NIS 2007- Pcmag

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Martijn2, Oct 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
  2. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    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.
     
  3. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i dont like the sound of lesser user control. i like to tweak my av.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  4. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    Well, there are lots of other alternative AVs out there that will fulfill your requirements. So don't worry. :);)
     
  5. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    there sure are and i would never use symantec software again!
     
  6. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    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.
     
  7. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    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.o_O
     
  8. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    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.
     
  9. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    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!

    ,
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  10. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    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".
     
  11. kdm31091

    kdm31091 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    365
    The author is biased for norton I think. Norton always get their Editors Choice award for one thing.
     
  12. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    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.
     
  13. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
  14. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    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.
     
  15. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    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.
     
  16. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    :thumb: :thumb:
     
  17. kdm31091

    kdm31091 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    365
    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.
     
  18. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    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.
     
  19. kdm31091

    kdm31091 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Posts:
    365
    Uh, I didn't even say my opinion. I just said even if the product got horrible, they would rate it excellent...
     
  20. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    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.
     
  21. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    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%...
     
  22. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    Interface still looks like crap if you ask me.
     
  23. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    Yeah the interface is still pretty much the same, but the improved resource usage is excellent which makes me give it a :thumb:
     
  24. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    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. :p PCWorld expired in July and will not be renewed no matter how many free magazines they keep sending me and asking me to renew. .....:eek: wow, my monitor just went snowy on me a little...better now. o_O Maybe in the market for a new monitor:ouch: :doubt: :doubt:
     
  25. captkirk

    captkirk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Posts:
    15
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.