What do you think of NAV 2004???

I would like any and all suggestions and information about NAV 2004 as I am considering whiching antivirus solutions.

 

Running the trial of NAV2004 now. Its awesome in all but one aspect. It takes almost 13 minutes to scan my 111,000+ files. The hit you take with NAV2003 and 2002 isn't there any more. My whole system is perky with it installed. It is up there with NOD32 as far as performance. I run NOD32 until today. I am testing NAV for a review of it. Its gonna get a good one from me if the rest of the trial goes this way.

 

I have the complete opposite opinion of Eliot. Symantec has proven themselves to be behind in almost every aspect of computer security (ie. Norton Internet Security, which is comprised of both Norton Firewall and Norton Antivirus). Their products are absolute bloatware. Other than Panda their products (namely their antivirus) are needlessly large. One could cop e with the loss of harddrivev space required by this mamoth product is only it were worthwhile. It is not. There is nothing spectacularly new in 2004 that justifies the upgrade (no the hike up AV update subscription). It goes without saying there will be a significant hit as far sa systems resources are concerned, unless you happen to have a brand new PC. Also, Symantec ads claim there have ben improvents on the unpacking engine of NAV 2004. That may be true, however, norton still ranks close to the bottom of the barrel in unpacking engines. Although this product is no horrible and does provide adequate security. In my opinion the cons for NAV 2004, as they always have, far out the pros. Norton cannot protect your system as well as other products such as NOD32 (although weak but improving trojan detection), Dr Web, or KAV. But hey none of these products have the none Norton associated with them, which is why it gets good reviews. Well known vs speed and protection... it's up to you.

Or...one more thing. Eliot made reference to the fact that he believe NAV 2004 to be as fast as NOD32 (v1 or 2?) That, in my opinion, is not true at all. You are going to experience system slowdown both in general and as far as scanning is concerned. The is no faster scanner that NOD32; except perhaps Dr Web, with a much better unpacking engine and perhaps too strong heristics is configured, which comes in a close second.

 

The new unpacking feature is poor (according to the latest Rokop test) and what is even more worse is the product activation which takes you your freedom to change your hardware as many times as you want during the licence period.

wizard

 

The thing I don't like about NAV (2000-04) is that it doesn't have daily virus updates through Live Update unless there is some big virus out break. I know you can download them manually on a daily basis from their Intelligent Updates and it's probably no big thing to a lot of people. But if most of the other major AV's can update daily, why can't NAV. There are some other things I don't like about NAV, this is just one of my pet peaves.

 

I do not believe the ROkop testing at all. They rate Mcafee as #1, that says all I need to hear about them

 

Just because you don't like the result? Or are there facts that let you assume there is something wrong with the test?

Nothing wrong with that. Even if I personally don't like McAfee VirusScan much I must admit that their scan engine is one of the bests (just check the tests of av-test.org or University of Hamburg to verify this). Also McAfee is besides KAV known as a product with a good unpacking engine.

wizard

 

I just can't believe that a program rated higher than NOD32 gets flunked out at the Virus Bulletin. Thats all.

And as far as McAfee being the best? IT BETTER BE the best as much as it lags your computer down compared to the rest.

 

You can't really compare the result of Rokop's test with VB test because of a different testing scope.

wizard

 

Ok, I will definitely take your word for it Wizard. I can also make a statement regarding all these: NAV, McAfee, NOD32.

I have gotten 1 virus in all my time in computers. It was running NAV 2002 at the time. I would just like to add that my virus definitions WERE up to date when I got infected.

 

After reading comments re NAV 2004 on this and other forums, I have decided not to use 2004 when my 2003 expires.

I have the impression that AVG is about the best free AV.
Comments would be appreciated?

Thanks,
Jerry

 

I don't know WHERE you got that impression..


Yes, for free AV, maybe.. I personally think Avast is better.. They have excellent forum support, and I believe they recently improved their unpacking engine... Those boys from Checkoslavakia (I don't know how to spell it) are REALLY catching up! I still don't feel comfortable with a free AV, especially after the rash of recent viruses we had lately...

I suggest you check out Virus Bulletin and you'll see where AVG ranks.. NOD 32 and NAV are the two top AV's... McAfee scored #1 at the latest ROKOP test... KAV was second, and I honestly think if ROKOP used the extended Virus definations KAV would have come in first place...

AVG is a free AV which is okay, but nowhere near any of the AV's I just mentioned...

Although I am no big fan of NAV, I am all for fair play... I wish WIlders would get around to reviewing NAV and include it on it list of AV's... with a ranking of their choice.. I keep hearing "no time", but after almost two years of waiting I would hope that NAV can get reviewed.....

 

e Trust v7 promo . has to be the best of the "free ones"
https://www3.ca.com/Register/myCALogin.asp?url=%2fRegister%2fForm.aspx%3fcid%3d41870



check out there new online scanner http://www3.ca.com/virusinfo/virusscan.aspx (need internet explorer and windows )

 

lol, personally would rather be without an av that rely on norton av, which is nothing but a bloated, good example of inefficiently programmed piece of software.

60 + megs of installation space? what next? norton is gonna be near the size of an OS. No offense to those who subscribe to symantec products, but if you seriously think that you're safe behind your norton av especially when it comes to trojans/backdoors then it's up to you.

 

Thank you for taking it upon yourself to do Paul Wilders' job and giving us your "enlightened", "non-biased"
opinion of NAV..LOL..
Who needs to read Wilders reviews when we have you? LOL..

 

Thanks for the replies. I have never had a problem with NAV. I have never had an infection, and several have tried, but NAV caught them.

It seems that there some new features in the 2004 that are disliked by nearly everyone who comments. In addition, it evidently takes up more resources than most.

I don't intend to go with AVG after seeing the results of the Virus Bulletin tests.
NAVC was clearly one of the best according to that test.

I still have support through Mar 04 so I have a little time. I do not insist on a freebie if it won't get the job done. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus as to what is the best.

I'll keep reading.

Jerry

 

NOD32 HANDS DOWN. WITH TDS-3 AS WELL YOU CAN'T GO WRONG

 

Heh, ROFL S.S. You do have a way with words.
Anyway Stranger, NAV is actually a quite good AV IMO.

 

I would not really agree with Madsen, as you can see from my previous thread in this post in reguards to NAV (any year). It's siimply average bloatware. I do however agree with him that NOD is a GREAT a.v. I think you should also through Dr Web into the ring as well. I get great protection with that. It is not as pretty as NOD but you will not need an ant-trojan as you would if you used NOD. I am a Dr Web user and it can even detect more trojans that my AT (Anti-Trojan Shield)...better archive scanning too and a memory scanner.

 

I found it so amazing that people still are discussing wich AV is the best (after years).

My 0.2 > There is NO best !

It's mostly up to the person using it, and if offcourse if it's updated or not.

I think that these days ALL vendors detect almost 100% of Itw virusses, free av's & commercials.

If a company badly fails to protect people, there gone the day after, so to speak.

Johny

 

My .02 on NAV (again)

I use NAVCE 7 and 8 on a network of a little over 200 computers.

We run it on computers with as little as 32 mgs RAM and P166, (NT4) up to P4's with 2.4 ghz.(w2K), and it runs stable and smooth.

As an example, since we had to scramble to get all our machines patched since the July RPC thing, we had to rely on NAV to catch anything that happened to hit an unpatched machine in the interim. (Our IT staff is me, and a couple pt student workers with no admin access.)

We found two computers with out of date defs (shame on me!) that had the Welchia worm--which we fixed and got back online within 20 minutes. The rest of our boxes were spotless.

NAV has saved my butt many times, and although I don't use it at home, it's a fine AV.

 

Hey JIMIT,
It's radicalb21. Thanks for your advice as well as everyone else who has contributed to this thread. I understand you use NAVCE 7 & 8 at work. So what do you use at home?

 

To Paul Wilders :

Wishfull thinking ? maybe Paul...But isn't there any truth in the saying that all well known AV's (ICSA certified) protect there users (if updated) from ITW virusses ?

If you answer no to this question, i must say you are not open to see the quality of other av's than the ones you have in mind. (walking on thin ice here, lol)

Some maybe better than others, offcourse...But wat i was trying to say is, that under the big list of well known Av's there are NO really extremely bad products.

In one way or the other, they ALL earned the trust from there users. If not... the av's would disapear. simply as that.

These are just my 0.2. Don't attack me for it

Johny

 

On my main pc, I use NOD32 v.2 (Thanks Wilders!), with eXtendia AVK as an on-demand backup. I like this setup, because I like to run as "lean" as I can.

On my kid's/second pc, I use PC-cillin 2002, with Avast! 4 Home as a backup. I also own licenses for NAV 2001 and 2003 as well.

I guess what I'm saying is that NAV isn't my favorite AV, but it's a very good AV--and it gets bashed about as much as it gets over-hyped--which comes from being the "big dog". It is too bloated at this point, but it does do a good job with viruses, as a rule.