Why do you use NOD32?

[izi]

Thanks for your answer!

[ronjor]

All of the above. :D Need to add that to the poll.

[Grasshopper]

Agreed Ronjor , it is difficult to choose just one reason for using Nod.

Frank

[Graystoke]

Agreed. I voted virus detection, but would have voted all the above if it were available. :)

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "Agreed. I voted virus detection, but would have voted all the above if it were available. :)" }-

Same here ;D

[bsilva]

I have to concur... :)

[optigrab]

Voted for 'Light resources', but would have also checked "Good virus detection" and "Fast scanning" if I could.

[DiGi]

Please can admins enable "multiple choices" on this poll? ;)

[Pigman]

I voted for light resources, but I use it for all the reasons:
1) It uses such a small percentage of system resources that it does not effect my computer's performance in any way. (Which is saying something, since I have an ancient IBM with a 300Mz Pentium 2 and 64 megs of RAM.)
2) It seems to score higher than anything except Kaspersky (or AVs using the Kaspersky engine) in the detection department.
3) Advanced heuristics, which promise to make it even better.
4) Its updates are about twice a week, almost as good as AntiVir's.
5) Unlike Dr. Web, it doesn't conflict with everything!
6) The interface is good-looking and user-friendly without being clunky or overdone in the graphics department. And it still looks good when you turn the graphics off.
7) The scans are ungodly fast - on my computer, they take less than 3 minutes. (This is very convenient, but it seems to come at a price.)

[helloworld]

resource usage is the ultimate reason.

while snip tries to cover every virus on the earth, NOD32 only tries to nail down those that will actually affect us. By doing so, NOD32 keeps its signature database at a comfortable level and thus ensuring the quality of the signature and the speed of the AV. If anything escapes from the signature matching, heuristic/advanced heuristic will make the final attempt.

NOD32 has one of the best memory resident module. This is the second reason I use NOD32. If the virus gets into your system and only later is found by scanning, that is all too late. Your system may be infected already and deleting the virus file won't help you to disinfect. I always believe in an AV that stops you before infection.


edited to remove references to other AVs.

[Detox]

3 argumentative off-topic posts removed.

edited to add -

One more post removed. Further posts which are off topic and aimed at nothing but creating anger and arguements will be dealt with in an identical manner.

[Pigman]

NOD's heuristics are good enough for me.

And just look at the stuff it catches in AV comparisons. It's way up there, almost as good as Kaspersky in the detection department and better in the resource department.

[Marcos]

Since Advanced heuristics used to be used mainly for scanning email, it focused mainly on detection of worms. We are aware of the new capabilities the new beta will bring and plan to improve detection of trojans via AH shortly. I think that's what most of you are keen on and awaiting eagerly.

[Dazed_and_Confused]

I didn't see "Great User Support" on the list. Add that item, just above "All of Above", which would be my answer.

[divedog]

Ok so I just purchased NOD after the 30-day trial. I really like it’s small footprint. In the past few months I have tried a lot of virus software. KAV 5 slowed my 2.4ghz P4 down to a crawl, never seen a antivirus slow down a PC as much as KAV I tied it on a friends machine that had 19 Trojans on it Kav said it found and deleted all 19 Trojans but follow up scans with other software proved it hadn’t removed a thing I would have liked to try other antivirus software on this machine but scan speeds were slow so I just broke out TDS-3 and took care of business. I have tried Norton and McAfee my personal opinion is McAfee is a bit better but I hated their security center always trying to sell me stuff I don’t want. Antivirus software is supposed to protect your puter not take it over. I really liked Avast I never had a problem with the free version but for some unknown reason the Pro version 60 day trial corrupted on me after several days and when I reinstalled it the software said I only had 7 days left other than that it was a bit slow scanning but I liked the small footprint. I decided on NOD for its ability to detect the unknown, fast scan speed, light footprint and support forums.

Just my 2 cents

Divedog

[Dazed_and_Confused]

-{ Quote: "I decided on NOD for its ability to detect the unknown, fast scan speed, light footprint and support forums. Just my 2 cents" }-
Congratulations, DiveDog! You will not be disappointed. And you will enjoy the support forum. Stay in touch and let us know how things go! :D

[Notok]

My intorduction to NOD was when I had a backdoor that allowed someone to delete 50GB worth of stuff, including some contract work I was doing, while I was using Avast. I spent EIGHT hours download and scanning with all of the trials of all the major AVs. I had heard good things about this little one called NOD32 so decided to give it a try. NOD32 scanned quickly and cleaned everything right up, even with the default settings. After spending that long scanning, the fact that it only took about 5 mins to scan everything just about blew my mind. Doing a search for info on the trojan revealed that NOD and KAV were the only ones that knew anything about it, but the overall performance is what really did it. Now I've got a whole suite of excellent tools, so those infected Russian emails don't get anywhere anymore :)

[lynchknot]

What do you guys think of the stand alone version - I just dl to try it out.

[MCT]

i would have voted "all of the above" if that was an option :P
regards

[sig]

Stand alone version? Don't know what you mean by "stand alone."

If you're referring to a version that consists of only the on-demand scanner (no IMON or updater included), the only ones I've seen available online are warez. The free trial available at the ESET web site is fully functional, just time limited.

If you mean something else, please clarify.

[lynchknot]

nevermind, it blue screened while scanning (I shut down real time for my other AV) - I suppose it is one of those bad apps.

[Pigman]

Downloading a cracked version of NOD is, in my opinion, very much a crime.

[lynchknot]

"Oink *grunt* oink *snort**grunt*" - Are you going to arrest me pig? hehe, sorry just kidding - it's gone - I was misinformed - I thought it to be legit - there was no crack - Poster said it was free stand alone from nod32 - It was later removed from the site.

The major crime is those who create viruses and trojan/worms

[Azn_Tweaker]

i like it because it uses little resources and has an good virus detection :)

[sir_carew]

Hi,
Strange, AH is also good detecting trojans.

-{ Quote: "Since Advanced heuristics used to be used mainly for scanning email, it focused mainly on detection of worms. We are aware of the new capabilities the new beta will bring and plan to improve detection of trojans via AH shortly. I think that's what most of you are keen on and awaiting eagerly." }-

[tebi_tan]

Now for a negative post.

I liked Nod32 for the reasons all posters already posted.

However I got a lot of false alarms, alarms which I did not get with other AV programs (I am a registered user of 4 AV programs, but using 2, one only with on-demand scanning active). The same problems I read in other forums that many people had.
So I am now using Avast, which has much fewer false alarms, a similar footprint and also a plugin for The Bat e-mail client.
My subscription for Nod32 is running out these days and I am still considering if I should pay again or not.

[ronjor]

Okay. ::)

[Detox]

I would like to know what was detected as FPs; I've fiddled a bit before and tried to see if I could get a FP with NOD but haven't managed to as of yet. Anyway, did you submit the FPs to Eset?

[TheQuest]

Hi, Detox

From what I have read the pepole who get the most FP's seem to have
several AV's on their system.

Take Care,
TheQuest 8)

[tebi_tan]

Detox,

Unfortunately the FPs were of a kind I could not send to Eset. Hopefully You understand what I mean.

[Wayne - DiamondCS]

If you ever encounter a false positive it's very important to email it to the vendor, they'll usually be more than happy to try to correct the problem so that the FPs are no longer detected, yet with the original malicious program/virus/trojan/etc still being detected.

If the files are of a personal nature or contain personal information, perhaps you can use a hex editor or other file modifier to remove your personal information, then re-scan and if it's still detected then submit the file for analysis.

If you still can't submit the file for whatever reason, then try to contact the vendor and at least tell them the name of the trojan/virus/etc that was detected, so that they can at least reassess the signatures being used to make that detection.

[mvdu]

I'm using it:

- because it has a lighter footprint than KAV and is causing fewer problems (KAV on-access monitor sometimes misses viruses regardless of settings)

- because it has frequent updates

- because it has heuristics

- because improvements are coming

- because it has better support than Norton

- because I have pretty safe surfing habits and mainly need good ITW protection.

I still have KAV 4.5 installed for a second opinion.

[manOFpeace]

Well my No.1 reason for using it is because I won a copy of it from Wilderssecurity.com. Then after that is it's reputation for being good.
Other than that I can't really see any difference between it and NAV 2002 because thankfully I don't have any problems in that direction. (Now all that could change after writing this post). ::) So I didn't have a vote.

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: "Well my No.1 reason for using it is because I won a copy of it from Wilderssecurity.com." }-

...always nice for starters ;D

regards,

paul

[Q Section]

-{ Quote: "For more than six years, NOD32 remains the only antivirus system in the world that has not missed any 'In the Wild' virus in the prestigious tests performed by the international magazine - Virus Bulletin." }-

Probably says it all for us!

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "Probably says it all for us!" }-

Sorry, don't include me in your statement. If the statement read something like "NOD32 consistently has had the WORST VB record of all AV tested over a period of six years" then I would pay attention and would avoid NOD32. However, I don't give $%$# whether NOD32 has won every award for x number of years or not at VB. Most of the major AVs do quite well at VB and that is enough for me. After looking to see if an AV does well, but not necessarily outstanding, at VB, then I look to other testers to see how the AV does with them and then I take those AV and I begin to look at other factors to help me decide which I want to use: GUI, tech support, amount of resources used, how well the AV plays on my machine, the depth and breadth of the scanning engine, the philosophy behind the AV (very different for NOD32 versus KAV for instance), whether or not I am required to use IE and ActiveX (McAfee), the number and severity of problems users (particularly those with a setup like mine) are reporting,etc.

I particularly look at tech support and when I see something like Prolific Bunny's problem go on and on and on and still no response from Eset and no resolution and he is an admin here....well, that gives me pause as I wonder if an admin is ignored by Eset what about the little guy? This sort of situation would give me considerable pause with any AV I was evaluating. I left NAV because their tech support went from excellent, when I began using it in 2000, to abysmal when I left in September 2002 for NOD32. I think the decision of which AV to use depends on many factors and the standing at VB is only one of these and as long as the standing is in the top half of the heap that is sufficient. When an AV shrilly tells me over and over that it is number 1 at VB and doesn't mention anything else....well, I am not that impressed as it comes across that the AV has nothing else going for it. I do not think Eset should continue to put all their eggs in the one basket of the "holy god" VB!

[Paul Wilders]

Mele,

-{ Quote: "I particularly look at tech support and when I see something like Prolific Bunny's problem go on and on and on and still no response from Eset and no resolution and he is an admin here....well, that gives me pause as I wonder if an admin is ignored by Eset what about the little guy?" }-

I'm sure Bunny will be helped out ;). That said: being an admin over here has nothing to do with Eset support. All are threated equally: as a registered software user. I for one would like to see all issues solved as soon as possible - no matter if it concerns an admin, moderator or any NOD32 user. In effect, there is no little guy.

regards,

paul