NOD32 vs the rest...

Very well said indeed.

I am a proud Nod32 owner and I do have my doubts on occassions. I am not into blind product loyalty since afterall they didn't give me the product for free I had to pay for it, thus every day of my life I look around what's out there. Thus when my subscription runs out I be more informed if I should stay with NOd32 or switch to something other. I will go to whoever offers a better peformance and better quality within the same price range or even a bit higher...since afterall it's my money. Haveing said that, Nod32 has been very good to me but I hold some of the views stated by NewNOD.
I must say that your last post have been very good.

Cheers,

 

Quote:
So based on Guru's info and on the expose from Mele20, this is the "official site but not really the official site". The resellers think it's the official site but Eset doesn't recognize it as such in writing.


Wrong conclusion: We have it in writing

---------------------------------

Paul,

If that's the case, I'm confused as to why Larry McJannet, a VP with NOD32, would state to me otherwise. I too have it in writing....an email dated Oct 28, 2003. Is he that misinformed and distanced from his company that he doesn't know the official support forum for NOD32? I think not! Maybe it's that "matter of definition" that he referred to............

 

Paul Wilders responded to a couple of my comments regarding concern that he was unable (unwilling / deliberately obtuse) to understand that allowing sales people to get involved with this forum can send the wrong signals (i.e., create perceptions that may or may not be valid):

He also responded with:

I do not focus on sales. The perception is that this forum does. One "official" tech person (Jan?) and many resellers manning the guns, so to speak. Hmmm...maybe it's not just a perception.

Obviously, your words are spoken like a true salesman (by definition, they are great at blowing smoke). By your standards, I should believe that the guy in the bad suit trying to sell me a Cadillac is there to "support" me.

Are you suggesting that Eset buying or leasing its own hardware, software, and paying its own IT people to run a dedicated forum is less expensive than running it through a 3rd-party board?

Are you suggesting that Eset hiring more than one technical person (by that I mean Eset employees on Eset's payroll) to man the dedicated forum is less expensive than farming out one tech person to monitor this board with help from a bunch of off-the-payroll resellers (who only get paid through sales of the product)?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Are you suggesting that this forum gets far more exposure than a dedicated Eset forum and that would be the reason a commercial endeavor would use it? You mean a company that truly is only interested in providing support doesn't think that people who have downloaded the software for trial or purchase can go back to find that site (Eset's site) when support is needed? Perhaps using the 3rd-party board is to expose others to NOD32 who happen to visit your site for other reasons? But then that might put the focus on sales. And surely, this altruistic endeavor would never focus on sales...it's as you said, all about support.

Responding to my comments on the info GuruGuy received from Larry McJannet (a VP with NOD32 per GuruGuy), Paul Wilders wrote:

I'll mostly defer to GuruGuy on this one. Evidently, there is a question as to what it is you have in writing. I'm sure you have something...you do in fact have one of Eset's guys posting on this site. Does what you have impose any liability on Eset or bind them to anything said or done here (rhetorical question)? If not, that's probably why a VP might state that this wasn't the official site. As you'll probably let me know, this is just conjecture and a guess on my part.

Hmm. You don't sell anything? You garner no benefit whatsoever, not even in promoting yourself in any ancillary activities as being the owner of this site? You don't even recoup expenses for services / material (of any kind) rendered, something that is perfectly acceptable under the definition of non-profit? I bow to you in awe and apologize! Sincerely.

I wasn't required to do homework as I wasn't trying to "prove" anything about you or your business (non-profit or otherwise). I was pointing out that the way this forum is set up presents a lot of questions about built-in biases and salesmanship. Your (I'll say it again) inability to recognize and acknowledge these issues in a straight-forward manner says much more than I could "prove" with homework...they are very basic and simple issues. It cripples this forum's credibility with people having half-a-brain and you are expecting us to be much more gullible than a 5-year-old.

By the way, does Paul Wilders appearance in many of the threads on this site regarding Eset's business (or defense of Eset's business) seem a little at odds with the concept of "unbiased"?Seems to me that, if for no other reason than for appearances sake, the owner of the hosting website would not venture into the fray.

Here's are two examples of Paul Wilders' comments from this thread alone:

More excuse making, but that time it was coming from Paul Wilders.

And here is Paul Wilders responding to Acadia's contention that certain issues were being ignored by Eset:

Presumptions?! How about facts. Still no fixes for many problems pointed out six months ago. How far in the future are you suggesting Acadia wait? Even if these old problems were fixed today, Acadia's comment is still valid.

So, how can Paul Wilders claim unbiased responses from resellers when his own seem so biased. It doesn't make any sense that he would even jump into the discussion with these types of comments. Unbelievable.

 

GuruGuy, I'm sure it's a matter of "definition" and semantics as previously noted. Again, if you want support from ESET you can post here and see if you get a response from anyone, including an ESET-assigned support person (Jan or Marcos). And/or you can email support@eset directly which is the more conventional approach (and one hopes perhaps the most assured method of getting a response from an ESET tech).

Sometimes people mention that they've posted their question here because they hadn't yet received a response to their previous email to ESET support or the response from ESET support was as useful as ---- on a bull. (Which is unfortunate, but I've heard that from some users.) And in fairness, some other people say they've gotten great and timely responses as a result of emailing ESET support.

One can take one's choice depending upon the issue. For serious problems I'd email support directly. For suggestions on what settings to use (and when) other than the default settings, I'd post here where other users could probably provide me with suggestions as well. It's a matter of choice.

(BTW, surely I'm not the only one who recalls the old Official ESET support forum at the old Becky's forums? Was there this much crabbing then at the hosts for simply hosting it?)

 

Whoooooa Newnod. While I appreciate your concern, please don’t bring me into this issue with Paul. I have the greatest respect for Paul and what he is doing with his Forum; my issue is with ESET. I have found many answers to many problems at Wilderssecurity with all sorts of software; the only ones not answered were software problems with companies that are either dragging their feet or don’t care. I believe that Paul SINCERELY believes that ESET will fix my problems, along with other’s problems. I hope he is correct, I’ve seen time prove him correct with other issues. If, on the other hand, I am correct ( and I hope I’m not) and ESET is ignoring us Win98 users, this has nothing to do with Paul or this Forum, and there is no way in heck that anyone can convince me that Paul is covering up for or protecting ESET. Again I appreciate your concern.

Acadia

 

NewNod... seems to me you argue only for the sake of arguement. Some of the things you focus on, in my opinion, are petty and small.

I, for one, do NOT care whether this is the Official NOD forum or if some of the people posting here are salesmen. Support is given here whenever I have asked for it, and for me, that is what's important.

I would suggest locking this thread because, to be frank, your arguments, though interesting in the beginning, are starting to bore me. However, the moderators here allow all opinions to be heard, mine as well as yours... good and bad, right and wrong, pro and con... like a good forum should.

 

Sorry, Acadia (really).

I'm sure Paul understands that the rant is mine and that I used his response to you as an example for my purposes. I'm just tired of reading excuse after excuse in this "support" forum.

Certainly time will fix just about anything. Let an issue go very long in computerland and it naturally becomes moot. In a short while, Eset will have to issue a new release to work with Longhorn...then the excuse makers will chime in again to claim that all the new "hiccups" are normal, and that in "time" they will be fixed. Everyone will forget that issues with Win98 existed, and voila, time will have "healed" all.


Jocera,

I wasn't trying to entertain you. Some serious subjects are boring. I'm bored, too. Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago. I don't think complaining about people offering excuses rather than action (which I contend the set-up of this forum fosters) is petty; I fully support your ignorant right to believe and argue that it is.

Guess I'll leave it up to Radicalb21 to carry on for a while. I admire his tenacity in pursuing some of these issues. I can only stay focused for short bursts on NOD32; I've got another life. Guess this burst is about up as my forehead is bleeding from butting it up against a wall.

See ya.

 

No problem, take care.

Acadia

 

"Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago"

So that's what all that was about? Wasn't particularly clear given your discussion of forums, resellers, suggestions of shilling, alleged undisclosed pecuniary interests, etc.

Seems rather a roundabout way of simply saying one is dissatisfied with the product and the service and it's simply unacceptable.

 

I was the prime mover behind relocating Eset Support to Wilders. I've known Paul for years, and I'd been talking with him about the possibility of doing this for some time before it all came together.

As Paul pointed out, Wilders now hosts the official Eset Support Forum ... not because Eset is too cheap to host it on their own servers but because Paul and several Wilders regulars had for some time been unofficially supporting NOD32 users and making a bloody good job of it. The previous support forum just wasn't working, and we had to make a move. Anton and I discussed our options at length and had decided that a support forum which included the Wilders guys would serve NOD32 users better than an "Eset only" forum. We were moving towards this (slowly ... we had a lot of other things going on at the time) when Mele's unresolved problem gave me a wake-up call and prompted me to give it high priority.

Paul isn't paid one cent to host the Eset forum. OK ... so maybe he gets a few more users because of it ... but that's the way things go on the Internet ... relationships are often symbiotic.

There is no sinister connection between my friendship with Paul and Wilders ranking NOD32 #1 in its tests. Wilders was ranking NOD32 #1 long before the Eset forum was hosted here, and even before I had anything to do with NOD32.

NOD32 isn't 100% perfect, and obviously our support isn't 100% perfect ... sorry about that ... but Paul has been one of the Good Guys in the security world for years, and he doesn't deserve to have **** thrown at him by people who conjure up conspiracies out of thin air!

 

> I'm bored, too. Of waiting to be able to use the software that I paid for six months ago.

Easy solution ... email me with your NOD32 User Name from your license and a list of your complaints. I'll have them checked out, and if they prevented you from using NOD32 for the past six months then I'll tack another six months on the end of your license.

 

I found this thread very interesting, The last post by Rod was the best post of the lot, I am glad to see someone from Eset willing to work out issues with their customers, and offering to give their customer what they paid for.

That was a very nice gester, hopefully all will work out for the best.

 

I'm sure you couldn't, even if you tried.

Oh, now I see where this comes from... timely introduction.

That's what you ASSume I thought was petty?

I would have phrased it, "I fully support your right to ignorantly believe and argue...," but so be it. Oh my, was that petty?

LOL, you're response doesn't surprise me in the least... in fact, I find it predictable... and boring.

Oh, you'll recover, it's probably an old wound.

 

I said I was gone for a while, but I feel I owe Rodzilla a response to his offer.

First, since I'm here, let me respond to Sig's comment:

Don't try to discredit the comments and arguments made by me in the course of this thread simply because I happen to have a technical issue with the software (is that so odd? why would I have started reading the forum in the first place?). The issue with the software led me to this forum, but the lack of a fixes has kept me coming back for months hoping that I might finally find something done. Over that time, I formulated an opinion about the forum's structure and efficacy; you have read that opinion here and obviously you have disagreed. My comments in this thread were thoughtful and initially began as a caveat (applicable in many different situations) to the original poster that some of the opinions/answers may come from people with a commercial interest in the software (as resellers), and as such, he should be more thorough in his search for an answer to his query (i.e., he should read a lot of the past posts, etc.). I did not spend the time and energy writing that first post and subsequent posts as an alternate to simply complaining about my particular technical issue with the software.

Is that acceptable to you?
______________________

Rodzilla,

Recognizing puff from facts is always difficult. This forum potentially contains a lot of puff, simply by virtue of its structure (resellers being atop the heirarchy here). Additional concern is thrown into the mix when this simple concept isn't acknowledged by the likes of Paul Wilders, but instead the forum is defended as something of an ideal model. Maybe it's all he or Eset has to work with, but it's far from ideal. There is no conspiracy theory, it's just common sense.

Now to your offer (keep in mind my answer to Sig above as you read this):

I appreciate the gesture, but I'm not looking for license extensions or refunds or the like. Once again, that "solution" comes from the reseller-centric focus / attitude of Eset and this forum. And anyway, what good would a license extension do for broken software? I and others need a technical fix, as in programming, as in a patch or update to the software. Let's have some emphasis on that. Did Eset fire all its programmers after initial development, or what? Speaking for myself, I need a patch so the software works on my Win98 machine (Kernel32 errors - main issue causing crashes, lockups), I need a patch so the file exclusions work (on all OSs) without having to jack around with short path names, and there are a variety of other problems that alone couldn't be considered major but in aggregate become a deal killer. The suggested fixes thus far, if any, have been to turn off or not use certain features (turning IMON off to prevent Kernel32 errors comes to mind...that solution does not work 100% here).

I'm not married to NOD32, and obviously I purchased and have been running an alternate AV in the interim. I have periodically uninstalled the current AV and reinstalled NOD32 to see if fixes were implemented, but none have been or at least none that work.

So thanks, but I'll keep reading and waiting. Maybe some things will eventually happen.

And yes, Sig, I will probably be bored waiting. Is that acceptable?

 

>I and others need a technical fix, as in programming, as in a patch or update to the software.

Who are all these users who have W98 that are in desperate need of this patch? I don't recall many complaints here from W98 users. To the contrary, most W98 users seem to be very happy with NOD32 because it is so light on resources which most av today are not and which is extremely important on W98/ME. Plus, it is fast on W98 machines many of which are old and don't have much CPU power.

I have W98SE and I don't need any patch or any update from Eset in order for NOD32 to work not only just fine but better than any other av I have used. You make it sound as though you are speaking for all W98 users. Well, you don't speak for me and I suspect you don't speak for the majority of W98 users who have a license for NOD32. If there were all these W98 users who could not use NOD32, and had to purchase another av while they waited for a patch, this forum would be inundated with complaints related solely to NOD32 on W98.

I will grant you that perhaps I don't get Kernal32 errors because I don't use IMON, but a user, IMO, is better off not using an email scanner be it NOD32's or any av's. Email scanners are redundant and thus totally unnecessary. If safe computing is practiced then advanced heurisitics can still be used because all email attachments will be saved to the hard drive before opening and all downloaded files and attachments will be scanned first using adv. heuristics. So why are you so concerned about Kernal32 errors when the solution is simple and is what should practiced anyhow? Ask any Microsoft MVP who deals with Outlook/OE and they will immediately tell you that you shouldn't use an email scanner because it is one of the major causes of OE breaking and mail being lost and destroyed. You indicated that disabling IMON worked but not 100%. Then, if this is case, post your errors here and maybe someone can figure out what is causing the occasional problem.

You also mentioned file exclusion problems and that I wouldn't know about because I don't exclude any files from being scanned (isn't this what the av is for?). But you said that you could work around it by using short path names so I am puzzled as to why this is anything more than a minor irritant.

I have a few things I would like to see fixed but they don't relate just to W98 and NOD32. The only irritating thing I can come up with that is specific to NOD32 on W98 is that even after this was pointed out in beta, the programmers left Windows graphics on by default. That absolutely must be turned off for W98 and it should have been off by default in the release version 2.

I hope your problems with NOD32 are resolved soon, but I cannot agree with you when you say that W98 users are waiting for and need a patch. I need nothing of the sort and doubt seriously that most other W98 users need this either.

 

Concentric (Rod?),

No. I have a license. This email was sent to me 6/2003 from Eset Software (Subject Line: ESET LLC Online - Bank Order)

Dear valued client,

Thank you for purchasing the NOD32 Antivirus System - the only antivirus
program in the world which has not missed a single "In The Wild" virus in
more than four years in independent tests conducted by the prestigious
antivirus industry trade journal, Virus Bulletin. ( www.virusbtn.com )

Our mission is to provide you with the world's best antivirus protection,
on an on-going basis. We're confident that you won't be disappointed
with NOD32's performance - now, or in the future.

You are hereby granted an End User License to use NOD32 on:
1 - computer(s) until 13 June 2004

Download the latest commercial version for your computer's operating
system from http://www.nod32.com/index_dw.htm using your private
User Name and Password, provided below.

Product Platform: Windows 9x/NT/ME/2000/XP/MSDOS
User Name: AV-2******
Password: **********

Please keep your User Name and Password confidential.

You will not need to download the program again if this is a License
renewal - simply enter your new User Name and Password in the
NOD32 Control Center.

IMPORTANT!
Uninstall any other antivirus software, including NOD32 trial versions,
before installation!

For more information on installation and setup, please read the
NOD32 Installation Guides.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/ans/nod32_inst.htm )

To keep up to date with NOD32's state-of-the-art antivirus protection,
make sure all relevant parameters of the NOD32 Control Center are
set correctly. NOD32CC makes updates and program upgrades a
true "set and forget" task - automatically downloading incremental
antivirus updates and automatically upgrading the NOD32 System
engines as required.

NOTE FOR NETWORK ADMINISTRATORS: It is very important that
you read the NOD32 Control Center User Manual before installation.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/ans/nod32cc_inst.htm )

The POP3 Scanner auto-detects both Outlook and Outlook Express
mailboxes. However, the Outlook 2002 email client (from Microsoft
Office XP) must be configured manually. Manual configuration also
applies to most aftermarket email clients. For further information,
please download and read the POP3 Scanner Manual.
( http://www.nod32.com/pop3_man.exe )

Should you have any questions or need assistance, please see the
FAQ/Support section of our website.
( http://www.nod32.com/support/support.htm )

You are welcome to visit the Official NOD32 Support Forum if you'd
like to discuss your issues with other users. This multi-lingual forum
is also monitored by Eset Moderators.
( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/index.php?board=35 )

Best regards,

Eset Team
We protect your digital worlds!
______________________________

Come on, Mele20. I don't speak for all Win98 users. I speak for me, mostly. But I certainly don't speak for Win98 users who don't even use IMON or file exclusions, two things that I pointed out as needing fixed. How is the fact that you don't use the features (by your own admission) relevant? Does that make the problem nonexistent? What kind of argument were you trying to make with that load of BS?

Here are some links to discussions of the problem (and Mele20 posted in 2 of them):

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=14292;start=msg90255#msg90255

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=13572;start=msg86536#msg86536

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=12522;start=msg80686#msg80686

From the above thread, Mele20 says:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=11583;start=30

Acadia mentions this in the current thread:

No need for personal insults. Pieter

 

I did some editing in this thread, and wanted to let you know, I'm not particularly pleased to see where it is heading.

I would like to ask you all to refrain from insults and stick to the topic.

TIA,

Pieter

 

NewNod, Rod offered to look at your problems, and you chose to ignore his offer and continue moaning instead.

Why don't you take up his offer and see what he can do for you

By the way, as a small reseller purchasing from Rod, if the almighty buck was my motive, then I'd be selling Norton quicker than you could say vegemite. I can make more than quadruple the profit, than that I receive from selling Nod...

Cheers

 

Indeed, and I have removed some of my posts as a result of where this is heading; I didn't like them being used as ammo for other's more insulting posts.

Acadia

 

Sorry, Pieter. And thanks.

I have posted quite a bit here without resorting to name calling, except in the instance you noted above.

I used the word "goof" to describe a guest (logged in with the name Concentric) who threatened physical action against me; Concentric suggested that it would have been one of the senior members taking the action against me had that senior member not recently become such a nice person. Concentric also called me a liar saying I didn't really have a license to NOD32; we all know he was blowing smoke, but I don't think my calling Concentric a "goof" for his threats was out of line. You deleted Concentric's post, so thank you. Perhaps where you thought I crossed the line was also applying the term "goof" to another member who denied having knowledge of a problem I described with Nod32 / Win98 , yet that member had posted in other threads referencing that very same problem. I was mistaken for using that term, although I thought it adequately described someone who forgets what he wrote just a few months before. I think the Concentric post got me fired up; the entire offending phrase in which I used the word "goof" was one sentence written in haste and I was tired. Sorry for the excuse. Lesson learned.

__________________

Blackspear,

I explained my reasoning for not bothering with the license extension offer in my post to Rodzilla. While his gesture is nice, it doesn't help solve the real problem. Sorry, it just doesn't.

__________________

Acadia,

Once again, apologies. I thought your concern earlier with me quoting you
was that it came in the context of my posts to Paul Wilders. I now understand you just don't want me quoting you at all. The most recent instance of me quoting you was used to illustrate the existance of other Win98 users who are having problems with NOD32. It was completely separate and apart from the one-line insult (not of you) that I described above and that has since been replaced by an admonishment from Pieter. I will not quote you anymore, but certainly it was not worth deleting some of your previous posts? Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by deleting previous posts?

Later

 

Yes I agree with NewNOD that extending the useraccount is nice but what would be better is actually fixing the problem in the first place.
My major problem now is The EXLUSION error.
As explained here http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=16091
The nod32 detects the crypto dll as an unknown virri which is great if it was one (Heuritics set to deep and also tested with Normal...no I don't want to disable them since they are one of the main reasons why I use Nod32).
Thus now I would like to exclude that file from scanning but no matter how hard I try it just won't work. The AV constatly prompts me that there is infection present. Yes I know I can send the file to eset (Which I did) and they will fix it, but wouldn't it be better if the exlusions worked in the first place? Then I wouldn't have to wait days before the issue is resolved.
Besides that so far I have no problems (except the ones mentioned previously which are inherent to all AV programs).

 

Greetings NewNOD

We are using NOD32 on this computer which is using WIN98SE. We have no problems, we use IMON, we scan all file extensions and do not disable Windows graphics.

Do you have Win98 or Win98SE? We will gladly see if there is some file situation or Windows configuration on your computer that is causing a problem if you wish.

Mele20

What do you mean by Windows graphics exactly?
Thank you.

 

The man formerly known as TestG said:

Don't know if "trying hard" includes an an attempt to get this workaround to do the trick (the DOS short path workaround I mentioned in my post to Rodzilla). I can't take credit for it, but I got it to work somewhat with JVTools executable (still a little stutter). But other files I've tried still get scanned, so it's hit and miss for me. Here's a link:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=15707

If you've already tried it, sorry.

As you know, a proper fix would be much more helpful rather than a workaround that only works-around some of the time.

 

I appreciate the offer. Let me suggest we take this to the following thread:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=13572;start=msg86605#msg86605

Maybe you can take a few minutes to read over it. I also provided some other relevant links in a previous post, but the one above may be the best for these purposes.

I'll post with some info, and if after reading the rest of that thread you feel you can still be helpful, feel free to jump in. I feel, as you ultimately may feel, that this is really a job for Jan (assuming Jan is an ESET software programmer) or another programmer. If you are one of those, then GREAT.

Thanks.

 

Sorry. My last post was intended for QSection, if that wasn't clear.

Thanks.