Bit Defender

I do hope it performs as well for you as it does for me.

now I have to appologize for hijacking Dallens Bit Defender thread.

 

Hi Dallen, when you scan your PC using NOD32 you are most likely to encounter [error code 4] error messages.

These are files that NOD32 can't open because they are locked by the OS - They can't get infected either.
Other antivirus programs can't scan those files either, but they never tell you about it.
I like to think of this as a bonus.
You can scan 1 week, and the next week you can compare your results, making sure nothing has changed or any nasties has been installed on your system without you knowing about it.

You get a 30-day free trial, I suggest you make use of it. It'll surprise you I'm sure. The days where AV apps basically takes over your system are long gone with NOD32.

 

You got that right.Bigc changes AV's more than his underwear!lol!.

 

It's not really fair to hold a beta against them, now is it? I'm using the latest version (9.5 I think) and I have used Perfect Disk to defrag and FDISR to both create multiple snapshots and boot into them. I certainly hope that Raxco is not posting FAQ about complications between FDISR and a beta program!!!

 

Brian N,
I think that you are correct regarding the error code 4 messages. To say that something can't get infected seems naive. I wonder how effective NOD 32 is against more advanced threats, for example rootkits.

Regarding your suggestion to scan 1 week and compare the results with next weeks scan, I do not like that very much. If that is an effective method, then why is that technique not built into the software itself. After all, isn't it the software that is suppose to do the work.

That being said, I will give it another shot keeping in mind your suggestions.

 

Whatever makes you happy. I'm not even gonna try anymore.

 

Try what? Selling me NOD32? I'm perfectly capable of arriving at which antivirus software works best for me. If I arrive at a different conclusion than you desire, it does not mean that you failed. Giving me your input is welcome, in fact appreciated. Getting pissed off when I question the antivirus of your choice is not welcome and counterproductive.

 

Please do not apologize, for you are helping me. I am currently running F-Secure Internet Security 2006 on a snapshot. So far, I like it. Although, I must say, I never thought I'd see the day where Symantec's file sizes would be dwarfed. This software is huge and have about a dozen running processes. Despite my initial liking of the software, I must say that I'm skeptical about its ability to have a small enough appetite on my system resources.

 

You cannot use Spyware Blaster if you use Bit Defender. Nor can you use Spybot. I really liked BD 9 Pro until I started having problems after the forced upgrade to BD 9.5 which includes the antispyware scanner that I did not want. Support told me that I must remove both Spybot and Spyware Blaster. They claimed my problems were due to having these two applications. I told them that I do not use Teatimer so I use Spybot only on demand and I pointed out that Spyware Blaster is not a running process so I asked how could either of these cause the GUI and crashing problems I had after the forced upgrade to 9.5. Even after I turned off the antispyware checking in 9.5, I still had a bunch of problems with BD. I had none with BD8 or BD9. So, I suspect the problems had something to do with BD's new antispyware scanner in 9.5. Support never would explain in detail why the two antispyware programs I love are incompatible with BD. They just demanded again that I remove those applications and they said I had to provide proof of removal by running another Belarc Advisor and sending to them. I then went and asked Javacool if he had any understanding of why BD couldn't run with Spyware Blaster and he is totally puzzled. Spybot forum replied that this was old news and to use some other antivirus. That is what I did. I am not about to give up my favorite anti-spyware applications. I got KAV 2006 instead.

As for NOD32 not scanning locked files, none of the AV can scan the files that are locked by Windows or the files locked by password protection. There is no way a nasty could infect you because of this. A nasty that was password protected cannot be opened until you type in the password. After you do that, then the AV catches the nasty when you try to execute it or if you leave the file open and run a full scan the AV will catch it since the password is no longer protecting it. I have some viruses on this computer that I use for testing AVs. I password protect the zip file because I don't want my AV to scan those files and tell me I have virus. I know I have viruses but they are not executed. They do no harm sitting in a password protected file. Plus, if I want to send the sample to someone via email, I have to password protect the file. Why? Because my ISP uses Symantec corporate AV to scan all outgoing and incoming mail. If I didn't password protect the attachment then Symantec would scan the file and see it was a virus and would strip the attachment so whoever I was sending it to for their examination, whatever, would not get it.

 

Mele20,
Thanks for the great information. That just goes to show you that no AV is the best AV for everyone. You mentioned that you use KAV. I could not get KAV to do a full system scan on my machine to save my life. However, BitDefender has worked like a charm. None of the problems that you mentioned with Spybot Search & Destroy and SpywareBlaster have shown up on my system and I use both. Also, I have used BD with First Defense ISR and Perfect Disk without a hitch.

Currently, I'm simultaneously trialing NOD32, BD, and F-Secure on my machine. This would not be possible if it were not for First Defense ISR (the miracle software from heaven).

 

Dallen/Mele20 et al

Please see my post about successfully having various Apps in my pc, including Spybot/SpywareBlaster etc, whilst very happily running BD9.5 fulltime !

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=133900


StevieO

 

Just give it a chance and I think it will surprise you

 

As you are also using FirstDefense, take into account that NOD's on-demand scanner will check ALL the snapshots that you have. BitDefender, in contrast, only scans the snapshot it is in.

I do not know what F-Secure does in this respect.

 

Hi, I started a thread a few days ago requesting much the same information and had some really good advice. I have bought BD Standard now and so far no issues with Spywareblaster at all.

Both of my PC's are more responsive and the program is easy to set up and use, crucial as my family use both PC's. Plus the license lets you use on both which is a big saving compared to others.

Too early to tell about how safe it keeps my machines but hopefully the various tests and reviews reported here and elsewhere indicate that this is a very good AV.

I will not say it is the best etc as that depends on your own system but it is worth a try.

David.

 

Hi David,
[Too early to tell about how safe it keeps my machines but hopefully the various tests and reviews reported here and elsewhere indicate that this is a very good AV.]

It will provide excellent protection. I would not be a bit concerned, and I ran it for over a year on a W98 machine and then XP.

If it runs well with other apps then you will be very satisfied I think. It does scan slow, but that is not a big deal with me. It took about 40 minutes to do a complete scan. NOD took 30 minutes when I trialed it.

Jerry

 

No they are posting about a known issue that also happens with the beta due to there 3rd party drivers.

http://www.raxco.com/support/windows/kb_details.cfm?kbid=533

This could have been a major hassle if I didn't have a TI image ready to go.