NIS 2009 Full System Scan time

338252 files in 17 minutes.

 

1358796 files scanned in 0 seconds with Placebo AV! You can't beat it, eat it Norton fanboys!

This thread makes no sense, you can't compare the results nor draw any meaningful conclusion from it unless you have

- identical AV settings
- basically equivalent HW (CPU, HDD, RAM)
- plus you run the test on essentially idle PC so that it's not affected by other running processes

 

Yes it does make sense, and there is not that much variance according to Norton in scan times. But of course you as a Norton basher (cannot get you out of this thread) would not like Norton even if all of your conditions were met. We got the point bub that you don't like Norton. Good. As a contrarian to people who are unwilling to look at new evidence because they are so certain they are right, I know Norton has developed an incredible AV.

 

Ugh, WTH?

- I'm just telling you that posting screenshots of "XX items scanned in YY minutes" is completely useless for any comparison purposes i.a. for the reasons I've stated above. There are other factors, such as scanning compressed files and archives and how deeply you scan them. How on earth is this Norton bashing?

- Fix your methodology before you start comparing results.

- And if you don't get a joke such as the one with PlaceboAV, then perhaps skip the post altogether before accusing someone of bashing anything.

P.S. And oh yeah, PC Mag's (mis)information about the "Insight" feature is complete BS (also confirmed by Symantec), but then again why'd be anoyone surprised by the poor quality of their reviews.

 

Review
I thought it was a paid advertisement ...

And totally agree with you on the ppl, who seemingly become too emotional and can't even take a joke ..

 

Just a few inputs for accurate testing and comparison:

1. Isn't the hard disk the main bottleneck when looking at scanning speed, not the cpu. HDD factors to compare against are low rpm, a HDD with low DMA access or running under PIO access or running a IDE over a SATA connection.

2. Between testing of two products, shouldn't the machine be rebooted to prevent prefetching and in-memory buffers being reused on the 2nd test.

 

Good attempt at trying to obfuscate the fact that you are a Norton basher- your anti-Norton posts are all over the board. You are no computer expert- just a kibbitzer that is adding nothing of value to this forum. Your humor is not that good btw.

 

Im with you Bunkhouse Buck, but don't feed the fire fuel. Hes trying to provoke a flame war. Lets keep it a constructive debate.

 

Sounds logical and probably the factor of different scan speeds.

 

How on earth is this relevant on this thread? Keep your useless blurb out of it if you have nothing on topic. And BTW noone asked for your opinion on my expertise.

 

Play nice or your both are going to visit the timeout room.

Lol on a serious note Norton did very well in today AV-Comp

 

To get back OT...I think we're missing the point, which is not trying to compare how long a full scan takes on different machines but how long it takes on the same machine if run more then once. The second scan on my machine was dramatically faster and scanned a much smaller subset of files. The only thing that makes sense is files are being excluded from the scan based on Norton Insight data. If files are going to be excluded from a full scan there has to be some trustworthy process to base those choices on.

 

Presumably that trust is based on Norton & the Community Watch, if one enables that option.

 

The Trusted by norton I would think would probably be safe what about the community watch IMO is questionable meaning what is the majority of community the newbiew to average user or the advanced user or extreme technical user.or balanced between all.I put my self in the advanced only group.

 

Strangest thing just happened. NIS 2009 finished an Idle full system scan, and have scanned 1,123,534 files in 53:28. I did a manual full system scan 3 days ago, scanning 563,666 files in 22:40. Now my question is, where the hell did all the xtra files in the idle scan come from? I sure as hell haven't installed anything? Does it scan twice in idle scan or what?...Anyone?!?


Cheers

 

makes you wonder how many 'real' files you have or did it have something to do with trusted files or not...btw I belong to the school of thought that if something is too good to be true than something is up, why I never fully trust Kaspersky & I guess now Norton, consistency is what matters...

 

That is very strange I like to hear a logical explanation for the mystery files.

 

could it be all these log files that continue to build up but I cant get rid of.

 

A possible way to figure this out would be to scan your system with another product that doesn't exclude files on any basis (perhaps an Antispyware app that will get along with NIS2009) and get another file count.

 

I was tempted by NIS 2009 so iv`e ditched NOD 3 for a couple of weeks to do some comparisons.

1st thing iv`e noticed is the boot up is around 30 sec slower with NIS .

2 nd ,although it tells when it checked ,There is no evidence of updates being installed (maybe I just havent found it) so how does one know what version / date the last update were installed .

3rd scanning speed is roughly the same 95,000 files in around 20 min, but it appears NIS scans packed files better as it found some Nod missed.

4 th didnt like the toolbar crap and it was first to go.

 

When you open the GUI, it says near the top how long ago the last definition updates were installed (e.g. 4 minutes ago).

 

Now that you mention it I do not Recall seeing the detail of the update,unless its located in the history I can not recall though.

 

This thread really makes me wonder... Does Symantec actually produce any usable documentation for their products? Dozens of quite knowledgeable people speculating about how a particular feature is supposed to behave strongly suggests otherwise.

 

I am going to have to agree with post #32 concerning your postings here.