NAV2006 trial install VS KAV 2006 beta install

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Peter2150, Mar 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,039
    Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum

    Okay I promised. First let me say, if asked I'd would have responded Norton software is in general bloated, hard to remove, and provides poor support. After Bigc's comments that issue's had been fixed I got curious. Sooo...

    I downloaded and installed NAV2006 trial. I only compared it with KAV 2006 beta, which is what I am running. This wasn't intended as an overal AV comparison, just something for me to see if my feelings about NAV might warrant review.

    First the KAV2006 download is 11.3 Megs. KAV2006 is basically AV plus their new proactive defense.

    The NAV2006 download was 32.3 Meg. After installing and looking at it, I found basic AV which probably compared favorably in functionality with KAV's extended set. I made no effect to compare detection as I have no way to do this.

    The size difference in the downloads, hinted my feelings about bloat, wouldn't change. Memory usage for NAV was about 3 times that of KAV. Worse to me was the fact that KAV has only 2 process's running while NAV has 7. I can't help feel that is just plain lousy coding.

    Then I got real curious so I downloaded and installed KIS2006 beta. I uninstalled my firewall and installed the full KIS installation including all the AV, plus AntiSpam, and firewall. That full download is only 12.3 meg.

    Looking at NAV2006 compared to KIS2006, NAV used twice the memory then KIS, and KIS still only had two processes. This only reaffirms my personal feeling that Norton coding, is very poorly organized and sloppy. Based on this I didn't try uninstalling NAV, I just used Rollback and made it go away.

    Ironically poorly organized and sloppy also best describes my experience with their techsupport, which another reason I'll never go back or recommend big yellow. My problem there wasn't one that a website knowledge base online would help. Recommended a product(Goback) to a friend. They were sent a bad key. After 3 days of having 2 different support groups telling me to contact the other I gave and called. Ran out of time the first time after 45 minutes on hold, I tried again. It took me 3 hours on hold to talk to someone and they told me, yes there was a problem, they had sent out some bad keys. Clearly it never occured to them to just resend people a new key. The person I talked to said he would send a new key. He did. It also was bad. I gave my friend my key.

    I can't dispute maybe the uninstall is better, but I can't help feeling that if they are so disorganized and sloppy in the way the write software, that their tech support is any better.

    In the end I can't dispute Bigc on detection and uninstallation, but I like Acadia, would never recommend Norton to a newbie.
     
  2. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,048
    Location:
    SouthCentral PA
    Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum

    Peter, ain't it fun what you can do with those Instant Recovery programs: experiment, without fear, like all Holy Heck!! :cool:

    Acadia
     
  3. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum

    I too got curious after Bigc's comments and decided to install NAV 2005 and have a quick look. Everything went fine, and after about 6 LiveUpdates, it was done. I too did no active testing of detection so I will have to assume that it's good, or at least better than it was years ago, judging from what people say currently. The thing I was interested in seeing was just how much ram NAV alone used. Here, on my clean Win2k system, NAV 2005 used about 30-32mb ram consistently. Now, while that's not exactly what I'd call 'light' (I'd call Nod32 or Avast light at 16mb or thereabouts), it wasn't that heavy either. AntiVir 7 on my system uses 25mb, so for an extra 5 or 6 mb I get quite a lot more protection and features in general. So I would have to say that it's resource usage was 'not too bad' all things considered. I can't comment on the uninstall either, since I just restored from an image in a few minutes and it was gone. Anyway, that satisfied my curiousity on the resource usage aspect of things..
     
  4. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,039
    Re: To be 'in' in this antivirus forum


    AMEN!!!
     
  5. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Yep these imaging programs do make it really nice when trying out different software. If you don't like the software you just make it disapear. :D
     
  6. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    I hate to knock on my dear friend Peter2150, but I must. So far the complaints this thread has highlighted about Norton relative to KAV are poor coding, large download, excess memory usage, number of processes, and convoluted uninstallation.

    Poor coding accusation seems unsubstantiated and based on intuition alone.

    Large download (i.e. hard disk and bandwidth usage) and excess memory usage seems increasingly irrelevant given the power of today's systems, significant decline in price of both memory and hard drives, and the increased availability of bandwidth.

    Convoluted uninstallation seems to be a non-issue due to quality softwares like Image for Windows/DOS and FDISR.

    I do not mean to discount these issues as not being true, but rather attack the merit for which an anti-virus software decision based on the mentioned criteria would stand.
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    I would have to say that for most users, and particularly for the 'average user', the uninstall issues are of rather major importance if problems still exist in this area. Bigc says that they have been fixed. But the fact is, most people don't do an image of their HDs and the vast majority of users do things the old fashioned way via Add/Remove programs. As a matter of fact, I have 2 friends who currently are wanting to remove NIS 2005 and neither of them have images to fall back on. So hopefully what Bigc says is true. If not, then they will probably spend some time cleaning up and using a removal tool of some sort.
     
  8. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    Kerodo,
    I agree with what you said about "most users" and I feel that a software company should include a thorough uninstaller with every software. One thing to consider is that most users don't visit this forum either. I would say that the majority of people in this forum are at least aware of imaging and system recovery software. Assuming that is the case, it isn't unreasonable to expect people that want to secure their systems enough to visit this forum to incorporate data security into their tookbox. I mean what good does it do to protect your system from viruses and ignore the potential for data loss through hardware failure or simply having to do the inevitable reinstallation of Windows and taking up half of a week to update it. That being the case, a quality imaging and/or system recovery software becomes nearly essential and practically of greater importance than an anti-virus program.

    At any rate, your points are well taken.
     
  9. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,039
    I could have some fun here, but I'd only be yanking Dallen's chain, and other's might not realize it's play, and then things get silly, so I won't.

    I do however stand by my opinion of poor coding, when there are two programs with the same functionality, and one has 7 processes and is twice the size, versus 2 processes, to do all the same thing. Can someone offer me another explanation.
     
  10. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum

    I have installed/uninstalled NIS2006 many times without any problems. I'm not saying that uninstalling Norton is problem free or that your friends won't have issues. I usually just do the regular add/remove method followed by the instuctions here ( Using the Norton uninstall tool ). Hopefully, they will be able to remove norton w/o a hitch.
     
  11. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Thanks Namor, I will refer them to that link just in case they need it.. :)
     
  12. betauser2

    betauser2 Guest

    same here

    @ peter2150 - you should've tried out the full package NIS 2006, judge it on how it runs, i.e if it drags your system. Resource usage is less of an issue nowadays as standard PCs are now PIV 2Ghz +, 512mb, etc etc

    I say this as an F-Secure Client user.

    betauser2
     
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,039
    Thanks, but no thanks. NAV alone is twice the size(not memory usage) then KIS 6.0 beta. That is nuts. I did install NIS 2005 to take a look. It used twice the memory of all my other security software combined.

    Besides did you read my post and what I went thru to unsecessfully try and get a valid license for a friend who purchased from sysmantec. No way I'd give them any money, so why do a thorough test?
     
  14. nicM

    nicM nico-nico

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Posts:
    631
    Location:
    France
    7 processes is not a lot for an AV, when some good one can use up to ...17 processes :D .

    I did make the same test than you few months ago, with KAV 2006/ NAV 2006 : if KAV is more light when measured (5-10 Mo RAM vs 15-25 for NAV, on my setup), I can tell you that my computer was more quick and more "responsive" with NAV than with KAV, since this one was slowing it down to a crawl :doubt: .

    Memory use measurement is definitivey not a good criteria to compare programs one to each other .


    Cheers,
    nicM
     
  15. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    While i haven't tried the newer versions of NAV, i am an F-secure user so i can comment on processes, resourses because F-secure has more than i've ever seen before.And except for a longer bootup, it runs light on my system( bigc commented about this in another thread).So it can definitely be misleading and agree the only way to know is to try it out.What works for one, might not work for the other and vice vera.
     
  16. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I have to agree with nicM. My PC is more responsive with NAV than it was with KAV. KAV installed and uninstalled much faster than NAV, but that is almost a given, as almost all AVs install/uninstall faster than NAV. But when it comes to loading at startup and browsing speed, NAV was winner in those catagories. That's on my PC, so YMMV. :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.