NIS 2007- Pcmag

Lets face.. there are some of you that hate Symantec no matter what they do, and that is really evident from this thread when especially when many of you have not even seen the 2007 product which is a huge improvement over the older ones.

NIS has not a PCMag editor's choice for a long long time.. it would mostly go to Zone and at that time nobody thought they were biased. Now that Norton has won and handily trashed Zone and McAfee, PCMag has becomed biased Have you installed McAfee with 20 processes and 85MB memory usage. Its UI is crappy and non-intuitive, I can never find stuff and it is a dog.

There is no reason why an traditional AV product can't be as good as a standalone AS product. Afterall adding AS support is about two things - adding more signatures for spyware and more importantly building the tools to remove the spyware when its found. NIS 2007 kicks SpySweeper's a** in the second department and there will be some more independent reviews in the near future that prove this.

Finally... about licensing and company practices.. Every single company out there is going to a software-as-a-service model where you rent the software for a year and during that time you get free signature updates and free product updates !!! I think thats cool because getting free signature updates is not enough anymore, as the threats are changing and the product features need to be patched to keep up. I dont see what the big deal is, its not like they are making you sign a long-term contract like Verizon. You are free to move on whenever you like, and nowawadays you can get NIS for 10 bucks with rebates and NAV for 0 with rebates.. so I think people that are complaining are out of their mind.

So if you continue to think that standalone antispyware is the best.. I think you will pay the price some day.

 

I do agree to some of it.

as you can see on av-comparatives
Norton got over 96 percent in Trojan detection which is alot better than in the 2003 version i used to use. but it still has that thing in the eula that states you can only install it a certain amount of times. and it doesnt have enough options. the coparate versions have more tweaking and also lighter.

if they made the home versions as good as the coparate versions it would be better still.

why cant they make a version for home use that it meant for people who know what there doing?


anyway do you really mean nis2007 could beta spysweeper 5.0's ass?
do you mean as in less resourse usage?
or in detection and removeal?
or a bit of both ?
please explain?

lodore

 

I have personally never hated Norton products and have used them for years. I agree with your comments on NIS 2007, with the exception of the spysweeper ones as I would need to see some data behind that, but I do disagree with their current practices against customers. They company's lack of ethics, is what I take exception to with scamantec and not their products.

On the pcmag article, well I do think it is an obvious bias and should be clear if you read all of the other compteing product reviews as well. Now I am not saying their review of NIS wan't valid, as I personally believe it is a good product with alot of new innovations, but the review for mcafee was cleary biased. Alot of the comments made on it were personal opinion and others were merely how the settings could be made. There was also a bit in there about the process guard that users would accidentily allow bad things to enter the system and block good ones. Well that is his assumption and not neccesarily what people will in fact actually do. I mean come on, you could use that same arguement on NIS or any other product where you can say well, the user has the ability to temporarily disable the protection and then they might load something bad. I disagree with some of his viewpoints against mcafee and the other reviews that were obviously not paying the same ad revenue as scamantec is to them.

Nonetheless, NIS 2007 seems to be a great product, it is just too bad the company can't be as good.

BTW.. In reference to the AS capabilities of norton, well it can still make mistakes along with the best of them... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39280391,00.htm

 

yes,norton's practise of limiting num,ber of installs on one pc is criminal,but also other thing which is criminal is not reading the agreements before signing them and blaming the support centre who cannot go against company rules and give a new license for free.

Due this reason,i have un-installed it only twice from my dad's office pc,that too when the i needed to reformat his hdd.

 

Not sure that I understood your comment "but also other thing which is criminal is not reading the agreements before signing them and blaming the support centre who cannot go against company rules and give a new license for free." exactly. If you are meaning that it is the person who purchased the license fault, then I disagree because you can read the eula just fine as it does not state any number it can be re-installed. Not to mention it states it is to prevent piracy, which is not the case with what they did. All in all their eula is not specific in any respect.

 

One other interesting thing on scamantec I found in reference to their newfound recent practices apparently is not only geared towards their customers but also their competitors as well. One thing seems for sure, they are at least being consistent.

If anyone is interested, take a look at this article for more info....

http://www.safer-networking.org/en/news/2006-09-29.html

 

The only thing that has not improved with the new Norton Internet Security 2007 is CUSTOMER SUPPORT. They don't get back to you soon and they want more money to help you.

If they ever improve CUSTOMER SUPPORT and stop asking for more money to help you, I can see Norton coming back as a strong contender. Otherwise, I would stay away from it.

just my two cents from experience...

Cheers!