Why can't Wilder's review Norton's?

In it's list of AV's, I've never seen NAV reviewed... Now with the advent of NAV 2004, and it's newer unpacker ability, I feel kinda "slighted" Wilders hasn't EVER reviewed NAV...

I don't know... I know Wilder's is VERY BUSY, but still, not reviewing the World's Number 1 selling AV (I don't care what the reasons are)... could be construed as a disservice to it's readers...I noticed the AV section of WIlders was updated recently, but no NAV?

That doesn't exactly look very fair to me...

 

StraightShoot, the standard reply seems to be "no time" .. but after years of asking the same question, I'm really wondering if it is lack of tme or anti-Norton prejudice? Seems to me a security site should include the market leader in a product review, no matter what the excuse offered; it's like reviewing operating systems and saying in excuse, "oh we don't have time to review Microsoft" .. strange.

I don't mean that to sound critical, but the excuse has worn thin and lost credibility with me .. seems like if there was a will, Wilders would find a way. I don't mean to offend anyone, but one reaon I don't post here much is because I'm afraid of being flamed and I fear there is a real anti-Norton bias, and NAV users aren't welcome at this site.

I mean no offense to Paul, he's a great guy, outstanding guy and security expert .. but I do feel this way, Norton users aren't especially welcome here.

Thank you for having the courage to raise the subject, I hope you don't get flamed .. I hope we don't get flamed .. when I got your IM at dslreports, I decided to post to your thread and show my support.

Good luck and again, I mean no offense to anyone here at Wilders.

Warmly, Ran

 

You've been trying for years? I didn't know that LOL....

Well, I bought NIS 2004 Pro for a mobile power laptop, as you well know...It just irritated me that EVERYWHERE I Check, I see a review for NAV 2004... and it just came out!....

BTW, I never noticed the feeling that NAV users are not welcome here at Wilders... I either missed something here, or I'm naive LOL...

 

I apologize ...... it has seemed like years .. sorry for exaggeration. LowWaterMark you are a "buddy" at DSLReports and the kinest gentlest person .. surely you know I didn't and don't have you personally in mind by my comments. I do know that the updates section seems the most open and unbiased, all security products welcome to representation and posting of updates news there.

Still I'm having a hard time buying the "lack of time" argument: that excuse has worn a little thin, imho. Wilders found time to review the other products, but not the market leading AV ?? It just doesn't make much sense, assuming prejudice isn't the underlying reason.

Well I'm glad I didn't get too flamed, and of course I do like you LowWaterMark, always have and always will, you are a true "security guru", especially a ZA/ZAP guru.

 

hi randy well im here to tell it how it is lol

as a baby newbie at wilders it was in fact pauls very first words to me from his lips to my ears

Blaze you need an antviruse for a beginer i recomend nav

that was the very first security application i saved money and bought.

many here know i have to save my pennys so nav was the very best choice for a newbie like me

i been around longher now and i notice alot of the big boys play with nod

if i ever gradguate one day ill move from nav to nod

but nav has been highly recomended to me and my kin heere in the past


intermidate users usealy get directed to kav i think or whats the other avast or something i duno then advance hard core ussers get recomended nod

but its still a matter a prefrence

 

Hi Randy,

I agree on the first part of that sentence, but being a Norton user myself, I never felt I wasn't welcome here.

Regards,

Pieter

 

yea i recon there s more flaming between Nod and Non Noddy users than Norton or such
speaking as an observer of course who has not had the pleasure of using either .

It would be interesting to hear more unbiased opinions about norton

 

I don't want to get run out of town either. I love this place and the information and help that is available. So please read what I'm saying with an open mind. I'm not attacking anyone just expressing my humble opinion.

I asked this question before http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=6662;start=15

and Paul's answer was:

but also said that time was an issue.

I've never really felt unwelcome but in all honesty believe that there is an anti-Norton bias by some people. Of course that will be denied. But if you read the posts and you read between the lines I think you can't help but see it. This is definitely a Pro NOD group overall it seems even though they say other boards are pro something else.

Some of my posts have pointed out some of these "between the lines" things that are said or not said but the meaning is clear.

I'll give 3 examples of why I feel this way.

1. The Virus Bulletin tests are taken as gospel and anyone who questions them are heretics, is the way I see what is said. Their tests are far and above any other testing organizations and tests done in PC magazines are ridiculed as are other tests.

The PC magazines got on everyone's bad side because of dissing NOD it seems and for the opposite reason Virus Bulletin are the good guys it seems because of NOD's high results.

So for example I would say something like okay Norton has won this many times on CNET, PCMag, etc. and then advertising money is the excuse or incompetent testers and NOD has a big thing on their site about the incompetence of these tests. However when PCMag said something nice it was put on their site too. The PC magazines are either incompetent or they aren't.

Likewise when I pointed out that NOD (outside of the one Linux test) has failed more recently than Norton I was told that it wasn't the award itself necessarily but I had to read all the test details to get the real story.

In other words when NOD wins the VB awards it proves its dominance and that its the world leader. When Norton wins the very same award it's not taken seriously. Either the award means something or it doesn't. If the award is so important, and it seems it is as much as the NOD people tout it, then Norton does just as good as NOD and NOD has failed since the last time Norton failed.

2. There's been a lot of comments about marketing hype, money, etc. when talking bad about Norton and others. Yet on this page: http://www.nod32.com/news/cnet_zdnet2.htm it says

Now how could this be since the last time Norton lost a VB award was September 99 and one of the criteria for the award is

If Norton, during that two year period, missed many in the wild viruses then the VB tests are invalid and the award means nothing. Or it means that the definition of hype is what the competition does.

3. Many times it's been repeated over and over that a layered defense is the best defense and you shouldn't have one point of failure. Yet NOD (at least version 1) had lots of single points of failure and it was said that the features other programs had (like Norton) were unnecessary. A couple examples would be outgoing scanning and scanning in zip files.

The argument goes that NOD doesn't need the excess baggage of Norton because that scanning isn't needed. Yet anyone can clearly see that waiting on NOD to scan when the zip file is opened or whatever can be disaster waiting to happen. Some people have made comments about the resident scanner not working or locking up in the past showing the potential failure of that single layer of protection.

It seems that the layered defense (scanning as deep and as much as possible in this case) idea goes out the window when it's NOD versus Norton and in fact it's held against Norton for being a resource hog (it wouldn't be the story goes if it didn't do all that unnecesary scanning).

So what's the bottom line after all that? It definitely could be a time problem. But I believe that many here believe that NOD is the greatest and there is no real reason to test or review Norton. This kind of reminds me of the Windows vs. Linux religious debates.

If the site hasn't tested Norton how can they say how good Norton is or isn't?

How can anyone see this otherwise if you look at the arguments logically and rationally without emotion? It's natural to want to side with the little guy when he's up against Goliath. These and other reasons are why I see a pro bias towards NOD and in some cases pro anything else besides Norton.

Again, I'm not bashing, flaming, or attacking. I have the utmost respect for the mods and Paul and the hard work they do here. Y'all have a super resource here that has helped many. These are my opinions and like the saying goes "everyone has one and most of them stink".

Mark

 

Sorry Paul, you must've posted while I was writing my novel.

Could you use the 30 day trial versions for testing or would you need longer? Just wondering.

Thanks for everything,
Mark

 

Paul:

This is not meant as an attack. But what do you do with the licenses? Do they rapidly expire because they are special test licenses? If not: do you destroy them after the test so that nobody can claim that you have been "purchased"?

I know that this would be a ridiculous claim. But I am interested in your policy and good av testing policies in general.

Regards,

Martin

 

Paul:

Thanks for the reply.

I used the term "purchased" because someone (not me!) may argue that a full license is a kind of present which helps to stop av testers from writing harsh reviews.

But it appears that there is absolutely no basis for such a claim since you say that this procedure is common usance.

Regards,

Martin

 

I'm gonna see if Symantec can agree to get you folks a license and then you guys can do your test..

Paul, someone may be contacting you soon...

 

With regard to the issue of "bias", IMHO it is inevitable that this should creep in at times. People interested enough to really and truly delve into any field will develop some strong likes and dislikes; also people who have used products and had some bad experiences that they (rightly or wrongly) attribute to the use of a certain product will feel rather strongly regarding it. This board is a vehicle for people to ask and answer questions as well as to state their opinions and as people have their biases these biases will be reflected in their posts; but it is important to distinguish this from any systemic bias, any calcualted stance adopted by the moderators/administrators of the forum.

When there is a biased post that makes no attempt to substantiate claims made we have a clear reason to take steps but aside from that we have to be sensitive to the idea of a free exchange of ideas.

As to flames, we feel we really do a good job in preventing/quelling this without hampering the free exchange. If anyone feels that there is something that we missed they should feel free to use the "Report to Moderator" link on the post in question.

Regards,

Dan

 

Dan,

I agree that this board does a pretty good job of weeding out the flamers and bashers. I also agree that there are certain likes and dislikes we all have (Pepsi versus Coke, Ford versus Chevy, etc.). I also agree with Paul that there is a certain bias simply because certain products have their forums here - if this board hosted the Pepsi forums you're more likely to have a lot of Pepsi lovers by default.

What I don't see for the life of me is the double standard that seems to exist. If ITW detection and cleaning is the standard that all AV programs are judged by then 100% is 100% is 100%.

Paul mentioned that he believes NOD is still far ahead at VB over Norton. If Norton ran a little slower or didn't pick up a non-ITW virus that should be a non-issue when the award is what seems to be pushed - not the details.

If I am infected with ITW virus XXX and NOD gets it 100% and Norton gets it 100% then they should be equal. That's one of the main criteria for the VB testing. But again 100% is 100% doesn't seem to matter.

In football - if Ohio State wins consistently but just barely and Oklahoma blows everyone away there may be room for arguments over whose the best but a win is a win is a win.

The real problem I see is that 100% isn't taken for 100% because the details are always pointed to whenever that argument comes up.

The bias of one product over another leads to faulty thinking in my humble opinion.

For example, it's true that there may be no absolute reason that NOD should dig deep into a Zip file until the contents of that file are accessed at which time the resident scanner will pick up any problems. No reason until the resident scanner fails (gets turned off by mistake or otherwise, Windows problems, etc.) and at that point of imminent infection it would be really nice if there weren't a single point of failure by having NOD go deep into those Zip files earlier.

But admitting that this single point of failure exists, while preaching avoiding single point of failures would mean that the blessed NOD may not be as good as some others which would go into that Zip file earlier.

The same arguments could be made about outgoing scanning. But the bias won't let people see that the perfect situation, the perfect PC, and the perfect Windows configuration doesn't exist and that not scanning outgoing email may allow people to spread viruses if everything is not just right.

That's where advice and bias don't mix in my opinion but I'm probably guilty of it too.

Why not scan 100,000 files instead of 40,000 - just in case? Why not scan deep into Zip files before they are opened - just in case? Why not scan outgoing as well as incoming - just in case?

I'm sure my little post won't make a bit of difference. I'm not trying to convince anyone to use anything. I'm simply talking about the perceived bias that started this thread.

There's a lot of reason to pick one AV over another. But when recommendations are made let's stick to the facts and not let our likes or dislikes cloud our thinking or advice.

Mark

Edit - my comments aren't directed at any one person or group but in general.

 

A pertinent example of the bias/advice thing I talked about in my last post may be in order.

I've used Norton for years and until the last year or so never tried anything else. After trying other systems I was able to see faults and strengths of Norton.

One of Norton's problems, in my opinion, is the lack of daily automatic updates through LiveUpdate. If I were going to let my liking Norton get in the way of common sense I may make a statement when asked that automatic updates are unnecessary for the average user and therefore a non-issue.

When I take the bias towards Norton and emotion out of the equation though I see that automatic updates are important and if ever asked would let people know that is a flaw in their system instead of clouding my advice and judgment because I'm so sold on Norton.

The problem is that some of those faults (single points of failure in NOD) are swept away by calling them non-issues instead of admitting that, for example, you may be better protected with another system that scans in different ways and that hasn't missed a VB award since NOD last did.

I'm not a missionary and not trying to convert anyone over to anything but am a proponent of the unbiased truth even if our favorite software gets hurt in the telling of that truth. That's all.

Mark

 

I disagree. I'm sure your post helps the discussion a lot, unfortunately I cannot respond to most of your points as I am unaware of the criteria/methodology used in the testing so I will leave that aspect to others.

I do agree that integrating redundacy is usually to be desired in the security scheme of things but various vendors (and testers and users!) will gauge that value differently depending on the feature and the adverse impact of its use/inclusion. Some things are readily quantifiable and thus can be compared objectively but others are impossible to assess without a somewhat subjective element being introduced.

Useability/complexity comes to mind immediately as a subjective evaluation but it is a pretty important aspect of "worth" of a product for an enduser (and thus for a tester).

Anyways, I will leave to others the response to your specified points

 

lol i think all randy qustions were answerd long time algo lol

but i do algree there is no real flameing here maybe a few smart a$$ remarks or ocaswtional critisisim but never a full out flame war.

i been flamed at two other security bords and it get real ugly real fast

here you usealy get spanked hard befor it even gets to that level

 

I can say, from my experience in this Forum, there has never been any objection from anyone when I have referenced Symantec in a thread or post.
- They are, after all, the #1 AV vendor. But I hasten to add, IMHO, that doesn't make them the best. As long as "innovation" stays alive, I'll keep looking for the guy with the "better ideas", and that includes O/S's, too...

 

yeah nav is most populer cause the product in stores

thats perty muh why there number one cause there well knowen