interface of 3.0 better than 4.0 beta

[wiak]

compare the new 4.0 beta interface with the 3.0 interface and you see the 3.0 interface has better design and looks beautiful

please get the 3.0 interface design in the final release of 4.0

a good designed interface = happy customers
customers will also see it as a downgrade like its now with 4.0

3.0
http://www.esetscandinavia.com/images/screenshots/eset_antivirus_1_large.png
4.0
http://img.techpowerup.org/081119/Capture005.jpg

[santy]

Yes, it is a unimportant interface! than next, that's worse. In 2.7 is better interface, 3.0 is worse. In 4.0 is more worse. :(.

[funkydude]

To be honest I don't really see a difference and couldn't care. But I know why it was done t give the customer the "new" feeling. Most software companies do it, and it doesn't bother me unless they make it worse. I disagree that it is worse.

[wiak]

4.0 interface goes backwards compared to 3.0 interface

[santy]

what speak russian, theatre is beginner from cloakroom, but antivirus is beginner from good interface... let it be 3.0 interface.

[rothko]

the GUI in v3 beta was different to the final version, the final version was much better. So what you see now is likely not what you will see in later betas, RCs or the final release.

in beta, version 3 looked like this...

[santy]

it was a good, if add active functions to sysinspector: kill process, include off the keys of autorun and others.
---
but the way, interface of 3.0 betas imperceptible different from final release 3.0. ( So clumsy pictures, exept "Setup" and "Protection Status".)

[nonoise]

i think v4 looks better than v3. eset could implement skins by now(like avast, winamp etc.)

[larryb52]

stop worrying about GUI & skinability, worry about detection & cleaning, keep you eye on what an AV is suppose to do not how pleasing it looks...

[xxJackxx]

-{ Quote: "stop worrying about GUI & skinability, worry about detection & cleaning, keep you eye on what an AV is suppose to do not how pleasing it looks..." }-

I agree for the most part. I think it looks fine and it will most likely change by the final as was already mentioned. Detection and cleaning is the only real reason for running it at all though. If it is attractive, then that is a bonus.

[wiak]

-{ Quote: "I agree for the most part. I think it looks fine and it will most likely change by the final as was already mentioned. Detection and cleaning is the only real reason for running it at all though. If it is attractive, then that is a bonus." }-
attractive is a key word here, 3.0 looks great for mortal people not GEEKS like us ;D
i get used to 4.0 but i got a shock when i first open the gui :P
didnt expect it so diffrent

[xxJackxx]

-{ Quote: "attractive is a key word here, 3.0 looks great for mortal people not GEEKS like us ;D
i get used to 4.0 but i got a shock when i first open the gui :P
didnt expect it so diffrent" }-

It's all a matter of taste. I like the current beta. A nicer interface will help it sell to non-geeks, but if I were purchasing based on a shiny interface I would buy Norton along with the other sheeple. I prefer something that gives me more control. I'd be more than happy for an awesome interface, but at a lower priority than functionality. That was a lot of my complaint with v3. It looked cool, but had a lot of other issues. I have hope for v4, I guess we'll see. Not disagreeing with you, it's just not the highest priority, especially if the interface is being done by the same programmers that are working on the code underneath. I want it to work well, else there are too many alternatives. I prefer not to go there, but since this is in beta we have the opportunity to push them to make the best product possible. And if that includes the ultimate attractive interface, great, towards the end when the other stuff is done. But again, I like it as is.

[rolarocka]

-{ Quote: "attractive is a key word here, 3.0 looks great for mortal people not GEEKS like us ;D
i get used to 4.0 but i got a shock when i first open the gui :P
didnt expect it so diffrent" }-
Theres an option to not use the pretty graphics under settings. That sure is for hardcore geeks :D

[dorgane]

I like V4 but i find that menus advance is slow when expand :(

[agoretsky]

Hello,

If you want to use the text interface, you can try pressing Ctrl-G in the main window to toggle it on and off.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


-{ Quote: "compare the new 4.0 beta interface with the 3.0 interface and you see the 3.0 interface has better design and looks beautiful

please get the 3.0 interface design in the final release of 4.0

a good designed interface = happy customers
customers will also see it as a downgrade like its now with 4.0

3.0
http://www.esetscandinavia.com/images/screenshots/eset_antivirus_1_large.png
4.0
http://img.techpowerup.org/081119/Capture005.jpg" }-

[webyourbusiness]

I know a lot of our blind and visually impaired customers are eagerly awaiting version 4.0 because of the ability to turn off the GUI, thus enabling the program to be compatible with reading windows browers again.

[agoretsky]

Hello,

Please let your customers know that the text mode in the 4.0 Public Beta 1 is not complete. That said, any feedback they would care to provide would be most welcome.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

-{ Quote: "I know a lot of our blind and visually impaired customers are eagerly awaiting version 4.0 because of the ability to turn off the GUI, thus enabling the program to be compatible with reading windows browers again." }-

[lite]

Please revert back to the clean and nice interface of version 3 or 2. What was shown in the first screenshot of 3.0 would be ideal. It was really nice, better than the final version. Please take this into consideration. Thanks!

[santy]

something how it

http://www.invisiblesecrets.com/screens.html
---
competitors was to die from envy. :).

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "Please revert back to the clean and nice interface of version 3 or 2. What was shown in the first screenshot of 3.0 would be ideal. It was really nice, better than the final version. Please take this into consideration. Thanks!" }-


hello,

icons skin the best + skin v4 fusion best:) love icons


most regards,
NF

[Melchi501]

I prefer this interface (4.0). More classy. But it's my taste...::)

[DooGie]

-{ Quote: "I prefer this interface (4.0). More classy. But it's my taste...::)" }-

I agree :)

[zfactor]

i actually like the 2.xx version gui myself but i agree 3.0 looked better than 4.0

[SmackyTheFrog]

It looks just as functional as the 3.0 interface and is more in line with the GUI cues of Vista. I don't really see what the problem is here.

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "compare the new 4.0 beta interface with the 3.0 interface and you see the 3.0 interface has better design and looks beautiful

please get the 3.0 interface design in the final release of 4.0

a good designed interface = happy customers
customers will also see it as a downgrade like its now with 4.0

3.0
http://www.esetscandinavia.com/images/screenshots/eset_antivirus_1_large.png
4.0
http://img.techpowerup.org/081119/Capture005.jpg" }-
Basically the main difference is in the banner. The rest is almost the same as 3 except that the banner bleeds into it. I like the V4 design.

[ESS3]

Interface ESET Smart Security 3 is much more beautiful beta 4. Are especially awful, inscription ESET Smart Security 4, both logo ESET, and other.:(
The new systray icon is rather awful
http://smages.com/i/5f/71/5f71e08332c8e76504031c396a5b7963.png (http://smages.com/)
http://smages.com/i/bc/ca/bcca038ddd899c5de3705eceb53efb98.png (http://smages.com/)
http://smages.com/i/88/69/8869dd6828be9b625ee021ef678cc3f9.png (http://smages.com/)
http://smages.com/i/cc/c2/ccc293cf3fdf9ad47b234c324a764273.png (http://smages.com/)

[JuliusB]

looking at the screenshots I think I like the new interface better.
clean, light and modern. more vista/windows 7 like.
maybe you guys just feel nostalgia if you say even nod32 2.0 ui is better looking :)

[Melchi501]

"The new systray icon is rather awful"

Not at all !!! Particularly from Eset Smart Security.

[wiak]

-{ Quote: "looking at the screenshots I think I like the new interface better.
clean, light and modern. more vista/windows 7 like.
maybe you guys just feel nostalgia if you say even nod32 2.0 ui is better looking :)" }-
well i say 3.0 is better than 4.0 interface design wise to integrate with Vista/7

[dazulrich]

Is the UI really that important to you?

Sure its nice to have perfect UI, but its not a UI you look at all day everyday drooling...

If NOD32 v4 is doing its job properly, I hope I hardly ever need to look at the interface other than for scan results. And when I do need to otherwise, I'm probably more concerned with the problem presented and it's possible causes.

I'm sure fine tuning the color scheme will happen and maybe reducing the real estate used by the outer border ( with graphic and Esest nod32 v4.) but not because it's "ugly", but it leaves less room for the main info panes.... it looks more squashed than in v3.

[nonoise]

i agree that GUI is not the most important part of any software but this is topic about the interface. so lets talk about interfaces. not what is more important.

[BedreAntivirus]

the interface dosnt look ugly but its diffrent from 3.0 anyway 3.0 beta was alot diffrent from stable to :)
i do like the new stats and stuff in 4.0 and Eset SysRescue!

[dazulrich]

-{ Quote: "i agree that GUI is not the most important part of any software but this is topic about the interface. so lets talk about interfaces. not what is more important." }-

Sure lets talk about - but keeping in mind it's not the most important feature of an AV product.....

[twl845]

I don't care if the GUI is in black and white with an arial font. Just make it stable, easy to use, and reliable. :isay:

[wiak]

-{ Quote: "I don't care if the GUI is in black and white with an arial font. Just make it stable, easy to use, and reliable. :isay:" }-
true :P

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "I don't care if the GUI is in black and white with an arial font. Just make it stable, easy to use, and reliable. :isay:" }-


I disagree. Don't get me wrong, but usually only for "geeks" UI looks are not important at all.
For a mainstream product they are important and for me I like good looking UI better to. That with functionality and effectiveness combined of course.

[Melchi501]

"For a mainstream product they are important and for me I like good looking UI better to. That with functionality and effectiveness combined of course."

Thank you :thumb:

[nodyforever]

Sugestion:

possiible skinable version home edition :) not business edition.


Right?

[ambient_88]

I actually like the v4 interface rather than the v3. The new interface looks more sophisticated than the old one.

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "I actually like the v4 interface rather than the v3. The new interface looks more sophisticated than the old one." }-



I agree.


_________________ //___________


@ALL PEOPLE


Skin not appear version final discussion unnecessary 8) ;D :lurking:

[Capp]

I personally like the v2.7 interface the best. It wasn't fully of pastel colors, gradients, pretty pictures and animations.
Nothing against the v3 or new beta GUI.

The more graphics and colors that are in the GUI, the more resources it takes to display them.

Overdoing the GUI is one reason I stopped using other products so many years ago and became a reseller for Eset. Every version it seemed, the graphics and pictures became more intense and it took longer and longer just to load the menus. I'd rather have a basic interface like 2.7 and be able to fly through the configuration quickly, than to have a colorful 3D looking interface and it takes forever to display.

Some people have commented to me about how old the GUI's look in my software, but you know what, there is no loading time for anything in my software. You click something, it shows up immediately. I could spend lots of time redesigning the GUI's to make them look more Fisher Price like Vista, but it would run slower and take more resources just to use it. No thanks.

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "I personally like the v2.7 interface the best. It wasn't fully of pastel colors, gradients, pretty pictures and animations.
Nothing against the v3 or new beta GUI.

The more graphics and colors that are in the GUI, the more resources it takes to display them.

Overdoing the GUI is one reason I stopped using other products so many years ago and became a reseller for Eset. Every version it seemed, the graphics and pictures became more intense and it took longer and longer just to load the menus. I'd rather have a basic interface like 2.7 and be able to fly through the configuration quickly, than to have a colorful 3D looking interface and it takes forever to display.

Some people have commented to me about how old the GUI's look in my software, but you know what, there is no loading time for anything in my software. You click something, it shows up immediately. I could spend lots of time redesigning the GUI's to make them look more Fisher Price like Vista, but it would run slower and take more resources just to use it. No thanks." }-




I fully agree:) GUI v2.7 is the best we can have now with the same simplicity of v3 and 4 would be useful for creating a pleasant work environment.


Most regards,
NF

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "I fully agree:) GUI v2.7 is the best we can have now with the same simplicity of v3 and 4 would be useful for creating a pleasant work environment.


Most regards,
NF" }-

I disagree again. don't get me wrong, but you sound like "old breed" :)
come on, times change. graphics in NOD32 3 and 4(as dar as I see now)GUI is minimal and doesn't slow down AT ALL it's click, open, click, open.
come on, do you want everything to be terminal console based????
nice easy to use interface adds a very nice touch to the final look of the program.

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "Overdoing the GUI is one reason I stopped using other products so many years ago and became a reseller for Eset. Every version it seemed, the graphics and pictures became more intense and it took longer and longer just to load the menus." }-

I agree with you.

On my setup currently v2's GUI takes just a few Kb of the memory
v3 - about 1 Mb . The GUI of v4 beta takes about 5 Mbs.

[Capp]

-{ Quote: "
come on, do you want everything to be terminal console based????
nice easy to use interface adds a very nice touch to the final look of the program." }-

I'm not exactly an "old breed" in the IT field, but I've been at it awhile and I still prefer basic interfaces to graphic laden systems. Every one of my systems running XP has it set back to the classic interface. I don't allow Vista on any of my systems because its a huge pile. I would be happy keep all Windows GUI layouts to look like Win2K. ;)

Also, the "nice easy to use interface...", comment, well v2.7 was nice and easy to use for a lot of us. From install to finish configuration settings, I could be done with a clients system in under 5 minutes with the old interface. It takes awhile longer now.

Pretty buttons and animations do not equal "easy to use" in my book. Easy to use, is being able to do everything via the keyboard and not have to touch the mouse at all, but not all software is designed that way, so having very easy to navigate menus and configuration tabs is key to fast implementation.

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "I agree with you.

On my setup currently v2's GUI takes just a few Kb of the memory
v3 - about 1 Mb . The GUI of v4 beta takes about 5 Mbs." }-


Oh come on....jeeez.....5MB.....how much RAM do you have??? 32MB SDRAM?

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "I'm not exactly an "old breed" in the IT field, but I've been at it awhile and I still prefer basic interfaces to graphic laden systems. Every one of my systems running XP has it set back to the classic interface. I don't allow Vista on any of my systems because its a huge pile. I would be happy keep all Windows GUI layouts to look like Win2K. ;)

Also, the "nice easy to use interface...", comment, well v2.7 was nice and easy to use for a lot of us. From install to finish configuration settings, I could be done with a clients system in under 5 minutes with the old interface. It takes awhile longer now.

Pretty buttons and animations do not equal "easy to use" in my book. Easy to use, is being able to do everything via the keyboard and not have to touch the mouse at all, but not all software is designed that way, so having very easy to navigate menus and configuration tabs is key to fast implementation." }-

Win2K? just how much more boring it can get????
btw vista interface does not lag at all and whole os works faster than xp and it's a known fact. unless your pc is very old...the, yes, xp is better.
otherwise vista or wait for windows 7 with less resource usage if your pc is older...like 2yrs or more old maybe.

[Capp]

-{ Quote: "Oh come on....jeeez.....5MB.....how much RAM do you have??? 32MB SDRAM?" }-

That's not the point he is making.
If I have a program that works perfectly and uses less than 1mb of RAM, why would I want to increase that to 5x what it was using?

Also, some people do run their systems on the bare minimum requirements, so keeping it down as low as possible is best.

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "I disagree again. don't get me wrong, but you sound like "old breed" :)
come on, times change. graphics in NOD32 3 and 4(as dar as I see now)GUI is minimal and doesn't slow down AT ALL it's click, open, click, open.
come on, do you want everything to be terminal console based????
nice easy to use interface adds a very nice touch to the final look of the program." }-


Hello,


It would also be the funny "egui.exe" not consume 7MB


Times change but it is true .... but like a simple GUI and that consumes little and do not freeze



The GUI may be linked to the high consumption of emulation of AH when we scan?



Most Reagrds,
NF

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "That's not the point he is making.
If I have a program that works perfectly and uses less than 1mb of RAM, why would I want to increase that to 5x what it was using?

Also, some people do run their systems on the bare minimum requirements, so keeping it down as low as possible is best." }-


:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "I agree with you.

On my setup currently v2's GUI takes just a few Kb of the memory
v3 - about 1 Mb . The GUI of v4 beta takes about 5 Mbs." }-



GUI v4 egui.exe 7MB for me

erken.exe 42 and 53 MB



xp sp3 core duo E6600

[Capp]

-{ Quote: "Win2K? just how much more boring it can get????
btw vista interface does not lag at all and whole os works faster than xp and it's a known fact. unless your pc is very old...the, yes, xp is better.
otherwise vista or wait for windows 7 with less resource usage if your pc is older...like 2yrs or more old maybe." }-

Boring? maybe......Functional? Fully... Easy to use? Yes!
How many massive networks have you managed? In my personal experience, when it came time to do reimaging, pushing software installs, updating, etc... It was time consuming in W2K, got worse when updated to XP, and bottomed out when moving to Vista.
Yes it runs faster if you have a massive system. But I'm not talking about loading speed or lag. I'm talking about the layout, the graphics, the interface, the complete system is a turd in my books. Its Microsoft trying to make Windows look more like a Mac.

btw, my computer is one I built myself 8 years ago and it has plenty of horsepower to run Vista, I choose not to because Vista sucks. Maybe it works great for day-to-day users that do nothing besides use IE to check their email and play solitaire, but for sys admins and network managers, its a pain in the butt to do anything with.

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "That's not the point he is making.
If I have a program that works perfectly and uses less than 1mb of RAM, why would I want to increase that to 5x what it was using?

Also, some people do run their systems on the bare minimum requirements, so keeping it down as low as possible is best." }-

you are saying people are running it on 32MB sdram?
it does matter if it is 2 times or 3 times or 7 times more memory consuming. does not matter at all. it's still like 5mb. these days 5mb ram means absolutelly totally nothing and giving a program rating based on that "5x times more ram usage" when it's still only super small amount of 5mb of ram...giving a rating based on that in these times is just plain wrong.
plus it's not only the gui look was improved too so that counts for memory usage too.

[nodyforever]

-{ Quote: "That's not the point he is making.
If I have a program that works perfectly and uses less than 1mb of RAM, why would I want to increase that to 5x what it was using?

Also, some people do run their systems on the bare minimum requirements, so keeping it down as low as possible is best." }-



I agree totally :)

[SmackyTheFrog]

-{ Quote: "Boring? maybe......Functional? Fully... Easy to use? Yes!
How many massive networks have you managed? In my personal experience, when it came time to do reimaging, pushing software installs, updating, etc... It was time consuming in W2K, got worse when updated to XP, and bottomed out when moving to Vista.
Yes it runs faster if you have a massive system. But I'm not talking about loading speed or lag. I'm talking about the layout, the graphics, the interface, the complete system is a turd in my books. Its Microsoft trying to make Windows look more like a Mac.

btw, my computer is one I built myself 8 years ago and it has plenty of horsepower to run Vista, I choose not to because Vista sucks. Maybe it works great for day-to-day users that do nothing besides use IE to check their email and play solitaire, but for sys admins and network managers, its a pain in the butt to do anything with." }-

Haha, horseshit. The management abilities through Group Policy alone smack the **** out of what XP offers. And there is nothing wrong with trying to make Windows work more like a Mac considering that Apple did a whole lot of things right when it comes to their GUI and usability. XP's only merit at this point is a legacy stable kernel, the GUI is terrible and usability just plain sucks. And don't even get me going on it's "security model".



And for people looking at memory consumption right now, for the love of god what for?! These are beta builds with a ton of debugging code left in it and minimal cleanup or optimization. There is absolute no point in looking at those numbers until release candidates are offered.

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "btw, my computer is one I built myself 8 years ago and it has plenty of horsepower to run Vista," }-

no it does not.

[Capp]

-{ Quote: "no it does not." }-

Question, how in the heck would you know what it can do. I did not say it hasn't been upgraded over the years. But its got the same motherboard and major components. Upgraded processor, memory and graphics card only and it runs Vista just fine. I've got removable hard drives with multiple OS's for software testing purposes so I think I know what it can and can't run.
Don't start making accusations you can't back up.


Also, this thread has taken a turn in the wrong direction. I stated my opinion as to why I like v2.7 interface better and reasons to support it, which was the intention of the thread. It was taken and debated from there.

Lets get it back to the original intention of the thread.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "
Also, this thread has taken a turn in the wrong direction. I stated my opinion as to why I like v2.7 interface better and reasons to support it, which was the intention of the thread. It was taken and debated from there." }-
While I agree that the interface for v2.7 is lighter while still being fully functional, it is boring to look at and not very intuitive. An average user is likely to get confused right away, potentially discouraging the user to continue using it.

Also, pretty interfaces can also be a deciding factor when someone is still deciding which application to buy. Aside from the installation, the interface is the first thing a user will see. More often than not, the interface will play a role in that user's "initial impression" of the program. And if the said user is greeted with an ugly, unintuitive interface he or she is more likely to move on to another program.

Like the old adage says... "first impressions last."

[AA2000]

in english

instead of thinking about the interface, feel better as I do to continue to consume little RAM memory.

Nod32 shines for its detection ITS NOT LOOK!

I suggest returning to the interface of the version 2.70.39 which consumes 27 mb in total. and not this beta consuming 53 mb, but people will stop using and will become a new Norton AV or Mcafee

Greetings

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

in spanish - en español

en vez de seguir pensando la interface, piensen mejor como hacer para que siga consumiendo poca memora RAM.

Nod32 se luce por su deteccion NO POR SU ASPECTO!

Sugiero volver a la interface de la version 2.70.39 que consume 27 mb en total. y no esta beta que consume 53 mb, sino la gente lo va a dejar de usar y se convertira en un nuevo Norton AV o Mcafee

Saludos

[JuliusB]

-{ Quote: "Like the old adage says... "first impressions last."" }-

Agree. It's very important.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "While I agree that the interface for v2.7 is lighter while still being fully functional, it is boring to look at and not very intuitive. An average user is likely to get confused right away, potentially discouraging the user to continue using it.
" }-

+1, the 2.7 GUI design is horribly unintuitive, hated it completely. Wrt this debate, well uh really people I didn't even notice something has changed b/w v3 and v4 beta, what's the fuss about? ??? :-\

[rolarocka]

I think the new GUI looks good. So did the v3 GUI. Most important about the GUI: make it as fast as possible. One thing i never liked is the % stats. Most of the time its at 0%. If it finds two or three malwares it stays at 0%. I dont see the benefit of it. It also takes more time to see how many malware was found between that armada of zeros %.

[dorgane]

+1
Statistic infection % is very unnecessary !

I have 406.000 files scanned and if there is 1 virus, it is too 0%...
And please make more fast menu who expand in advanced mode display !

[wiak]

as i said i agree that eset should think more about self protection of product from viruses instead of interface, the 3.0 interface is great so why mess with it

btw: i have used 4.0 beta for a week now and i like it, the interface is newer and has more stuff, so i dont mind to much, meybe make it so people that love the 3.0 interface can switch to it, just like the text interface!

this will make everyone happy

[c2d]

We can say what we want,but we all know the fact that in this modern world
most products are selled because of their look and that is also a trend in software industry.

For me personally nothing is more important then quality and functionality of product.I don't care much for program interface but Eset must realize that only fully completed product can be sold to possible new customers.That's the main problem here IMO.

People are seeking for perfection and they are willing to pay for it.Most of the older users I believe will always stay with Eset products as long as they provide their well known high quality but as modern company you have to think of all aspects of this job.

just my 2 cents :thumb:

[scrtsqurrl]

All right. I like the new UI in NOD32 V4. It's a nice progression.
One thing I really don't think much of, and it looks a bit dodgy is the new ESET NOD32 tray icon. Needs a bit more work I think. Looks cheap. :-\

[Concepts]

I like the new GUI and the new icon attached to it. It looks very nice sitting in the sys tray. :)

[Dave16]

Just sharing my views on this matter....

I really like the new GUI, maybe I'm one of the few.
-Though I do think the system tray icon needs to be revamped. I think its very appealing how it forms a blue circle in the middle of the system-tray icon while running a scan, but the outer part is too lightly colored, it DOES look cheap as mentioned before.
-Obviously this isn't the most important issue of the beta, just again sharing my thoughts and opinions of it.
-And if changing the system tray icon to look better will have a negative effect on the system, I say leave it.

-Dave