NAV2006 trial install VS KAV 2006 beta install

Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum

Peter, ain't it fun what you can do with those Instant Recovery programs: experiment, without fear, like all Holy Heck!!

Acadia

 

Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum

I too got curious after Bigc's comments and decided to install NAV 2005 and have a quick look. Everything went fine, and after about 6 LiveUpdates, it was done. I too did no active testing of detection so I will have to assume that it's good, or at least better than it was years ago, judging from what people say currently. The thing I was interested in seeing was just how much ram NAV alone used. Here, on my clean Win2k system, NAV 2005 used about 30-32mb ram consistently. Now, while that's not exactly what I'd call 'light' (I'd call Nod32 or Avast light at 16mb or thereabouts), it wasn't that heavy either. AntiVir 7 on my system uses 25mb, so for an extra 5 or 6 mb I get quite a lot more protection and features in general. So I would have to say that it's resource usage was 'not too bad' all things considered. I can't comment on the uninstall either, since I just restored from an image in a few minutes and it was gone. Anyway, that satisfied my curiousity on the resource usage aspect of things..

 

Yep these imaging programs do make it really nice when trying out different software. If you don't like the software you just make it disapear.

 

I hate to knock on my dear friend Peter2150, but I must. So far the complaints this thread has highlighted about Norton relative to KAV are poor coding, large download, excess memory usage, number of processes, and convoluted uninstallation.

Poor coding accusation seems unsubstantiated and based on intuition alone.

Large download (i.e. hard disk and bandwidth usage) and excess memory usage seems increasingly irrelevant given the power of today's systems, significant decline in price of both memory and hard drives, and the increased availability of bandwidth.

Convoluted uninstallation seems to be a non-issue due to quality softwares like Image for Windows/DOS and FDISR.

I do not mean to discount these issues as not being true, but rather attack the merit for which an anti-virus software decision based on the mentioned criteria would stand.

 

I would have to say that for most users, and particularly for the 'average user', the uninstall issues are of rather major importance if problems still exist in this area. Bigc says that they have been fixed. But the fact is, most people don't do an image of their HDs and the vast majority of users do things the old fashioned way via Add/Remove programs. As a matter of fact, I have 2 friends who currently are wanting to remove NIS 2005 and neither of them have images to fall back on. So hopefully what Bigc says is true. If not, then they will probably spend some time cleaning up and using a removal tool of some sort.

 

Kerodo,
I agree with what you said about "most users" and I feel that a software company should include a thorough uninstaller with every software. One thing to consider is that most users don't visit this forum either. I would say that the majority of people in this forum are at least aware of imaging and system recovery software. Assuming that is the case, it isn't unreasonable to expect people that want to secure their systems enough to visit this forum to incorporate data security into their tookbox. I mean what good does it do to protect your system from viruses and ignore the potential for data loss through hardware failure or simply having to do the inevitable reinstallation of Windows and taking up half of a week to update it. That being the case, a quality imaging and/or system recovery software becomes nearly essential and practically of greater importance than an anti-virus program.

At any rate, your points are well taken.

 

I have installed/uninstalled NIS2006 many times without any problems. I'm not saying that uninstalling Norton is problem free or that your friends won't have issues. I usually just do the regular add/remove method followed by the instuctions here ( Using the Norton uninstall tool ). Hopefully, they will be able to remove norton w/o a hitch.

 

Thanks Namor, I will refer them to that link just in case they need it..

 

same here

@ peter2150 - you should've tried out the full package NIS 2006, judge it on how it runs, i.e if it drags your system. Resource usage is less of an issue nowadays as standard PCs are now PIV 2Ghz +, 512mb, etc etc

I say this as an F-Secure Client user.

betauser2

 

7 processes is not a lot for an AV, when some good one can use up to ...17 processes .

I did make the same test than you few months ago, with KAV 2006/ NAV 2006 : if KAV is more light when measured (5-10 Mo RAM vs 15-25 for NAV, on my setup), I can tell you that my computer was more quick and more "responsive" with NAV than with KAV, since this one was slowing it down to a crawl .

Memory use measurement is definitivey not a good criteria to compare programs one to each other .


Cheers,
nicM

 

While i haven't tried the newer versions of NAV, i am an F-secure user so i can comment on processes, resourses because F-secure has more than i've ever seen before.And except for a longer bootup, it runs light on my system( bigc commented about this in another thread).So it can definitely be misleading and agree the only way to know is to try it out.What works for one, might not work for the other and vice vera.

 

I have to agree with nicM. My PC is more responsive with NAV than it was with KAV. KAV installed and uninstalled much faster than NAV, but that is almost a given, as almost all AVs install/uninstall faster than NAV. But when it comes to loading at startup and browsing speed, NAV was winner in those catagories. That's on my PC, so YMMV.