brought one of my own computers to a grinding halt:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=190881

[rinzwind]

I've read the review. It sounds like a fair review. The method of infecting a pc without security and then trying to clean it is questionable (but you can come accross it when helping some click click noob). I am a fan (and reseller) of the NOD32 AV product. It is generally considered to be among the best supported by tests.

However, I don't think antispyware is it's strength. It is a nice addition for an antivirus program, but as stand alone spyware scanner there are better options. It still the same in ESS I guess.

I was stun that the default behaviour of the EES firewall is to permit all outbound traffic! Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default. Interactive learning mode should be default with predefined rules for common programs.

I didn't read he did learn the antispam solution (spam/not spam buttons) so he tested the antispam solution out-of-the-box. It is common practice to let antispam solutions learn for a while. 80% spam caught, but 13% false positives...

I'm waiting for other reviews. The firewall defaults must be fixed!

[SteveBlanchard]

"I was stun that the default behaviour of the EES firewall is to permit all outbound traffic! Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default. Interactive learning mode should be default with predefined rules for common programs."

I agree. Little did I know that when I used the Firewall Leak test, they also let some nasties come in on Automatic - In my case for Automatic read Firewall Off

[Jeff Bellune]

I think that one important point that is being missed in this whole discussion is that one security suite is never the best at doing everything. So unless you are willing to install multiple separate components, you must choose a suite that best fits how you use the computer.

For example - Do you have a heavily infected system and need removal capabilities? The reviewer said Panda's suite did the best job in terms of complete removal. But he also said that ESS removed the most dangerous stuff. So there's a trade-off between a small system footprint and complete and total removal capabilities. You, the user, have to choose which is most important to you.

Are you having trouble with keyloggers? Then, according to the review, McAfee's Site Advisor and Trend Micro's TrendProtect do the best job of preventing new infestations, while Norton did the best job of removing existing keyloggers. But MSA and TMTP aren't suites, are they? They are stand-alone components. (Sidebar: why is the reviewer comparing a suite app's performance to stand-alone components?) And Norton isn't as good as Panda at removing existing spyware, while the spyware-removal champ Panda stinks at removing keyloggers.

If you read the review carefully, you can find other, similar examples.

So pick the best suite for you based on your needs, and then request that your chosen company address your concerns in future updates/releases.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Little did I know that when I used the Firewall Leak test, they also let some nasties come in on Automatic" }-
Do explain.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "why is the reviewer comparing a suite app's performance to stand-alone components?" }-
Probably because he's only comparing one aspect of the suite to the standalone program, as opposed to pitting the standalone program and the suite as a whole against each other.

[SteveBlanchard]

-{ Quote: "Do explain." }-
Its late here so will try my best!

Following the advice in an earlier post about Firewall Leak tests, I went to the recomended site and downloaded the leak tests. With the set up on Automatic, the first one failed, the next 4 showed up as viruses and were "blocked" - I set the firewall to interactive and it blocked the leaktest program.

However it appears two of these leak tests have viruses on them and becasue the Firewall was automatic they breached ESS and got onto my PC

exploit.copycat.b.trojan
trojannotifier.small.A.trojan

These 2 were found when I dropped ESS for KIS 7 2 nights back, the viruses showed up in the FF cache, they were then dealt with by KIS.

So now I will never switch the firewall to Automatic, the risk is to great in my mind.

Hope that makes sense, it has been a long day.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "Hope that makes sense, it has been a long day." }-
It does now.

Pretty much as I suspected, just some paranoia on your part due to misunderstandings. Kaspersky detected the Copycat leak tests as an exploit - that's all that happened. It doesn't mean it "breached" the firewall; that makes no sense at all, since firewalls weren't designed to detect trojans. As for the Trojannotifier, in lieu of what you've just described, I'm perfectly inclined to think it's just more misunderstanding and panicking on your part rather than any real threat.

[SteveBlanchard]

-{ Quote: "It does now.

Pretty much as I suspected, just some paranoia on your part due to misunderstandings. Kaspersky detected the Copycat leak tests as an exploit - that's all that happened. It doesn't mean it "breached" the firewall; that makes no sense at all, since firewalls weren't designed to detect trojans. As for the Trojannotifier, in lieu of what you've just described, I'm perfectly inclined to think it's just more misunderstanding and panicking on your part rather than any real threat." }-


Thank You

[WigglyTheGreat]

Nothing really surprising here. Eset's AV of course is the strongest part of the suite and the firewall isn't overly robust. The antispam I have no idea about as I never used it and don't need it. No big surprise that it isn't the best antispyware either as that is why it's best to run different antispyware scans as no one antispyware app can catch everything. Parental controls have no business in security suites anyway as far as I am concerned so I hope not to see them in ESS. Most importantly ESS runs smooth as butter on any machine I put it on and they all have very different hardware and software on them.

My favorite combo was always nod32 and outpost firewall, but I am happy to use ESS and I feel it will only get better with time. I like ESS despite it not being perfect in every area. It runs great and the impact on system performance is almost zero and I run different online av scans, antispyware scans, and my systems always come up clean. I would say Eset is on the right track with this suite and just need to make minor improvements while keeping ESS lean.

[Trooper]

Wow pretty harsh review by them. Not surprising to me based upon there track record however. I think ESS is still going to improve with time. I never had an issue with NOD32 2.7 etc, so I am willing to bet the same type of satisfaction will come with ESS.

I wonder though, based upon this review, is anyone here running an anti trojan such as BOClean etc with ESS? I used to run it a long time ago alongside NOD32, but after it went to Comodo, I lost interest in the product. If anyone here wants to PM me regarding this as to not derail this thread, that's fine with me.

[Edwin024]

I have Norton Antibot and BoClean running alongside of ESS. Doesn't harm ;)

[Trooper]

-{ Quote: "I have Norton Antibot and BoClean running alongside of ESS. Doesn't harm ;)" }-

Good to know. Not sure I will run them side by side. I've not been impressed since BOClean went to Comodo.

Anyways, thanks for the reply.

[nodHead]

-{ Quote: "Had a quick read. 1st of many "poor" reviews I'm afraid. I wonder whether the author has posted here? majority of the comments appear straight out of this forum?" }-

PC Mag has it's people in this forum. That's obvious.

As far as the review, it's accurate. ESET is struggling against the competition.

[Katril]

I have personally gave up on software reviews from CNet, PCMag, or any of these reviewers.


I find it hard to believe that they give honest reviews on products when I own the products and can accurately argue every point they have.



I mean honestly, we have symantec at work and I just had to run an online scan from eset to clean a computer. And it did work over symantec.


SO overall Ive found them to bash those that probably do not pay the most to not be bashed.



Kind of like the software mafia or something. :)

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "I have personally gave up on software reviews from CNet, PCMag, or any of these reviewers.


I find it hard to believe that they give honest reviews on products when I own the products and can accurately argue every point they have.



I mean honestly, we have symantec at work and I just had to run an online scan from eset to clean a computer. And it did work over symantec.


SO overall Ive found them to bash those that probably do not pay the most to not be bashed.



Kind of like the software mafia or something. :)" }-
People can find out what the best software and the worst is, simply by being a member of the Wilders Forum. You can separate the BS from the good information just from reading and participating in the threads. I have been informed about more excellant software reading posts then I ever could reading "reviews" in computer magazines. ;D

[rinzwind]

-{ Quote: "Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default." }-
I was incorrect. Vista's firewall doesn't block outbound traffic by default.

[Edwin024]

Amazing to see that Eset responds in a thread where ESS gets a good review but no response at all in here. Sad thing.

[stueycaster]

No matter what is said it all still boils down to one thing. They gave a review on an application that is less than two weeks old. Wait til this thing is a year old and see what they're saying then.

[GaryRW]

-{ Quote: "No matter what is said it all still boils down to one thing. They gave a review on an application that is less than two weeks old. Wait til this thing is a year old and see what they're saying then." }-

It's not 2 wks old, it's almost 1 yr late.....excluding Vista compatability.

[solcroft]

-{ Quote: "and can accurately argue every point they have." }-
So why don't you, instead of contributing more of the same tired and old accusations of bias?

I'm still waiting to see any factual rebuttals to the review.

[Abeltje]

-{ Quote: "
I was stun that the default behaviour of the EES firewall is to permit all outbound traffic! Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default. Interactive learning mode should be default with predefined rules for common programs.
" }-

I mentioned that to the ESET staff during beta test, as I think the Windows Firewall is even stricter in that case than ESET firewall in automatic mode. I got as a reply that it might be changed later on. For me, just more evidence that the suite is rushed out too quickly, not all aspects of it well developed and issues left uncleared. Still, that might not be so unusual for a software product, Firefox 3 will be published with lots of bugs left unfixed as there is not enough time. Just our choice whether we want to accept that and buy the suite or not.