antivirus progs
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:20 pmi have got trend-micro Pc-cillin antivirus installed, but i was wondering how it is compared to Norton antivirus and the others antivirus progs out there?
CDRLabs.com
Your source for storage related news and reviews.
http://www.cdrlabs.com/forums/
antivirus progs
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:20 pmPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:15 pmI'm a little partial to Norton myself. I have both the personal and enterprise versions on my computers.
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:35 pmDepends on what you're looking for... generally there is a tradeoff between detection rates and system impact. If you have a fairly fast computer >2 ghz , nothing tops Kaspersky. McAfee is a close second but has some bloat, though not as much as Symantec.
www.av-comparatives.org (click on comparatives) is a good site to check things out. It has two kinds on tests... a straight detection test using the most up to date signatures and a retrospective test. The retro uses old signatures and tests the AV apps ability to detect threat patterns with baddies that came out after the signatures.
Rokop is a german site, babelfish takes care of that, but the guys are very knowledgeable. They have some rollup results... www.rokop.de have to do some searching.
Don't believe one thing you read when it comes to mainstream publications like CNet, PCMag etc.. marketing dollars buys the results and keeps the competition low (as in not a full spread of AV apps tested)... and the testers are generally incompetent.
FYI Trend Micro blows, horrible detection rates. You'd be better off with Symantec which isn't a huge step up.
I personally use NOD32. Very light, great detection rates. I use Kaspersky as my backup scanner.
www.av-comparatives.org (click on comparatives) is a good site to check things out. It has two kinds on tests... a straight detection test using the most up to date signatures and a retrospective test. The retro uses old signatures and tests the AV apps ability to detect threat patterns with baddies that came out after the signatures.
Rokop is a german site, babelfish takes care of that, but the guys are very knowledgeable. They have some rollup results... www.rokop.de have to do some searching.
Don't believe one thing you read when it comes to mainstream publications like CNet, PCMag etc.. marketing dollars buys the results and keeps the competition low (as in not a full spread of AV apps tested)... and the testers are generally incompetent.
FYI Trend Micro blows, horrible detection rates. You'd be better off with Symantec which isn't a huge step up.
I personally use NOD32. Very light, great detection rates. I use Kaspersky as my backup scanner.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:51 ami swap back and forth from mcafee and norton, but right now im running norton systemworks 05 premiere
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:06 pmI use NAV 2005 currently and have faced no problems.I have had no problems with Norton for long.
::Pranav::
::Pranav::
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:31 pmhey Pranav, how is Norton 2005 as opposed to Norton 2004 which was a terrible resource hog?
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:22 pmi think 05 is a little better on resources then 04
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:58 amYes.I think NAV 2005 is a little better than NAV 2004,which I had to remove only after a day of using it.
NAV 2005 is also resource hungry,but offers a wide spectrum of protection.NAV has saved my day countless times.
::Pranav::
NAV 2005 is also resource hungry,but offers a wide spectrum of protection.NAV has saved my day countless times.
::Pranav::
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:44 amhow does Norton 2005 compare with 2003 (with respect to resource hogging) ?
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:46 amNAV 2003 hogs the system less than NAV 2005.NAV has 2005 many advanced options that are not in NAV 2003.
::Pranav::
::Pranav::
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:23 ami guess i'll stick with 2003.