Considering purchasing Nod32 BUT. . .

I can't figure out from any of the product descriptions exactly how it behaves. Does anyone know if it will do all the same things as Norton Internet Security? I like Norton Internet Security because it has Spam and Ad/Pop Up blocking and monitors everything that comes in and goes out. But it's sluggish and slows down my system. I'd like to switch to NOD32 but would like to know if it will do all the same stuff. Can anyone help me? Why can't developers just spell everything out for us noobs
thanks

 

NOD32 lacks many features of norton internet security (like firewall or adblocking features or spam blocker) because it is only an antivirus. if u want a suite go elsewhere. also considering NOD32 v2.5 interface, id say norton is much easy for newbies to navigate, explorer, and use.

 

NOD32 also lacks heavy load

 

Yes, it's has almost no ability to slow your system down at all. Also, sometimes you can almost tell that it might be possible using just a touch of RAM - maybe.

 

What NOD32 lacks in the beauty department, it makes up for in muscle. It's a formidable program with unassuming interface.

As for the features it lacks compared to NIS, Zone Alarm has an extremely effective free firewall, and K9 is a very good free Anti-Spam program. Neither of which will bog down your system nor compromise your security.

 

and for adblocking u can get admucher or for firefox, u can use the adblock extension with adblock filterset.g updater.

 

Version 3 will be a suit... So stick around for the Cebit show where they will tell us more about it.

 

My favorite ad blocking method:

Bust Banner Ads with Proxy Auto Config

Easy to enable/disable in Firefox via bookmarklets. This way the browser itself is not used as a filter as with the Ad Block extension, so pages load faster than with Ad Block installed, I think.

I believe I've seen more pc problems related to using NIS than with any other security program.

 

Will Happy Bytes be the tailor?

 

one of a team of the tailors I'd say...

 

Hey,

so a suit like KIS 2006?

I hope with the same very low memory usage/footprint as Kaspersky Internet Security 2006! (under 10 MB RAM!)

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

 

I'm more concerned about CPU usage.

 

Hey,

hmm, I'm both, memory usage, CPU usage, etc., performance is important..

And KIS or KAV 2006 don't utilize the CPU with more than 50% while scanning..!

So and now, what is about the claim with NOD32, that it has the lowest footprint/fewest memory usage/consumption?

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

 

I think this is low, but you may think otherwise
Edit: And CPU usage is low. I can't tell it's actually there & scanning. Good stuff.

 

like brian n, im more concerned with cpu usage, and for that i praise nod32.

 

For
ADs/banners - Outpost.
Firewall - same answer.
AV - Defensewall + free AV - Avast - AVG - Antivir.
Trojans - Defensewall + MSAS + Outpost.
Other malware - same answer.
Free Online scanners - see below.

Yearly costs? Last year 39USD for OP (2 year lic) - this year USD 29 for Defensewall - next year USD 0,- - next year again USD 0,and so on - looking good.

Main reason for all the saved money; Defensewall! A total beauty!

Best Regards

 

Hey,

lol, yes, maybe on your system, but not on mine..and shouldn't it low on every Win NT 5.x system?!

Btw. without more infos and details on your system, like OS, installed RAM, your info is useless!

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

 

Are they planning to deny customers who just want the anti-virus and no suite that option?

I was seriously leaning towards NOD when my McAfee subscription runs out in a couple of months (because of McAfee's "suite"), but if no stand-alone AV but instead a "suite only" approach is what they are taking, I guess I'll have to look at other options...

 

i suggest u wait til more details come up; but im sure theyll still offer nod32 AV, make the suite installer customizeable or something along those lines

 

Some have suggested that NOD32 v3 will be a suite. I'm not persuaded that that's the right thing to call it. The only things that I have heard from ESET is that IMON will be gone, that it will have an inbuilt firewall (I'm assuming that this will be part of a supercharged replacement for IMON) that the GUI will be different and that we will be able to get more info after CEBIT....
Other than that I don't know that I'm calling it a suite.
A firewall is really an integral part of your Virus protection. IMON was already capable of detecting intrusion attemps - the ability to control port, application or protocol access is really just on down the road from where IMON was at - except I'm betting they're using a whole different mechanism than the one used for IMON....
JMHO

 

Hmmm......well, looks like KAV is looking better and better

Guess I'll just have to wait and see how this one plays out.

Seriously, I'm leaning towards purchasing Look 'n' Stop or Outpost (most probably LNS) once my McAfee ISS expires....and one reason I don't want to renew McAfee is because of "the suite". The McAfee firewall isn't bad, but if someone like myself purchases Look 'n' Stop, who needs the extra NOD or any other firewall bundled in with their AV? I guess if they're targeting basic mom and pop casual surfers that run Windows firewall, I could understand. But that's why they should leave the OPTION there for other customers who don't want anything other than the stand alone AV......

 

I've used tons of free and for-pay software. By far the best I've used is NOD32. Protects my computer from all kinds of bad stuff and I barely know that it is there.

 

Hey,

I hope they will do it like Kaspersky..with KAV and KIS..but software firewalls are crap and I hope they will do not integrate such a pseudo firewall..!
Packet filters are only good for program control, but these methods can simply all bypassed, so I see no need for an firewall here and this is only an addition of pseudo security..

I fully agree with you, here!

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

 

Of course there will surely be people who would prefer to choose their own firewall...It would be consistent with ESET's past performance for the firewall to be either installed or not, enabled or not - look at how the current v2.5 is configurable...

 

I completely understand what you are saying, but I think that denying the CHOICE of purchasing a stand-alone product while "forcing" people to accept a suite is a very poor marketing decision, and one they will likely regret. And really, that's regardless of whether certain portions can be "installed" or not. I'm sure the installer will determine how comfortable users will be in that regard (i.e.- will it "INSTALL" features that won't be used, thus cluttering up the registry with useless keys and adding more junk files/folders, etc).

Sure, they may pick up a few additional buyers/subscribers....but the ones that they lose will offset that rather easily. My guess is if they make this brand management mistake.....that their next major release will include a stand-alone AV AND a "seperate" suite (i.e. - they will learn from their mistake). Rumor has it that McAfee is considering doing away with the Security Center and the use of Active X in the very near future. You think customers bitching about these two things have anything to do with this (very likely) marketing decision? So do I.

As of now, I'm looking more seriously into KAV.....