WOW have you guys read the PCMAG review of nod32?

PCMag only gave you guys 2.5 out of 4 stars. It's kind of sad since well Ironically the writeup of the NOD32 is on the left page and the NOD32 AD is on the right page. So here on the left users are reading regarding NOD32 test performance being very low and on the right side they are reading the ad implying that NOD32 is a BEST AV around.

I know that NOD32 does not scan the outlook compressed folders but COME ON if you want to spread the word, you have to do something. MANY MANY MANY people read the ZiffDavis publication and they will really get sour in the mouth after reading what they wrote.

 

What are you talking about It got 4 out of 5 stars!!! They say it's a very good AV. Check out the review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,978452,00.asp

 

Oops! I'm sorry... that was a review from 2003

Do you have a link to the latest review?

 

Apperently it's not out yet. I don't want to scan and post the page since well it's not really legal. It's in their upcoming issue. I have to go home and check it again...the date and the issue number.

 

tempnexus
What is the date of the issue to which you refer?

Thank you.

 

I am not home now so I can't tell you exactly. But I think it's the most recent one. I think it said June (as I said I can't be certain).

 

It's the June issue that was just released. PC Magazine does an article on advanced heuristics and beats the piss out of NOD32 because in the tests they conducted, NOD32 failed miserably. They award the product 1.5 not 2.5 out of 5 stars.

 

^^^^^
Thanks
I thought it was June.

I find it funny that on one page you have NOD32 bashing article and on the other page is the NOD32 ad praising NOD32. I mean wow that is some bad AD placement or someone has some beef with NOD32.

 

Lets hope Eset takes this as a "wakeup call".

 

the "article" that's on nod32.com about advanced heuristics (http://www.nod32.com/StopBuggingMe.pdf) isn't really an article, it's an ad written to look like an article.

pcworld reviewd it in the june issue and it got 3 out of 5 stars.

nod32 performed horribly with 3 month old definitions: only catching 41%. so much for advanced heuristics. mcafee caught 70.1%

here's the pcworld article: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115939,00.asp

 

I personally don't trust NOD32. I use it as my primary AV scanner since it's lite on resources....don't get me wrong I used to trust it but those were the days prior my infections while running NOD32. After that I said "OK I am keeping this since it's light on resources but I am also getting an ONdemand scanner". Don't get me wrong Nod32 was coupled along with Nsclean Boclean and that babby saved my butt a few times in the past. Some things that NOD32 allowed got cought by Boclean (Yeah I know BoClean is an AT and Nod32 is an AV...but that's why I got Boclean). I used to think well ok I got some Trojan infections so that's not NOD32 job, but then I got infected with an Virus and then again with a worm while NOD32 stayed quiet. IT is then that I decided for additional Protection. NOD32 still is my REalTime scanner and I trust it to do a lite job of protecting my system. But in addition I peform manual system Scans with KAV 4.5 and my CA 7 Promo. Yes I also have TDS-3.

NOD32 is good since it's lite on resources and it does get few nasties but I would not fully trust it...nor should you fully trust any AV out there. Each engine is different and each def is different, some protect you against A while others against B. But I have long ago decided that all the greatness of NOD32 is mostly hype.

 

Who did PCMag give their top rating to?

 

GFI MailSecurity for Exchange/SMTP 8.0 got the highest score.



ISSUE:
vol.23 No. 10
June 8, 2004

 

PC World gave thir top rating to PC-Cillin.

That's an understatement! Surprised the folks from Eset have not commented. But what can they say, except their analysis is flawed? I'm really disappointed. Here's the link to the comparison. Read it and weep http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115939,pg,5,00.asp

 

It's just weird that the horrid Nod32 writeup (you have to read their writeup) is right side by side with the (BEST AV) Nod32 AD. If I were new and didn't know of NOD32 and read the review and then saw the AD I would think "WOW NOD32 what a BS".

VERY VERY VERY BAD AD PLACEMENT

 

In all fairness, the data in their table doesn't really parallel their conclusion.

NOD had better scanning speed, same detection performance, PRICE, and better overall malware detection than PC-Cillin. They only fared worse than PC-Cillin in ease of use and false positives.
The only thing I can think of that killed NOD here is the CTX virus. What's the story on this guy?

 

Just a general remark:

The people at news-papers, magazines, etc, who write an article, are not necessarily the same people who put in the final stage the news-paper, magazine etc together.

 

I know you've defended NOD in the past, but I think it's unfair to simply call the test unfair. Can you point to a superior one? If so, I'm sure I could find someone reputable that can find fault with almost any test.

I've always found PC World to be a fair and informative magazine. And I find it hard to believe they would lean toward one product simply because of advertisement without any substantiating evidence. If so, why did they knock McAffee and Norton so bad? They lead the industry in advertising and marketing. The evidence here against NOD is quite possibly the CTX virus.

As stated in a post above, I don't think PC-Cillin is that much better, if at all. Probably not worth the extra $15. But I also think PC-Cillin is at least very close in quality.