KAV 6.0 MP1 vs NAV 2007

OK, here we go again... this vs that

I have been beta testing KAV 6.0 MP1, and just recently installed NAV 2007 for a trial, (although rather short at only 15 days)...

Both run light on my older system with no slowdowns.
KAV MP1 has a couple of quirks that will be fixed I hope in the future..
NAV also has the poor interface, and the reporting is not as comprehensive as KAV...

What do other think please...

 

both are just as good i think kav has better spyware\adware detection

 

Draw a parallel between KAV and NIS,KAV is good at trojan&backdoor detection while NIS does well in integration

 

i personally prefer norton for the 'overall' security experience.

 

Norton can only do some quarantines

 

no, norton deletes fine... depends how you have it set up .

personally, i always use quarentines ... as all AV softwares, give FP's and i like to choose what to keep, plus if its in quarentine, its safe

i use my AVG Virus Vault all the time.

 

Everything is better than Norton Definitely

My words are based on expreince with Norton products 2004/2005/2006 but I am sure Norton 2007's basic things are the same

 

May be off topic but why don't you use antivirus software and other softwares on your own , not exactly a suit .

NOD32 , F-prot , Avira are all very good . Firewalls -> many , I even can't count them . AS software -> many ....

 

Thanks HiTech, I am only looking at AV's for the other 1/2 of my safety system. I am already using Outpost 4 Pro for my firewall behind a NAT Modem.

My ISP, Earthlink scans all e-mail, so anything that has any nasties in e-mail, are stopped at the gateway mailbox.

I'm a fairly safe user, and my brain, even though old, still does the work of when to 'click on what'.

I don't download music, or do any P2P stuff, and IM stuff... so as you see, I'm a pretty mild guy.

I've been trialling and bouncing around many AV solutions since June, and still have not found anything I 'really-really' like. Like any piece of software, they all have their faults and things, that puts one off at times.

Thanks again,

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061112 Minefield/3.0a1 Firefox ID:2006111204 [cairo]

 

Hi ! No problems , you are welcome .

I understand you are safe user . I also don't IM , don't P2P , I update all my softwares/OS and somehow in 2005 I got infected with a nasty CoolWebSearch . I had updated machine , Panda , MS AS , Spybot s&d and other stuff but I got infected and I couldn't remove it.

I fully agree with you that they all have their faults and things but I think you should choose the best or at least the better . No matter how safe your habits are , it will happen only once and then you'll be disappointed .

KAV is definitely better than Norton , IMO

Thanks for replying me

 

i recommend AVG Internet Security,

try the trial, and watch how quick your machine runs.

boot time is a whole 10 seconds quicker than ANY OTHER, even the fast ones, and can be nearly or just over a minute more quicker on boot than the slow ones.

avg sigs + ewido sigs = great detection and removal

 

Go with Norton
Far more stable than Kaspersky and no FP's to make you crazy like you get with
Kaspersky. The difference in detection is negligible.

 

In my experience, I've not had any FP with Kaspersky in relation to viruses. Once there was an anti-phishing alert at a particular site which needn't have been - this was reported and corrected.

 

Nonetheless,I you have been infected,you'll be in a bad way,that is,the quarentine is a vicious cycle when a virus was found

 

In contrast to Kaspersky,Norton is a little bit "doltish"

 

Mmmk? ..... NO!

Kaspersky has not had a f/p for me, is light on my system with always less than 15k mem usage... and I have all but 2 of the settings set to high! And I love it when someone finds an infected file, sends it to virustotal or something... and Kaspersky and then 0-4 others are the only ones to detect it, to this date I haven't seen someone send an infected file to virustotal and have Kaspersky's scan say NOTHING FOUND and most other scanners saying it's infected.

I had Norton 2005, and it failed to delete or quarantine a FEW files... That's when I met Ewido, I'm a middle-high risk surfer but while getting viruses from like europe and mexico (while i'm literally doing NOTHING on the computer).. After MANY attempts to get past Norton finally in like 3 months of these stupid attacks... There was a virus that norton couldn't delete... downloaded Ewido... ewido deleted a rootkit and only THEN norton could quarantine then delete the virus.

While I've had Kaspersky, I kept the same surfing habits... But every time when Kaspersky detects a virus ( In a legitimate spot, on a not-so-good site, unlike Norton saying I'm getting attacked by a guy in France while I'm logging into msn), I re-scanned with Ewido and my other scanners and nothings found. Kaspersky handled the virus perfectly. I've had Kaspersky for over a year now, it's always been like that, all other scanners for me while having KIS are nearly useless (there good for clearing tracking cookies! lol)

 

KAV's Office Guard is a PITA.

Examples to demonstrate impact of Office Guard.

 

I would prefer NAV 2007 over Kaspersky products.

 

I would never use norton on my pc ever again unless symantec sell it to a good company and it improves the interface etc.

my vote goes to kaspersky

 

NAV 2007 does not work with windoze 2000, KAV does.

 

It is a shame that people have to make statements like this when the facts show otherwise. For the last couple of years norton has completly changed their stradegy. their av products are top of the line now and as good as any out there, and better than most.

bigc

 

the eula shows that they are still up to there old tricks limiting the amount of times you can install it.
lodore

 

NAV is still too intrusive.
The damn Norton Protection CEnter has an annoying bug, and apparently no way to get rid of te protection center.

Even tho I have disabled automaic live updates, periodically, NAV enables automatic live updates.

 

Fergot to mention, I'm referring to NAV 2006.

 

It seems that a very small percentage of people that use Norton antivirus have complaints. To bad everyone can't have a good experience with it. It's detection and resource usage has really been improved in the last two versions. I use symantec antivirus which is quite a bit different but I have trialed 2006/2007 norton and had no problems with it.