WOW have you guys read the PCMAG review of nod32?

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by tempnexus, May 13, 2004.

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

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    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.
     
  2. owziee

    owziee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Posts:
    74
  3. owziee

    owziee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Posts:
    74
    Oops! I'm sorry... that was a review from 2003 :oops:

    Do you have a link to the latest review?
     
  4. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    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.
     
  5. Q Section

    Q Section Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Posts:
    771
    Location:
    Headquarters - London & Field Offices -Worldwide
    tempnexus
    What is the date of the issue to which you refer?

    Thank you.
     
  6. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    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).
     
  7. Dasani

    Dasani Guest

    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.
     
  8. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    ^^^^^
    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.
     
  9. Dasani

    Dasani Guest

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

    norky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Lithia, FL
    Last edited: May 13, 2004
  11. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,785
    Location:
    Texas
    Once again, you can choose to believe who you want to believe.
    Nod32 is certified by West Coast, ICSA, and does well on VB tests.
    As for me, I don't believe I have ever been associated with such controversial software.
    You have to wonder what the motive of the magazines is regarding Nod.
    As for me, I am just not in the mood for an 80mb antivirus program wrapping its tetatcles around every file on my computer.
    So, Nod it is for me. :)
     
  12. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    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.
     
  13. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,785
    Location:
    Texas
    I too have layered protection. Good to have a couple of opinions around.
    The computer user is the key. Update your operating system, don't put yourself at risk, and the let the antivirus-antitrojan programs help.
     
  14. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Who did PCMag give their top rating to?
     
  15. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    GFI MailSecurity for Exchange/SMTP 8.0 got the highest score.



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

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    PC World gave thir top rating to PC-Cillin. :eek:

    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
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2004
  17. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Eset may or may not comment. Personally, I'm kind of surprised people taking this for granted: test bed? zoo? test conditions? O/S? - and that's merely part of questions needed to be asked when reading any test/review.

    I for one am looking forward to any well performed test and results (whatever the outcome). In this case, far too many variables are unknown. Thus: a) since there's no backup b) Magazines overall need funding - commercial aspects are a big issue - I'm not impressed at all; on the contrary.

    regards.

    paul
     
  18. dvk01

    dvk01 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Posts:
    3,131
    Location:
    Loughton, Essex. UK
    when you read the last page and see the testers
    Andreas Marx of AV-Test directed all firewall and antivirus lab testing.

    Paul and others on this forum have commented many times about Mr Marx's less than perfect testing methods
     
  19. tempnexus

    tempnexus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Posts:
    280
    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
     
  20. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    ...coming with extensive email contacts with Andreas Marx. Since I do consider those contacts private, I'm not going to elaborate on those. Mr. Marx is a registered member over here; he's very welcome to comment on this board, as he has before. Silence is golden - but at times it's far from silver ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  21. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    ..."very, very questionable review" as an alternative? :)

    regards.

    paul
     
  22. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    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?
     
  23. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Good to see questions are asked instead of taking all for granted :)

    Mr. Marx is welcome to join in - wouldn't be the first time :)

    regards.

    paul
     
  24. FanJ

    FanJ Guest

    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. ;)
     
  25. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.