Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
The Un-Official Proxomitron Forum
/
Forum Related
/
General Security 
/
CNET recommends PC- cillin over NAV
/
CNET recommends PC- cillin over NAV
|
CNET recommends PC- cillin over NAV
|
|
Nov. 09, 2004, 08:09 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
|
![[-]](images/ONi/collapse.gif)
|
Nov. 09, 2004, 08:53 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
|
No wonder, I'd prefer PC-Cillin over NAV; Any AV is better than NAV, NAV is too hoggy for me.
*Bad memories* It would detect a virus, but then not do anything about it... |
|||
|
|
Nov. 09, 2004, 10:41 PM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't like Norton because it was too slow. I had it on my old Win98 computer and i slowed it down a ton. Now I use NOD32.
�{=(~�::[Shea]::��~)=}� How 'bout you sideburns, you want some of this milk? This fading text is pretty cool, eh? I bet you wish you had some. |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 10, 2004, 03:23 PM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's all personal preference. I don't really feel I need AV protection but I run Antivir just in case my firewall misses something.
Antivir and AVG are good and both are free. |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 11, 2004, 12:50 PM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi "Guyz",
I've always used "Norton's AV" and for a short space of time, very short, used "McAfee AV". I thought the older versions of Norton's AV worked much better than this last version. In the last year, I have tried AVG and thought it was a good program. "Shea" said in a post once that using the Free AVG and downloading the "Worm Patches" from Symantec worked very well. I was reading this thread the other night and I saw where that "Shea" was recommending the "NOD32" AV, so I thought I would try it out since I have win98X running on this box. Before I was using Norton's and my "resources" when dialing up ran about 65 to 68%. I didn't uninstall the Norton's, but edited the start menu so it wouldn't start at boot-up and installed NOD32 and it's been running for a couple of days now. My resources are running somewhere in the neighbor-hood of about 83% and the NOD32 is very fast on scanning files, downloads, auto-email scanning, and drives. And NOD32 people seem to do very on the "up-dates". So far, so good. I will be running the Norton's AV from time to time to check and see if NOD32 is keeping everything "cleaned" up. Thankx "Shea" for Your recommendation! Most of the programs that You have mentioned and I've tried, have been keepers for Me.  Take Care "Gang" and I hope that You all Have a Great & Wonderful Day, "Safe-Surfin' "Jak" [smoke] |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 11, 2004, 01:35 PM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
|
So you're saying NAV is more resource-friendly than NOD32?
I currently use NIS 2005 (Norton Internet Security)... I've used NIS 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and now 2005... I've also used AVG, AntiVir, Panda, PC-cillin, F-Prot, Kaspersky, BitDefender, and two different McAfee products - all within the past year... Prior to the past year of virus product testing, I've used three additional McAfee products outside of the two noted above, among other antivirus packages I simply cannot recollect at the moment... All-in-all, which am I most satisfied with? Hands down - NIS... By FAR!... Having said that, I have never used NAV (Norton AntiVirus) as a stand-alone... I've always used it as "part of" NIS... [Actually, I have used NAV 2004 as a stand-alone at work, but not at home...] When assessing resources utilized by my anti-virus product, I don't look at memory usage and what-not "independent" of my firewall product... Therefore, when assessing the 'damage' of AVG, AntiVir, et cetera, one cannot overlook the ADDITIONAL resources utilized by the accompanying firewall - the ones that my product testing entailed were Kerio, Outpost, ZoneAlarm, Armor2Net, Sygate, BlackICE, Symantec, and McAfee... Is there no wonder why anti-virus and firewall packages are increasingly released as ONE product? It's because they work together better when they are DESIGNED to work with one another... Granted, I concede that if you are using an antivirus package without ALSO using a firewall package independent of that antivirus package, then there are better alternatives out there than NAV... Perhaps an apologetic word - I have not tested NOD32, my apologies... And in conclusion, after all that, and if you're still with me, one package I am HIGHLY impressed with is PC-cillin 2005... I'll be keeping NIS 2005 at home, but may end up with PC-cillin 2005 here at the office... Of course, to be fair and open-minded, I will be giving NOD32 a trial run... Point is, NIS 2005 is a KEEPER... |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 11, 2004, 06:06 PM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not a real believer in AV apps except as a tool to remove any crud that may be laying around on my pc. I prefer a proactive approach and use a firewall that renders worms/viri etc. useless. It prevents them from ever executing in the first place. If you don't take that approach then it is a good idea IMO to use several AV apps (only run one resident) to scan your pc as no AV app catches all. This is the approach most people take towards spyware, relying on several apps(spybot, pestpatrol,adaware etc.) to remove them as no one app catches all. To each his own, have a great day.
|
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 12:35 AM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
|
I forgot to mention that I have also tried Avast and Kaspersky, neither of whish I like dthat much. Avast was a resource hog and didn't detect as many viruses and hardly ever updated. Kapsersky was ok, but it didn't scan files as fast. I do remember saying I like AVG a while ago, but I dropped that because of how long it took to scan files. I really like NOD32 and would reccommend it over AVG, NAV or NIS (I've tried them both), Avast, and Kaspersky.
�{=(~�::[Shea]::��~)=}� How 'bout you sideburns, you want some of this milk? This fading text is pretty cool, eh? I bet you wish you had some. |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 05:54 AM
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi "Guyz",
No, . . I believe that "NOD32" is a better AV proggie when it comes to "resources", .. . .but I running them back to back, . .so I can tell if NOD32 can "detect" and remove the "bugs" as well or better than the Norton's. Later, . .Have a Great & Wonderful After-Noon, "Jak" =:-) |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 12:50 PM
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greetings All: Many moons ago [1992] I started out with NAV then moved off NAV because I found that NAV grabbed resources incrementally as much as 39%. I then [1996] went with McAfee and that worked much better from a resource perspective [22%] as well as catching "in-the-wild" crap -- over time McAfee also became bloated and started to gobble-up resources [35%] so I switched to PC-cillin in 2000 [18%] -- and Pc-cillin also over time started to add other features consequently also became resource intensive [28%] so in 2004 I switched to Computer Associates eTrust EZ AntiVirus which I have found to be excellent not only from a resource perspective [8%] but just great in catching a lot of crap. BTW, I have been using Windows NT Operating System since beggining with version 3.5 now with XP/pro/sp2 so the bulk of my antivus commentary is to do with that OS.
|
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 02:36 PM
Post: #11
|
|||
|
|||
|
To what "resources" are you referring?
CPU usage on a 500 MHz AMD K6-2 on a 100 MHz bus? Oh, wait - AMD wasn't even around in 1992... If memory serves, they entered the market in '94 or '5... <correction> Turns out, AMD was alive and well in '92 - see post below... </correction> Let's see - 1992 RAM? 33 MHz, maybe 66... Windows NT 3.5 (which didn't come out until September of 1994) only required 12 MB of RAM, though preferred 16 MB... Point is, unless you are using the same EXACT computer (CPU, RAM, and all) that you were using in 1992, these "percentages" you cite mean absolutely nothing... Foregoing, of course, the extremely superb recollection of your knowledge of resources utilized by NAV back in 1992... 39%, you say? Back in 1992? Good memory, pal... I will give you one thing, NAV was around in 1991, so there is the chance that you were using it in 1992 (but NOT on NT 3.5, it wasn't released until '94) - but recalling to what percentage of recources it used? Get real, don't believe ya for an instant... Especially considering that "resources" are quite a bit different in 2004 as opposed to 1992... An application 'footprint' of 1 MB on a system with 16 MB of RAM in '92 is a LOT different than an application 'footprint' of 32 MB on a system with 512 MB of RAM in '04 - even though both 'footprints' represent exactly 6.25% of total system RAM... I'm running a 2.4 GHz CPU with a 333 MHz bus and 1.0 GB of RAM... I don't recall seeing anything like it in '92... But hey, what do I know? I was still a kid programming Pac-Man into a Commodore 64 in 1992... Oh wait, that would have had to been in the late 80's - I was running a Gateway laptop in '92 as I was just starting college... All-in-all, good memory... I wish I could remember how much RAM and what CPU that laptop had, let alone how efficient it was at running NAV... But wait, I do recall that it came with McAfee, but darn it all, I cannot remember how resource-friendly it was... I'll contact H.G. Wells and get back to you with some percentages... <edit> the laptop is a Gateway Handbook and has a 700 MHz Celeron processor with 128 MB RAM and a 66 MHz bus - dad is still using it... </edit> |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 07:02 PM
Post: #12
|
|||
|
|||
|
<span style='color:red'>[EDIT]</span>
I hereby admit that I was being anal in this post. But, ProxRocks did modify his post above in response, and now refers to this one, so I've left everything intact. <span style='color:red'>[/edit]</span> ProxRocks; Quote:.... Oh, wait - AMD wasn't even around in 1992...Ummmm, is that your final answer? <_< AMD was founded in 1969. In point of fact, no one seems to want to recall it, but AMD was always Intel's second source, right from day one. It wasn't until the rift over the 80286 that AMD came to the world's attention, and that was in 1985 or 1986, IIRC. (Something about licensing the instruction set, I believe.) However briefly, it was public notice, not just "computer geek" news. It happened again in 1990, this time over trademarks, and thus was AMD forged into a permanent household name. (The bone of contention: naming the 80386 - the courts found in AMD's favor.) Enter the "INTEL INSIDE" campaign. Why would they have even bothered, if they weren't worried about a competitor getting into their drawers? And I distinctly recall that as starting in 1991, at least in our neck of the woods. For some good timewasting surfing, use your favorite search engine with the terms "timeline" or "history", and "AMD", or "microcomputing", or whatever trips your trigger. For an old fossil like me, it's like dropping another tab! :o [lol] [/threadjack] Oddysey I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me! |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 12, 2004, 07:08 PM
Post: #13
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll give you that in regards to AMD's history...
Nonetheless, critique the rest of my post - I'm quite confident that AMD's timeline is the only discrepancy you will find... However, my "point" was that NOBODY can tell me with any shred of accountability exactly what percentage of recources NAV was utilizing on their 1992 computer and THEN compare that very percentage to a competing antivirus product in relation to its percentage of resources on a 2004 computer... Pure hog wash and obviously tainted propaganda against NAV... And as noted previously, WHO CARES if the 'footprint' for your antivirus package reduced by 20% IF the 'footprint' of your antivirus PLUS your firewall INCREASED by 10%... Again, IF you run ONLY an antivirus app and NOT a firewall app, then, as also previously mentioned, then there ARE better apps than NAV... I'm sure that you will agree with the premise of my argument... Critique away, my fellow comrade... (and note the correction to the above post in regards to AMD's timeline - duely noted...) |
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 13, 2004, 04:00 PM
Post: #14
|
|||
|
|||
ProxRocks Wrote:I will give you one thing, NAV was around in 1991, so there is the chance that you were using it in 1992 (but NOT on NT 3.5, it wasn't released until '94) - but recalling to what percentage of recources it used? Get real, don't believe ya for an instant...Well I have been heavily involved in IT [as a system engineer] since 1983 working either independently or for a number of fortune 100 entities. I'm not hear to spar with you or anyone else. Just to set the record straight my comment Quote:I have been using Windows NT Operating System since beginning with version 3.5 now with XP/pro/sp2 so the bulk of my antivirus commentary is to do with that OS.perhaps was not as clear as I should have made it -- My experience with NAV began with Windows 95 and I was on the Beta Team using Windows NT 3.5 in '93 running with 32 MB of ram etc etc etc. My bottom line insofar as NAV and ALL the products that Symantec currently produce is that they are all over-engineered and resource hogs from the get go. Since you like their NAV products -- good for you -- enjoy them with gusto! 
|
|||
|
|
|
Nov. 13, 2004, 04:42 PM
Post: #15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cool...
btw, I'm an electrical engineer - "over-engineered" is a *compliment* To each their own... I use NIS at home - where resources are abundant... At the office, the firewall is integrated (not really the best word here, but you follow me) into the router, so my desktop does not have any firewall software whatsoever and I swap antivirus apps quite frequently... The common ground, so long as everyone 'routes through' a firewall and an antivirus app, we're all happy... We don't want anyone surfing 'naked'... |
|||
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|