Comodo beat Norton (Symantec)

Business by making false claims and plastering it all over the net?

Im glad the forum here can stick together like flys on stink, but man you guys are blind.

 

Um, your comprehension skills are sorely lacking. The tech magazines are just doing their job of publishing news, nothing surprising there. What I said was the public not taking Symantec's claim seriously. There's no point in discussing something that almost everyone here knows is demonstrably false.

Wish I could say the same for Comodo, but there's just no end to the line of devoted, brainwashed sheep who buy their ridiculous BS over and over, hook, line and sinker.

 

Symantec NEVER started a "war" against paritucal free product or against particular company . COMODO's ******** talking is against Symantec.

All Symantec have done in the past is to point that people need more security and more feautures. By "people" Symantec definitely mean those that are not technically savvy. And yes , basic security (whatever free or paid) is NOT enough.
Of course IT Pros and advanced users may be free with no protection for example and that would be OK.

You are reading my words like devil reads the Bible.

 

Oh please. Symantec attacked every company out there that offers a free AV.

 

Well, if you believe Comodo is allowed to spread lies, then surely Symantec is as well. If on the other hand you believe that Symantec is wrong, then you're being intellectually dishonest at best, hypocritical at worst, by trying (and failing, but that's besides the point) to defend Comodo's lies.

 

No like I told Firzen I hold both to the same standard. They are both in the wrong. Symantec for making false accusations and spreading blatant mis-truths and we all know about Comodo and Melih. A shame the rest of the forum has double standards.

 

And we do. Its just that there's as much point in discussing Symantec's claim as there is in discussing whether the Earth is round. On Wilders we more or less all know that it's false. End of story.

Comodo's BS, however, is believed and actively propagated by fanboy brigades, including people who apparently don't know how to read linked articles before jumping to conclusions. That's why it gets more attention.

 

So your excussing Nortons claims over Comodos just like Firzen. Guess that makes it alright.

 

Dare to proove!? Give me an example where Symantec attacks AVG , AVIRA , Clam , COMODO (etc) directly or indirectly . Give me an example - very simple one , show me some proof . Because I don't know where to find it . But I can easily find many examples for COMODO trying to take down the King (let's say it so).

 

Oh yes, I like the way the thread has turned out

So much passion on both sides as always.

Keep it up!

 

Like women fighting with each other and other guys watching it . Yeah , very passionate and sexy ROFL

 

So when your pathetic pretense at logic breaks down, you resort to straw men arguments and misrepresenting other people instead?

Nice try.

 

There is nothing wrong with Nortons claims. There are many people that agree, that current free solutions are not enough for most users.

When CIS becomes as user friendly as Norton, or 95% of the other anti-malware programs out there, then it will be a different story.

 

When they claimed that no paid free software could offer the protection of their paid software.

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/how-free-antivirus-software-can-end-costing-you

An entire article by a Symantec employee bashing any free AV.

No straw men argument here. Just plain old comprehension of the English language.

 

Like devil reads the Bible - same story.

You and COMODO fanatics just look for something that doesn't exist - you are taking it personally ! Never in this article they say particular company .

Most means NOT all. Usually means most of the time but not always.

 

Did your "plain old comprehension of the English language" allow you to comprehend that I stated quite clearly that Symantec's claims weren't accurate as well, before you launched into your straw man accusing me of excusing Symantec?

I just explained to you why Symantec's claims don't get as much attention. Now if you really read and understood my post but still chose to respond with a straw man, I guess the best that can be said of you is that you're a bold-faced liar. A very poor one at that.

 

You said their claims werent accurate, but you also excused their actions in the same breath.

 

I fully support what Whitedragon has been posting here all along.

Symantec started this bashing about deeming ALL FREE ANTI-VIRUS solutions as USELESS when compared to PAID AV solutions.

How many Free Anti-Virus are out there? Let me see: Microsoft Security Essentials [MSE], Avast!, Avira Free, AVG, PC Tools Anti-Virus, Panda Cloud, Kingsoft, Comodo, etc.

With their bold statement, Symantec was saying that all the FREE AV solutions mentioned above are just GARBAGE and will NOT protect users like ONLY Symantec apparently does. If you take the time and just browse the Business area at Symantec's site you'll see how their VERY EXPENSIVE business solution called “Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0.6 RU6 MP1” lets viruses, trojans and rootkits slip through computers every single day with the corresponding business downtime and lost of productivity because IT HELP DESK has to send over people to spend hours just cleaning computers and, many of them have to finally rely on FREE solutions like Malwarebytes Antimalware and SuperAntispyware to do the job.

Symantec [the home user product line like NORTON] has seen some improvement ONLY after version 2009, NOT before. Thus, this praising of Symantec by some fan-boys here is very recent. I remember when year after year Mr. Neil J. Rubenking praised Norton in every PCMag review [since version 2007] and that caused a lot of itching and discomfort here but now, I cannot understand why this radical change, and the former Norton detractors are now the more TENACIOUS defenders of it, even when some of them use Avira, Avast!, MSE [all FREE solutions] and, all very GOOD ones.

Again, if you have a problem with the arrogant attitude of Comodo CEO, you should address your concerns to HIM directly. Just by keep BARKING here every time a Comodo thread is started is not going to change his way of thinking or acting. You MUST address your discomfort to him and get it over with.


If you are married to Symantec and you plan to use it forever, for you, your kids, your wife and your dog, just keep on doing so.

I use ESET but and don't come here every single day WHINING about it. ESET doesn't pay my MORTGAGE nor Symantec pays yours.


So, PEACE OUT, Gentlemen ! Act like grown up people not like teenagers.


Carlos

 

God, gimme a break. You've just descended to the level of spewing absolute nonsense. Here's what my dictionary says about excuse:

I'm not excusing Symantec's claims. I'm explaining to you why Symantec's claims don't get as much attention. It's the same reason why you don't discuss at length whether fire is hot or cold in science class, because everyone already knows the fricking answer. There's a difference, a very big one, which apparently your "plain old comprehension of the English language" failed at understanding.

But thanks for proving that you have no interest in logic whatsoever, just nonsensical BS.

 

okk... norton vs kaspersky I can understand.. what norton has to do with comodo? lol seriously? jk

 

Your personal attacks show nothing other than being backed into a corner.

 

The particular "problem" here is the CEO of COMODO and the way he "advertises". Real grown-ups like Symantec are making business like grown-ups . They don't stress the public nor they publish any particular report against free antivirus , not they even compare against them . Symantec as a company (especially the Symantec side , not the Norton one) does NOT think of free AVs as a threat , as something that might "eat" their business. Symantec see itself up in the sky , not down with products like COMODO.

As for the me - the change is "radical" because I see how a product has changed and improved , unlikely what I have been for before. Important for a company and business is only NOW and TOMORROW - not yesterday

 

For those that claim Symantec “NEVER ATTACKED any particular company” when they claimed that FREE AV do NOT protect, please read this article and see to what AV and what company this Symantec executive is referring to:


http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/07/04/symantec-its-dangerous-to-rely-on-free-antivirus/


To those who are forgetful due to amnesia.


Carlos

 

Again...attacking vendors that offer free solutions is conducting business like a grown up? Symantec and Comodo are both childish.

 

both products are good to use but ofcourse i will prefer to use a free one Duh