NOD2.0 no longer the FASTEST ..???

in the recent VB100% test, NOD2.0 no longer the FASTEST AV !!! others AV vendors like AhnLab, Sophos, and Trendmicro have faster scanning rate than NOD2.0.
What is actually happenning

 

If it finds more pasky critters, I could honestly care less.

 

but Trendmicro, sophos and AhnLab all earned VB100% in the recent tests!!!
although NOD2.0 has 100% in all categories, but others like Sophos as well has 100% ItW detection and over 99% for others categories.

 

Hi,
mmmmm, currently NOD is one of the quickly scanner in the market. While NOD is one of the more quickly and has a good detection, I'll be happy like now. I don't care if others product are a little more quickly than NOD, while nod is quickly and offer a good heuristic.

 

ncs_malaysia: How did you arrive at this conclusion?

If one takes a mean of the time and/or throughput it is clear who is faster. At least using the February On-Demand scanning #'s.

 

The problem is, NOD32 in default settings, misses about 90% of the files on your Hard Drive..

If you change everything, and scan all files, its really not much quicker than most, and in fact, sometimes slower! Scanning with the AH option anyway, is a bit pointless if you ask me.

 

yes.. using Feb'04 on-demend time/throughput.. even the Jun'03 and NOV'03 are pretty the same..!!

Feb'04
time/throughput
AhnLab 143/3824.7
NOD2 204/2681
Sophos 182/3005.1
TrendMicro 197/2776.3

**btw.., I didn't mean that NOD is not good, instead I still find it the BEST! I myself hv NOD2.0 alone Installed in my system. (no other AV). Just wonder why it on-demend scanning rate is slower as NOD claim to be the fasters (correct if I'm wrong)
Thanks

 

Is it possible that all tests done on NOD32 have been done with the default settings and not the right click with AH that I would guess 90% of its users would? I know that it would require the add on NODSE or whatever that we use(i could be wrong) to do that but maybe if NOD was tested like that and compared to the rest in the tests we would see a difference.

I sure know that I really like NOD32 since I formatted about this time last year b/c I could not get Norton completely removed. I fresh installed to my normal drive for the OS and behold without a single update or anything, rebooted with NOD32 to scan before I put in my custom IP to see the router and it found 3 diff agobots that Norton had not seen. This was when I was a newbie and didn't know about AH nor the shell power. Since I just turned off my HT today, NOD seems to be even less burden than before. Now if there was a way to use AH in amon like when ya right click. *looks to eset* lol

 

i doubt anywhere close to 90% of nod32 users know about /ah

 

90%? I'd say less than 5% even know about /AH. I'm a tech advisor on a 200k member computer forum, and like 2 people knew about it. On the Computer mailing list i'm on not a single person knew, and I sold em all on NOD32 lol..

 

ncs_malaysia:

You are only using the executable scanning time. Add all the file types that were scanned and see who has the highest # for throughput and the lowest in scanning time.

Please post your results.

 

What forum Kobra?

Cheers

 

okie... i know.... but how would a virus in zipped file infected ur system ..
therefore, I will not consider scanning zipped file for viruses (only once a month I will scan zipped file)

 

Well let me correct myself and say that 90% of advanced users use it.

 

Is it that important to have a fast on access scanner . I occassionally run TDS3 and I just dont worry about any thing to do with the computer for an hour ( I realise that this is an anti trojan)On my home PC which is a humble win98 128 ram I run a dual engined anti virus and I have found that to be rapid , in fact it was known to be faster than Nod back in the early days ( occording to VB awards) and I think its more than likely close as a damn now if not faster , but for me I can run my anti virus ( if I choose) on scheduled scan with heuristics and it doesnt interfere at all with my pc use. > win98 128 rams> However what is really important here the quality or the speed ?and occording to many experts that is what your scanner achieves > perhaps that is what is most important here. Not the speed .

 

As SPC states, the speed of the on-demand scanner should not be considered an important factor in choosing an AV program.

I do not understand people who complain about the slow scan speeds of their AV. When I scan with KAV for example I simply go off and do something else for half-an-hour or so.

Whether or not NOD has the fastest scanner is not crucial to its success/attraction as a AV program to me. What is more important is it's unbeatable ITW detection of viruses, its heuristic abilities and its low memory imprint. The fact that it has a very fast scanner is an added bonus.

 

okie...
let say, suddently u being noticed that your system had infected by viruses and you need to scan through your system to cure the viruses.. does scanning speed mater now (imagine you are rushing for your proposal).

or.. some1 has pass you a cd which contains important information to your project, but the cd has as well contains alots of others files, you need to scan the cd, so does AV scanning speed matter now?

 

Agree. Compared go several other AVs, NOD was pretty fast IMO. I do think there are some instances where scan time is relevant, especially if it ties up the system and you can't use it. I could deal with 30 min scan times. However, that hasn't been my experience with KAV which runs @ 1:30 on my laptop.

 

Speed comes handy when you have a lot of files or program installed. In such a situation scan time could range from 1 hour to 1 day. I prefer 1 hour.


tECHNODROME

 

If your AV is working correctly and is up to date this should never happen and if it let you become infected how do you expect it to detect and cure someting it has let through unless you were infected by a nasty that was later added to virus defs?(be a real pain if it had let something through that disabled it from working/updating!)