PC advisor gives Nod32 a poor rating

I can;t find the review online, its in the current UK PC Advisor magazine. It fared WORSE than norton!

 

I used to worry about ratings, but not any more. If you look at rating too much you will just end up with endless trying of new programs.
Find what works on your machine, and stick with it. I have made my mistakes in the past and now just stick with my ESS...........just because it works with minimal fuss and hastle not for any other reason

 

I'd say the review is justified according to my experience with Nod. But as we all know experiences differ from person to person, why should they be the same for all reviews?

 

not bad then as latest Norton is very good. As long as they are among top 4-5 AV

 

Re: PC adviser gives Nod32 a poor rating

9 out of 11 in a test in November 2009 here

However it's funny. Whenever i go to a customers house and they have a virus they'll be using McAfee / Norton / AVG / Spyware Doctor / Avast etc but their anti virus never picks it up. I bring a sample home on a USB stick and 4 out of 5 times NOD32 already detects it.

A few i have to submit but not often....

But this stood out as being interesting...

So with a 2 week old database it struggled to detect NEWER malware?

I stopped reading PC Advisor about 3 years ago. Good to see i didn't waste my money renewing my subscription....

 

It would have been nice if you had posted a URL for us to peruse volvic

 

volvic clearly stated it was in the current magazine. As with many paper and online magazines the online version won't be avalible until a few weeks after the paper version.

 

If you're taking any notice of these "reviews" then you have too much time on your hands,I love their "expert analysis" bit:-it should say "opinion" because most of the findings seem to be subjective in one way or another,which boils down to likes and dislikes about a product,seems to be very little objective analysis in this "test"(term used loosely!)

 

I stopped reading PCA some time ago because it went from being (what i considered) a mid-range IT publication to being very dumbed down and basic....

 

Comprehensive online Tech magazines like Wired as an example, have their online content of the current paper version more-or-less at the same time.

We dirgress here, you may also read

ESET versus the competition.

 

Very interesting article from an ESET blog about malware testing, especially that done by magazines (although in this case it was PC Pro).

http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/2010/01/25/generalist-anti-malware-product-testing

 

The article is not interesting at all. These types of articles have become a typical part of ESET's life recently. Loser like them always act like that - they never agree with the test results published. Have you ever seen Symantec or Kaspersky complain about such things ?! No , because they are always on top no matter the tests and methods. When ESET was product of the year some years ago, they didn't compain.

 

I would put forward that whether you agree with the article or not (notice I didn't offer my opinion on the subject), it is still interesting.

 

What precisely makes ESET a loser versus Kaspersky and Symantec? The fact that I see a steady stream of computers "protected" by Kaspersky and Symantec AVs that I have to clean using NOD32? Symantec doesn't bother responding to those articles because they are a marketing company, not a technical company - they know that they can out market any bad review since 99% of their target market won't read the reviews anyway.

T

 

i really wouldn't worry about PCA reviews, or any other advert supported site for that matter.

 

I find the oppositeCs supposedly protected by other AV products,inc NOD32 that we clean using Kaspersky in the main as we have found that it and Dr Web to be best at removing malware from infected machines:-it isn't actually the make of AV on a machine that makes it safe from malware but a combination of the av product and the way in which a user uses it:-had machines brought in infected because the users has turned off the av because they couldn't download something with it turned on:-which to my mind proves that in most cases the weak link isn't which av is running but the human who makes daft decisions!Used by a sensible user there is probably very little difference between products(configured correctly!)in the amount of protection that they offer

 

So is PC Advisor correct are they? Dont beleieve in what you read, simple !