What do you think of NAV 2004???

Used NAV but it slowweeeedddd my system, just switched over to Command with no probs and less of a hog on the system and that is works for me on a dual boot system.

 

My two cents, I use NAV on all of my homeNet computers:

mine: WinXP Home Edition, NAV 2004
ICS Host, Compaq Presario, Intel 2.4 GHz, 512 MB DDR SDRAM

son's: Win98 Second Edition, NAV 2002
ICS Client, TigerDirect Clone, Cyrix 200MX, 166 MHz, 64 MB SDRAM

wife's: Win95C {OSR 2.5}, NAV 2001
ICS Client, Custom Built, Pentium 133 MHz, 64 MB Fast Page RAM

I have had absolutely zero problems in several years of running NAV on my boxes. I have had zero infections; NAV catches everything {klez, swen, bugbear, etc.}. I have noticed none of the reported "problems" of NAV eating too many resources, or slowing down PCs {causing performance drag}, etc. And you may note from the above, that, with the exception of my new fast Compaq Presario, my other home computers are pretty slow and on the "low end", so if NAV was the "resource hog" and "bloatware" y'all seem to want to repeatedly claim that it is, certainly I would have noticed that on my old boxes and gotten a replacement .. but it isn't .. this is a myth, at least in my experience .. LOL.

I do not consider NAV to be "bloatware", and I seriously wonder whether those follks harboring such negative opinions of NAV have ever tried the software themselves, or if they are just repeating negative things they heard from others.

Negativity is like a "disease" .. maybe it's human nature to be negative, especially toward the unknown {something you haven't actually tried out for yourself}, I dunno. Negativity often stems from lack of information and ignorance about a particular product.

I make it a habit & practice, to refrain from any negative comments about any software that I have not actually tried myself. I think it only reveals my ignorance and bias when/if I mouth off publicly against product(s) I don't use and haven't ever used myself.

NAV holds its own in public testing, too: at VB, Rokop, and independent reviews by the PC Mags {CNET, PC World, etc.} .. and no, I don't think that is because Symantec have "bribed" the reviewers, LOL. C'mon guys, get over your unfair prejudices and give NAV a fair review, just like you would want others to give your AV of preference a fair review.

Well, that's my two cents .. as for me, I'll stick with NAV on my boxes. And no, that doesn't mean I have a negative opinion of the other fine commercial AVs out there. I just happen to like NAV, it performs well for me, it protects my boxes adequately, I am a satisfied happy camper for longtime now, with NAV.

Warmly, Ran

 

i currently run NAV2004 on three different operating systems... win2000, winxp & win98se. total allocated space for each, no matter which OS we're talking about, is right around 15mb. so you've exaggerated that figure a bit, wouldn't you say?

as for the rest of your commentary, all i can say is i've run NAV on my machines since 1997 and i fully rely upon it to keep my computers and my data safe. i would have no problem switching off if i felt NAV was in any way compromising my security.

jmo

 

For the record, I would like to state that I always thought my computer was slower than it should be (Athlon XP 2000+, 512mb DDR) because of the manufacturer (which was true since they included Norton in it). But when I uninstalled Norton (came with the PC) because of a bug in 2004 that also messed up 2003, I was relieved of 30 seconds of boot-time compared with another av like NOD32, or McAfee VS 7 Enterprise. Norton Corporate is faster than the consumer one though, so I would rather go Corporate than touch the consumer product. Granted Norton 2000 (boy thats old) still runs quick on my old 133mhz Cyrix CPU, but that's sort of irrelevant. It just depends on how it runs on your own system, and how likely you are to come into contact with viruses. For the standard consumer who does only normal things with the computer, and has their brain turned on when using e-mail (minus some intervention from the gods for Microsoft flaws in the first couple days), Norton is perfectly fine.

 

Hello...

First of all, would someone tell Mr. Wilders that this site is SLOWWWW...
It is taking a loooonngggg time to load a page...
It's been like that for awhile...

Secondly, let me say a couple of things about NAV...

I used to be a long time user of NAV until a couple of years ago, now I'm back with NAV...

It is the smoothest, easiest to use, and does a decent job both with removal and disinfection and with trojan detection...

It scans outbound mail.. I know, it's a "useless" feature.. Well, it's nice to have it...

It just got improved with better unpackers...

For my system, it runs smoothly, without incident... I don't feel any bloatware at all whatsoever... No slowdowns...

They are updating more consistantly.. In fact, I update once a day with intelligent updater...

They seem to be among the top AV's in terms of detection and updates... and I like their support...

I was upset with NAVabout 2 years ago, because, let's face it, I wasn't into security before...
I got infected, and I can't say with certainty I was updated... ... Also, the previous versions of NIS and NAV were not not as great as the new 2004 version.. In being fair to Symantec, the competition also had problems...

NAV 2004 hasn't failed me yet... I just double checked with a free online scan from McAfee and Trend Micro, and I am clean.. NAV stopped my computer from being infected with trojans 2 nights ago.. NAV kicked in first, not Trojan Hunter.. I checked 3 times.. No infection

My Assessment? NAV 2004 is among the best, and for most users, probably the best choice... Of course, if you are using an older computer, (over 5 years), then I'd probably suggest another AV... but you can try NAV and see... They have a 60 day money back guarantee...

 

if someone states six weeks ago that a program takes up 60 mb when it only takes up 15mb, i like to see the record set straight regardless of the amount of time that has passed.

jmo