NIS 2010 PCMag.com review

The review is very detailed, and positive. Here's a link:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349865,00.asp

 

reading it now... they really raved about it

 

Given it's PCMag, that's not surprising.

 

True but even so it is a 'top drawer' product.

 

I hope matousec runs a full firewall leaktest on NIS 2010 soon. I switched from NIS to KIS a few years ago due to the performance issues. I might try NIS again if they have improved their leaktest results. In the past, KIS has been much better rated.

Another factor will be compatability with Prevx. I've been using with KIS and it works as a nice combination.

 

Regarding prevx, i've been using the free version w/ nis 2010 and haven't had any issues so far.

 

Not that this means its not true, but hasn't pcmag raved about prety much every Norton product? I fond the user reviews a lot more valuable since youhave to read through the marketing buzzwords in the real review.

 

xdot - Thanks for the information.

 

well here we go again.............
i really don't understand the need for posting PCMag's reviews,when nobody wants to believe them.......
It has happened time and again and the whole activity has become dull and boring...
I personally find their reviews trustworthy and honest....esp. when nobody has ever published a link on their part to prove their assumptions....

 

I've been using NIS for 3 years at an average cost of around $25 per year. That's a tough price to beat for all the excellent features you get, including a smart firewall that doesn't require you to make difficult decisions. Their Safe Web feature is quite nice. Real time and on-demand scanning. In an integrated package that can be updated by Symantec as new threats are identified.
None of the new sophisticated anti-malware products has identified a single active malware on my system. And I do live dangerously, so I know Norton is doing an excellent job.

 

Actually, I thought they were hammering the product

this mag is a joke

 

Gotta love affirmation like that without backup reasonning. Just like people saying NIS is a ressource hog based on their experience of 5 years ago.

I read all their reviews for the 2010 product they've done so far and found them all pretty much on the spot and very informative. They disclose all their testing methods, shows all the charts and have no problem stating some less known product is better at detecting threat X when it is so. What more do you ask for?

 

exactly my point,if i am correct no software testing team has ever invited any third party to see how they test the security suites,apart from stating their review methodology.......

 

A review that is unbiased would be a good start. This reviewer has been raving about Norton all through it's beta.

 

.
What is your definition of "unbiased"? Did you read the review? Is there something in it that you feel is factually inaccurate, or do you just object to the reviewer's enthusiasm?

 

What specific aspects of the testing methodology do you find unacceptable?

Personally, I believe the testing procedures of PC Magazine come the closest to simulating and assessing real-world performance, and therefore are worthy of serious consideration.

 

.
Actually, I think you misread LegendKiller. It seems to me he likes the pcmag.com review. He just thinks it's a waste of time talking about it here since there are a group of people who object to the reviews without really reading them. Did I get that right LegendKiller?

 

Actually, upon closer inspection, I think you’re right!

 

So anyone that participate in a beta and actually like what he is seeing cannot write an unbiased review on the final product?

Reviewer, be warned, stay away from beta that looks good!

 

Quoted from PCMag review

I strongly disagree with the above statement, but I'll refrain from breaking the vs debate forum policy.

I know PC Mag is entitled to their opinion, but they are blatantly in favour of Symantec. It's for this reason I don't take any of their reviews that seriously. Symantec could sell a dog turd and PCMag would say it was great .

On a personal note I wouldn't touch anything Norton again, even if their main selling point is being lighter these days.

 

At least I share the same conclusion after beta testing it for 3 months. PCmag may rave about every Symantec Products they release. But NIS 2010 really is THAT good. ( I would love they could sell me a version that doesn't come with or has Identity Theft features turned off by default. )

 

.
IMHO there is only one way to effectively determine if the review is accurate and that is to install the NIS 2010 30 day trial-ware and experience it first hand. I understand that for personal reasons you won't do that, but unfortunately that doesn't add much to the discussion. Many of us had bad experiences with pre-2009 Norton products. They also haven't had the best customer service track record, but things change.

 

So I've been using NIS2010 since the day it was released and really don't have the time or patience anymore to try or use any other product. I'm very happy with it.

With regards to PCmag's review, I hold my hands up as one of those who has made comments in the past as to the reviewer's blatant love for Symantec and this in turn obviously causes disfavour with users of other products he has reviewed that don't get full marks. People joke about the fact that no matter what Symantec product he reviews it will always be 'editor's choice' and the number of Symantec ads which are littered about the site.

But at the end of the day, we're all entitled to our own opinion and to use the products we're most happy with. It just happens to be that NIS2010 gets a rave review.

Perhaps we need to look at the other reviews of NIS2010 throughout the web but then again they seem pretty impressed with it too!

 

Does anyone ever look at the user's comments at the bottom of the reviews. I always read them, and compare what users think to that of the reviewer has to say. NIS is getting favorable user reviews. Of course there is always the possibility the user comments are being bought and paid for too.

 

And all the users giving 1 star (negative) eventhough they have never tested the product ^^