New Norman Security Suite PRO Beta

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Chubb, Jan 21, 2010.

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

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967

    Attached Files:

  2. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    It is version 8 beta.
     
  3. NobleT

    NobleT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Posts:
    58
    hi i am using this new version for norman. the version mumber is 8.0...
    i have already found the first bug .when i want to install the intrusion guard module.i can't click "yes' or 'no"...but the highlight is to hope norman can strengthen their detection:)
     
  4. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Might want to report that bug to them to Norman them self's. I don't believe any staff from Norman read these forums correct me if I'm wrong tho.
     
  5. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    The Intrusion Guard Seems to have installed fine on Windows 7 64 bit. However, it looks like some of the options are for 32 bit only.

    NormanBeta.jpg
    NormanBeta2.jpg
    NormanBeta3.jpg
     
  6. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    thanks Namor. I am just getting tired of seeing products released that are not 64 bit ready and advertize it in the product. Prevx and Eset are at least doing it right. If it doesnt fully work, dont release it.
     
  7. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    and before anyone says it, even if it is beta, if it says that in the GUI, it will say if after the beta.
     
  8. Templar

    Templar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Posts:
    114
    Just installed the beta on a Vmachine, feels light and I like the minimalistic GUI.
     
  9. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Hi All,

    Hope this time Norman boost its detection rate. Its still far behind by many AV suites.
     
  10. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Oh I really like this gui - looks promising :thumb:
     
  11. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    O yes..... They can now advertise. We have a NICE GUI. But crap detection. Buy us..... Helpless sheep walk to the buy line.
     
  12. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    I really feel sorry for the person you are and the way U judge people. I commented their gui, and now im a stupid helpless sheep for that? - That comment tells way more about you than me.
     
  13. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    i actually like the way the gui looks. now if they improved detection rates then i may try it out. when i tested the last norman it did very poor for me
     
  14. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    and who is judging that Normans Detection rate isnt already great?
     
  15. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    They are lagging behind from the top notch players...I do have 5 Genuine License Key, but i have never used them as they have very poor detection rate...Hope they boost up their secret energy....:D :D
     
  16. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    In other words they spent more time on the GUI then they did there detection. As for the helpless sheep comment it's from some of the websites that have been ranking AV's based on there GUI not there detection, It had nothing to do with you personally. People really should read a post before the comment.
     
  17. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    i still see no proof that norman is lagging in detection, for example: it wasnt tested at av-test's dynamic test.
     
  18. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Take a look at the August on Demand test from AV-C. As for the Dynamic test it was probably in there interest they were not tested. One company can only take so much bad publicity from Testing before it becomes damaging to there company. Just ask Dr. Web they were in the %70 range when they pulled out of all tests.
     
  19. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    whats wrong with you, why are you now bringing Drweb to this Norman thread, do you constantly just bash products?

    also dont quote AV-C to me, their tests are awful, they have never-ever matched what ive used in the past with real-life-testing on a home PC.

    to prove how bad they were, when these dynamic tests really start to be perfected with a greater selection of products tested, the whole 'leaderboard' that av-c have falsely advertised will change, we have already seen the 'loveable' wilders-antivirus of Avira score only 87% on Marx's latest Dynamic test.

    all these companys left those tests, due to that, not the lower percentages.

    show me a valid test that has Norman in it?
     
  20. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    1. Web was used as a example try not to get your whiteys in a bundle.

    2. I will quote AV-C to you, as you said you could not find them on AV-C I simply gave you the information. As for AV-C's tests being awful "vs" your home tests. well great for you, but they don't fit the overall picture. AV-C simply gives people a way to weigh the detection rates, If you look at Dynamic testing and the normal on demand you will see not many have changed there positions. The ones that were on top still are and the ones on the bottom are still on the bottom. The only thing that changed is the top 5 shifted around.

    3. As for company's leaving testing. ONLY Web and Panda left, Everyone else stuck around. As you are new here maybe you should simply do some research before you go shooting your mouth off about something you really have no idea about.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2010
  21. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    F-prot left and Trend doesn't take part all.
     
  22. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    Obviously it is you who has no idea, Trend, F-Prot, Drweb, Panda and obviously Norman must have left too.

    thats 5 rather popular av's who left AV-C for their 'methods in testing', and of course, my own Prevx doubts AV-C's ability to test their own product.

    as for dynamic, the av-test.org test tested x5 the samples of AV'C, AV'C have always been a wannabe of theirs with less resources on-all-fronts.

    maybe it would interest you to know that Panda at AV-C used to score below 90%, while other false-detectors would score 99.56% or whatever, and people of wilders who seem to live by such junk testing would diss such products, they would take those test results as gospel, even without little knowledge of such products themselfs, they now see Panda detect more than a so called 99.9% detector (according to AV-C)

    if your reliance on software is AV-C, then it is you who is new here and needs a little educating on protection.

    so as i said at the start, please show me a valid test of Norman Security Suite?
     
  23. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    when i was testing normans last version it missed a lot of stuff. it let a lot of things get through it should not have. i know i will not look back unless i know its detection is better. also i sent samples to them that they never responded to and 2 weeks later still were not picked up
     
  24. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,949
    I thought Trend Micro pulled out also?
     
  25. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    For the last several years, I've seen far below average detection results from several test sites not only from Norman, but also Kingsoft, K-7, Fortinet, PC Tools, Rising, and F-Prot.
    Trend Micro (as Dr. Web) removed themselves from A-V Comparatives' tests due ostensibly to a disagreement over testing methodology.
    Whatever the true reason, Trend Micro has also underperformed in tests.

    It's a mystery to me how companies who's products consistently lag behind can stay in business.
    Norman and Fortinet have a particularly strong reputation in the corporate environment in spite of their continued poor performance ratings, and Clam AV has never been very good, yet it retains something of a cult status among many. o_O

    To each his or her own, but if you're going to bother at all with employing an antivirus application, why would anyone choose a consistent under performer ?

    Here is a link to Virus Bulletins' recent test.
    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

    And this from Virus.gr
    http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2009-08,-10-august-05-september
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.