Considering purchasing Nod32 BUT. . .

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Cinder Block, Feb 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cinder Block

    Cinder Block Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1
    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 noobso_O
    thanks
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    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.
     
  3. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    NOD32 also lacks heavy load :)
     
  4. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    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. :D :D :D
     
  5. wxboss

    wxboss Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    33
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    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.
     
  6. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    and for adblocking u can get admucher or for firefox, u can use the adblock extension with adblock filterset.g updater.
     
  7. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    Version 3 will be a suit... So stick around for the Cebit show where they will tell us more about it.
     
  8. Elwood

    Elwood Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    205
    Location:
    Mis'sippi
    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.
     
  9. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    246
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Will Happy Bytes be the tailor?
     
  10. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    one of a team of the tailors I'd say... ;)
     
  11. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    Hey,

    so a suit like KIS 2006? :D

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

    best regards,

    iNsuRRecTiON
     
  12. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    I'm more concerned about CPU usage. ;)
     
  13. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    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? :cool: :p o_O :mad:

    best regards,

    iNsuRRecTiON
     
  14. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 25, 2006
  15. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    like brian n, im more concerned with cpu usage, and for that i praise nod32.
     
  16. Rivalen

    Rivalen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Posts:
    413
    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
     
  17. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    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
     
  18. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    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...:(
     
  19. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    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
     
  20. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    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
    :)
     
  21. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    Hmmm......well, looks like KAV is looking better and better :D

    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......
     
  22. mannagills

    mannagills Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Posts:
    37
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     
  23. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    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.. :doubt: :cautious: :isay: :thumbd:

    I fully agree with you, here!

    best regards,

    iNsuRRecTiON
     
  24. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    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...:)
     
  25. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    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.....
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.