Computer Associates AV?

I'm not gong to get into another fruitless argument about this type of comparative thing. If you add up market share of the first two {Norton and McAfee} and compare to the relative number of machines running the other two {KAV and NOD32}, you have a heck of a lot more PCs running ther first two {probably 100 to one or some pretty high ratio}..

I did not say KAV wasn't good -- it is the best in terms of signature detection. I know, I have tested for myself and know how good it is. What I contest is the "overkill" in saying "immensely superior", I reject such subjective and prejudicial rhetoric, have used NAV for years, never been infected {not even close} -- even your implication that resource usage is better with KAV, if one compares to the latest version of NAV 2006, and reads the reports of users like myself and others here who have actually tried NAV 2006, the resource usage isn't that bad.

However, I know it is absolutely futile to try to convince otherwise, so you are free to have your opinon and I will have mine .. {along with BigC and others who have actually tried NAV 2006} .. only we also have the right to dispute, challenge, disagree in peace, when you or others make such public statement or claim ..

Take Care .. Peace ..

 

This is def. rhetoric

I'm currently using NIS 2006 (the full package) and I can confirm it's running smooth on my P IV.

betauser2

 

Your absolutely correct and even my self I can guarantee you and others here that more PC sold on the market or even in homes will have a higher chance of using/having Nortons or McAfee installed on them than NOD32 or KAV or even Bitdefender as a fact. I live here in Melb, Australia and almost 80% of computers sold here comes with pre packaged with Nortons or MCAfee by the retailer. Even every PC shop or department store you walk into sell Mc Afee or NAV, though I've noticed PcCillin, ZA and also Norman to be slowly getting quite popular, but not to the extent of NAV and McAfee.

We can rule out NOD32, KAV or even Bitdefender as not many people here or even the average Joe has heard of these three products, yet again mention names like Avast, AntiVir, ClamWin etc and the answer is No.

I think at the end of the day retailers here are happy on what they sell and there is a saying "if it aint broke why fix it" so i.e if they are selling McAfee or NAV by the bucket loads and making their $$$$$ why would they be bothered with anything else.

Also really how many users out there (coming back to the average Joe) really get into depth about AV research or come to forums like this and others to learn more from tech savvy's like yourself and me about antivirus products, heuristics, trojans, malware etc. As long as they have a products installed on their PC that says NAV or McAfee it's more than enough to put a smile on their face

You also mentioned that you use NAV and have never had any issues with it what so ever, true, and there are others out there who have used AVG, Avast, McAfee, NOD, KAV etc etc and havent had any issues what so ever. NAV is an AV that one likes or dislikes. And also I've heard the good about it and the bad from other sources.

At the end the day AV or any security is a very personal choice and what the user is comfortable with. I use both NOD32 and Bitdefender and am very happy with them both, one of the worse I've used was PcCillin, just not for me not my type and un-installed ASAP. I found it to be one of the worse resource hog of any AV I've used in the past. Also previously I did use CA EZ Armor and will say it was a darn good suite before I switched over to NOD32 and Bitdefender Pro 9.

All the best !!!

 

That's not the situation I see though...I'm not some kid doing A+ "break/fixit" day in and day out on some bench of a computer chain store. Yeah..those kids really only see the expired 90-day trials of Sym or McGufee...and your point would ring true there.

My experience is based on a big list of business client networks built up over time in my area..a long time. With a smattering of stand alone and home PCs thrown into the mix. But my point is ....I get to see the same people...with the same PCs...and the same web surfing habits...I get to see the success (or failure) of antivirus products in the hands of these real people, under real world day to day usage. This is why I laugh out loud and roll my eyes at those "controlled lab environment tests"...because I know they do not reflect "real world" use and effectiveness. We all know, well..I'll change that..."some of us" know that all the computers out there...are in a mixture of good health. Based on how new they are, or how old they are, the last format/reinstall, what's been installed on them before, patches and windows updates and office updates, where that person has websurfed, what they've picked up, etc etc. Take 2x identicle computers....leave one in a box for 1 year, give one to another person and let them use it for a year. After that year is over...take them both...install an AV product on them both...and compare how effective that AV product is. The one installed on the "used" computer is more prone to failure, more prone to having some script errors preventing some component or two of loading. Some of you who have been in this field for a long time know exactly what I'm talking about here. The one that sat in a box for a year unused is the equiv of a lab controlled antivirus comparison.

Anyways...back to my point....I'm not taking in the "percentage of the market out there" at all. I'm fully aware of that, just like the number of complaints against Linksys routers....it's mostly because those are the products that have 1) Mass market share, and 2) Are used by more...oh..man I hate using this bubble gum word...but "newbies". My point is...I get to compare products on my clients...and see the actual effectiveness...in a real world environment, with the same users, the same PCs, the same web surfing habits. I know that their prior AV product is functional, and updating. I have my clients using "Antivirus brand A" and I have my clients that I've flipped over to better antivirus products...and these clients remain pretty much the same staff..they have their same web surfing habits...and I notice the problems of infiltrations go away. I see the bad stuff only in the logs as it's reported as deleted. So I can, with confidence, say I see the difference.

Just 3x weeks ago I had a Sym CE client...and SpySheriff (a bad spyware trojan) hit one of their systems. Up to date system also. It was expiring in a few more months...but they agree to replace with the NOD...and funny how NOD32 as I replaced CE on their entire Small Business Server network...picked up several more infections (spyware/trojans..and one of them was another real nasty one) that SymCE never picked up.

I had been a Symantec reseller for many years, going back to version 5.0. If I look at it from a sales point of view, I'd make more money selling Symantec Corp Edition than I do with NOD32, Symantec is more expensive...so my % markup would make me more money. Not to mention...I'd be making more onsite calls removing infections. LOL. But I'm one of the few consultants out there who actually want better products and smoother networks for my clients, I leave the used car salesman tactics to my competitors...knowing I'll eventually pickup their clients too. So in the long run, I win.

 

i use etrust ez av "for home-users".. i wish that they had updates more frequently, like kaspersky, dr web, and bitdefender have, but other than that, i think it is a good program, and that their tech support and customer service are good, based on my experience..

i am not happy with the etrust website, which (i believe) is managed, at least in part, by "digitalriver"..

ez av now has a new "engine" with a new malware-database, and i only hope that it works as good as the old engine with the old malware-database..

 

Have you tried Command and if so what was the result

 

Well I have read this thread very carefully and have decided to put in my experiences. I will start with Nod32 that has a dedicated support forum here. This alone will bring the positive comments concerning nod pretty high. This is not necessarily so on other forums. Nod on my computer is extremely slow and buggy, That doesn't mean it isn't any good it just means it doesn't work for me. Norton antivirus has always worked very well for me, even the earlier versions the were resource hogs. I have always kept my comp optimized soft/hardware wise so it was not a problem. I have never been infected while useing Norton av. The newer versions 2005/2006 run so much lighter and efficently that It amazes me they made that improvement in one version. I am not speaking from hear say or internet gossip, I owned and ran two computer repair and retail shops for the best part of twelve years and I have custom built hundreds of computers and installed Norton products and the infection rate average depends on a lot of factors. The main factor is if the users actually keep their av programs updated and do regular scans. If they are their detection rates are as good as anyones. A lot of people don't like Virus Bulletin so check AV-Comparatives and see for your self. I will agree that Norton AV is a large program and takes a bit of space but that shouldn't be a problem unless you are still running a 4gb HDD. A product such as Symantec didn't get to be the top seller soley because it comes preinstalled on a lot of PC's. It didn't become the number one seller because it is sold in almost every computer related store. It got there because it works. And to think that people will just leave the av that was installed on their computer if it didn't work is to think that the average computer user is stupid and I don't believe they are. I really think the norton bashers are exactually like Microsoft bashers they just have to go after the biggest guy out there even though there is really nothing better they just can't keep from showing their ignorance. Ok if they take microsoft off the market because you think it is a lousy product full of bugs then what are you going to do. Probably 98% of the computer users would never be able to use linux to the extent where they would ever enjoy the internet again. That is enough from me, This is my educated opinion and that is all it is. you can ignore it or call me ignorant I really don't care,I know what I know without having to read and depend on other peoples post like mine and others to make a decission about something. I would suggest that everyone researches these things for them selfs and then reach their own conclusions , that is the best way to learn about any subject. (within reason )

safe surfing

bigc

 

As many know here. I am a fan of EZAV for the regular user, you know, the many that refuse to learn about any security. I like EZAV because all they have to do is click the big scan button once in awhile while surfing. I personally have switched from EZAV because I wanted a suite all under one roof, not modules. I just on the my-etrust.com site and was dissappointed. CA has raised the price to 39.95 USD. Personally I can think of several other products with more functions and settings with the same price I would buy first.

 

Computer Associates antivirus shows promise now with a new (VET) engine and new malware database, and also a huge improvement on heuristics+ unpacking files, etc

 

i think sams club has etrust internet security for 39.99 if your willing to change back

 

Have a look at this.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124163,pg,2,00.asp

 

I am a fan too. But I will not pay 39.95 for it either. There are better AV choices in that price range I agree!

 

I know the OP wanted to know about CA, but just one more thing about NAV. A lot of people say they work on computers, and when a computer that is brought in that is infested, it usually has NAV installed. I'm not disputing that, but I believe that it also has a lot to do with the person using the computer. I sure there are a lot of people out there that operate under the assumption that the computer has NAV installed, it is protected, and that's it. They just go along happily believing they have NAV on their computer, whether it came with a new computer, or they purchased NAV seperately, they are safe. I have friends like that. When I ask them if their NAV has the latest virus updates, or if the virus subscription is up to date, the answer is usually, huh?, I don't know. I'm not saying that this example is true in every case, but I bet it covers a good majority. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if NAV is such a terrible antivirus software, I don't care how great their marketing is, it would go the way of the Edsel, Javlin, Marlin, etc. I use cars, because I couldn't think of any other types of examples.

 

I hear it mentioned the numbers of infected computers that are useing Nav is high. If you take into account the number of people useing Nav the infection rate is really quite small. Nav has users in the tens of millions where as nod and Kav have numbers closer to less than ten percent of that. So Nav will have more users get infected simply due to the great number of users, where as Kav would have to have considerable less to actually have more infections per amount of users than Nav due to less users. Regardless what the Nav bashers would like everyone to believe,Norton antivirus is a very good antivirus and all the bashing in the world won't change that.

And to keep on the topic of CA antivirus, I think it is a pretty decent antivirus for the average user. A high risk user might want a little more protection though

 

BigC is right. People often forget how big Symantec market share is. If KAV had this big market share, I am sure you would see infected Machines in your shop with Kav installed.

Back to OT,


tD

 

But you also cannot deny the fact that KAV is generally superior to all AVs with their brutal unpacking, signatures and hourly updates. It's a gap which cannot be filled by anything else except same method of updating and same level of engine strenght. It's a simple logic. User share doesn't play much role here since users don't add signatures and they don't upgrade engine...
Sure you get targeted more with higher user base but from what i've seen with KAV i doubt it would make a big (or any) difference.

 

This is very correct. And Happy Bytes goes even deeper but leaves out a very important aspect. If the AV company fails, they get a list of what slipped through and any other area where they failed. From this, they simply update the signature and "fix" the area(s) where they failed and resubmit to the test. VOILA...pass! Of course they pay again for another shot, but heck, the certification sure looks good on paper. (not sure if you can sense the cynicism in my post or not) ;-)