WOW have you guys read the PCMAG review of nod32?

AV-Test could settle this argument easily, by sending you the 31 files NOD32 generated false positives on for testing.

 

I absolutely love anti-virus-test arguments.

I'll be back!

 

If the above stament is true then it is something very very unlikely from statistical point of view. If the both false possitive test sets were representative then the number of false possitive in PC MAG's test should around 5700 or vice versa in the PCWORLD it should be ZERO. Statistically, the results in any case are 99 per cent off the scale.

This makes me strongly to believe the test set for PCWORLD test was male fides doctored. And if this is the case then I will ignore any further test from AV-test.org

 

This begs to question, what did they have nOD32 settings set on? Scanning with Deepscan Heuristics on is one thing, scanning with the crappy default settings is another.

They don't tell us their scanning settings, so really, I question the results...

 

I would bet that everything was set at default settings which generally means a mid-level of protection. So the tests were conducted with products installed "as is".

 

Yes, why didn't I think of that? NOD32 doesn't set safe settings by default. Rod has noted recently that maximum settings should be the default . That really needs to be fixed by Eset. Maximum settings should be default and then the user waters it down if they want to do so. Running tests at default settings for NOD32 would be a joke. Who leaves NOD32 settings at default? No one who is knowledgeable does.

 

I never said it was. But it is exactly the issue which the majority of people posting here are purporting to address.

On the contrary, I have focussed on the point. With all due respect you are missing the point. A magazine such as PC World publishes comparative reviews, and has a limited amount of space in which to do so. It simply cannot provide full details of the test bed or the testing methodolgy in the space provided. Indeed, it should not even try to do so: the majority of its users have no interest in the details, and want only to see the conclusions. Like it or not, that's how it is. The only people who don't like it are those who disagree with the conclusions.

And, there is no obligation on PC World or its reviewers/journalists/editors to justify to you or anyone else here what it has published. Why should they? To attempt to do so among the baying wolves here - irrespective of how strong (or otherwise) their position is - would be entirely futile.

It really doesn't matter how much noise peole make here - it won't change a thing. It doesn't matter how much you complain, the only people who will listen anyway are those others also making the same noise. So why bother?

If Eset (note I said Eset - not the whingers who are simply venting off) believe the PC World review is incorrect and has unfairly damaged it's business, then Eset can of course consider taking action. That's up to them.

Of course it's my personal point of view. It's also a professional and pragmatic point of view, and it holds at least as much weight as yours or anyone else's.

 

My statement reflects exactly what is printed in the magazines. It is statistically almost impossible for both results to be accurate, as you say, Male Fides must be suspected.

 

I removed two posts. I know this is a seriuos subject for many, but I think it was overreacting to drag Worldwar 2 into it. Plus that might hurt some feelings.

Please keep this in perspective.

Thanks in advance,

Pieter

 

Paul you just hit an old habit that "I" used to be guilty of: taking Symantec for granted .........and swallowing all their pills whole .....like a good little kiddie.

Even chastised jvm for it once.........later apologised........all until this last week.....when NAV's update blew.....get this.......on my sys........the nav dos scanner.....

Soooooooo, w/regards to NOD32v2.........and after reading the fine review Sunday at PC Mag........I rushed right on over to Eset and the purchase button......
jd

 

Just wondering if this question got lost in the arguments or there really is no one else out there that can be trusted to give accurate tests and provide the results ?
Frank

 

West Coast Labs, ICSA, and VB are *generally* regarded as the names to trust in antivirus testing by IT professionals.

 

deep heuristics isn´t the same as advanced heuristics, it´s usualy only active in IMON. To activate it for the other modules you have to use the commandline-switch or edit the registry.

 

You're right. Deep heuristics aren't the same as advanced heuristics. I have withdrawn my previous posting. Thanks for the correction

 

They are the only 3 worth the proverbial crumpet, but you have the order of trust reversed.

 

A quick and dirty AH fix for the scanner is to change the Properties of your Desktop NOD32 shortcut to "C:\Program Files\Eset\nod32.exe" /AH

Note the position of the quotes.

 

You mean that fix will enable adv. heuristics for AMON? Nah...you mean that enables it for the on demand scanner right? I want it enabled for AMON.

 

Are you ready to accept system performance degradation in that case? AH in AMON is overkill.

 

I would like to be the one to make that decision. I should be given the choice as I am not convinced that on my new XP box that it would be that much of a hit. I wouldn't want this on my older W98SE box and that's why I have been saying all along that Eset should provide us with a choice...enable in AMON if we want. The only way I would ever know if it would be unacceptable would be to try it.

I suspect that because NOD32 is known for its quickness that this is why Eset doesn't want to give us this choice. If it slowed performance a little then NOD32 couldn't claim this "asset" of being the fastest AV on the market as easily. So, it doesn't matter that the amount of degradation might not be that much and might be acceptable to many users because ANY degradation hurts this big selling point.

 

The AH will in some way be implemented into AMON. When it will be available as beta/commercial release is unknown though. Don't expect it too soon.

Best regards,
Anders

 

After sitting here for the last day or two and reading this thread over and over I finally decided to give my opinion.
First of all there is no such thing as the perfect Anti-virus program. You know, the one that catches ALL the viruses and nasties, uses the least amount of resources, scans the fastest, etc., etc. If there were it would be the only av out there because everyone would be using it and all others would just fade out of the scene.
Secondly, each and every one of us here will get different results on each of our computers testing the same product because no one has exactly the same setup as the guy down the road.
Finally, I say if it works for you and you are satisfied then use it, no matter whether it is NOD32, KAV, NAV, F-Secure, PAV, etc.

 

.

Hello Slovak

Can you document ANY In The Wild virus NOD32 has let slip by?
Can you mention another AV program that uses less resources than NOD32?
Can you tell us which AV program is faster than NOD32?

These are not meant as rhetorical questions but are part of our ongoing sincere search for the best (not perfect) program for catching virii out at any given time.

Best wishes to you with whichever programs you wish to choose. May you be virus free.