NIS 2007- Pcmag

Hi all,

There's a new review of NIS in the pcmag http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2023974,00.asp
. What do you guys think about this new release? Especially the lower resources and antispyware/firewall looks impressive, lesser user control and excellent outbount firewall protection.

 

Yes, quite good, but Windows Vista may kill it faster. On XP, it should be like an angel.

Yeah, kernel driver level. If MS goes ahead and block them out in vista; it'll be quite interesting to see.

 

i dont like the sound of lesser user control. i like to tweak my av.

 

Well, there are lots of other alternative AVs out there that will fulfill your requirements. So don't worry.

 

there sure are and i would never use symantec software again!

 

Just a note of caution with symantec products, keep in mind their current practices in trying to get people to buy more licenses by deactivating their current ones if you re-install the product a few times. Their EULA does not specify the number of times it can be installed or re-installed and I believe they are using this to perpetuate further license sales. The product activation they use is also of concern. Anyhow, I felt their NIS 2007 was a good product but it is their practices that are clearly not. Just whatever you do keep in mind that at their whim they could deactivate your license at any time and use the vaugue and unspecific wording in the EULA to try and justify it.

Good luck whatever you buy.

 

This is an interesting statement from the review-

Is he referring to antivirus programs or antispyware programs when he talks about "standalones"?
I didn't know that any a/v program was so effective against spyware.

 

he is referring to standalone antispyware but im skeptical about an AV detecting spyware as well as dedicated AS.

also the "lesser user control" seems to be regarding teh firewall correct? i remember NIS 2002 scanning your disk for programs and configuring them; i wonder how much it has advanced over the years.

 

To be honest, the Anti-Spy segment of this test had only 16 spywares to clean,

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2023977,00.asp

so maybe they were picked just those that Symantec was able to clean acceptable. Ewido for example was enable to clean almost nothing. So, with enough money, you can get what you want.

In this combined independent test summary against 40 spywares and 364 entries, ewido 4.0 was accidentally enable to beat that "NIS". Look at my first post in here.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17022235~mode=flat

Best regards,
Firefighter!

,

 

Thanks FF.
That jogs my memory.I remember this author did some crappy test before.It was that famous test with a whole 16 samples.That explains the "results".

 

The author is biased for norton I think. Norton always get their Editors Choice award for one thing.

 

I think your right about the author's bias. Take a look at the review they did for the new mcafee suite http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2004846,00.asp

Now I am not saying the mcafee suite is the best out there and I personally have not run through all the modules he did but I can definately see some bias in it. I see some of the features he mentioned as being poor were nothing more then settings.

 

And how clear McAfee beated NIS in this independent test combination shown in my first post.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17022235~mode=flat

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I am running the McAfee Total Protection and I would completly disagree with their results. It runs very well on my comp even with quite a few processes running it still doesn't make my machine sluggish. I have completely giving up on getting any kind of an honest and competent test from Magazines. They are in business to make money and that is all. they promote what ever company pays the most. How can anyone really believe what they report.

 

I agree 100%. In fact even though I have only the core modules on mine, I am so far impressed with the performance of it.

Its all about the money which is too bad for those users who unknowingly believe and purchase things based on biased reviews. But then again that is what the advertiser is paying for now isn't it.

 

Seriously. PCMag's reviews pretty much are crap. They're biased, and no matter how bloated or terrible Norton ever is, they'll say its 4.5-5 star excellence.

And their reviews of the more minor AV's like AVG, Avast, Antivir etc are a year old. Pfft.

 

I have always said that the magazine testing is not reliable. And you are seriously mistaken as to the quality of Norton products. If you don't like it that is fine but posting your opinion doesn't make the product junk. I have used their products for many years and don't have problems with them. I don't know what the problems are that some others are having. But there are many many millions of norton users that don't have any issues with it.

 

Uh, I didn't even say my opinion. I just said even if the product got horrible, they would rate it excellent...

 

Looks like it was probably just a mis interpetation of your post wording. Easy to do at quick glance as so many posts around knocking norton.

For what it is worth, I personally like their current offerings and think they are decent products. it is just the company's practices that I don't like. If it wasn't for that I would still be running NIS.

 

To be very honest,yes pcmag's many reviews do surprise me,especially with reference to mcafee total protection and ZA Security Suite...

But one thing you need to keep in mind is that mcafee has released a patch to its products somewhere in august,which did improve its performance.

As for norton,i think the 2006 version was the best in every sense..and this one has one stupendous firewall with no irritating prompts..

And even more biased are the reviews of people on forums or sites,because they generally do not use norton,but just say the usual stuff like-bloated,high memory usage,blalabla..

I have tried both(2006,2007) version and as of now norton security suite is best available with low memory usage,high on ease of usability and performance..

And do bear in mind that recent test conducted by IBK and other AS test results posted here have clearly stated that Norton's AV/AS have one of the best detection rates with over 98%...

 

Interface still looks like crap if you ask me.

 

Yeah the interface is still pretty much the same, but the improved resource usage is excellent which makes me give it a

 

I too have given up on MagReviews they are far to limited in their tests and are written in an attempt to sell magazines that even a monkey could read and understand. PCWorld expired in July and will not be renewed no matter how many free magazines they keep sending me and asking me to renew. ..... wow, my monitor just went snowy on me a little...better now. Maybe in the market for a new monitor

 

I agree. I too have used Norton for years. I'm currently using NIS '07. My only complaint was NIS 2004 and perhaps NIS 2005 wasn't their best. But outside of that, I've purchased (not just evaluated) most of the top producers (Trend Micro, NOD, Zone Alarm, Bitdefender, McAfee, DrWeb, KIS, etc.), and I keep going back to Norton. I've always felt 'completely safe' using Norton.

Regardless of how a product is reviewed (and we can't dismiss the fact that despite some obvious bias, PC Mag is still a viable yardstick for testing product), isn't the bottom line whether a product we install on our computer gives us the confidence of safe computing?

‘Feeling’ safe and ‘being’ safe are sometimes two different entities. It’s difficult to find a product that ‘has it all’ these days.