morteza Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Do you want to marry with Norton?come on,congra to you.when?where?;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratocaster009 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 for example: when kaspersky password manager was not compatible with firefox4 , 1 month later that was compatible.1 month very late in this level of business and security space.when kaspersky blacklisted 1000 license wrongly don't said any thing and don't replace it.that is clear,little company can not do a very brilliant job.ESET : its stability in clean section is very weak and its detection in html risks very weak. Norton is good (not exellent) in every section.when a risks available in your OS you can sure will be detect soon with its reputation and its pulse update.which company can update its definition every 5 minute? There is 1000 reason for choose Norton.come on guy,i don't say to any body you will be a Norton fan;)marry Norton .... <_< :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabben Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 So Norton is the best? :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapplem1 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 avg lost their popularity since their 7.5 version , even they admitted to be the most downloaded av ever by user i think they also got the most av whose uninstalled ever :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HX1 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I have worked with and on systems with AVG since way back.. in each case I found the program to be automated to the point that you don't know if its protecting you.. silent.. which is a bad thing in many ways... with version 7.8 there were several flaws and I high number of false positives.. and it was a bad product.. I have never seen it score very high in test results so I have never wasted my time in doing a test installation... Many people use it because of the free version and since they never really see any issues they assume that everything is fine.. If it still operates in the same way as what I have seen in previous versions.. I would say its bit dangerous as far as I am concerned.. removing file without consent.. effecting system load ( unless you configure it not to.. which opens your system to a vulnerability ) <-- many people will do... I never liked it.. Truthfully though it did seem to rise in the results in a few areas this last year but still not quite o par with the top 5%...But yeah in its history it has turned many people away from it.. so it may effect the company's future unless they can perform well...Should run an install and give up screens of it cleaning and working.. :PEDIT: Went and looked t the site and looks like the Premium Security Suite has quite a few features... Who knows it may be something to try.. Those test results though.. they bother me.. would like to see it higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emil47 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 IMO, AVG IS 2012 is a good product. I installed it without "Link scanner" because I thought link scanner will slow my PC. AVG is doing a good job; I am satisfied with the Anti-rootkit facility and I use it almost daily. When I download things, I scan them as a rule with AVG and with MBAM. Once, long ago, I had a rootkit and I deleted it with the SOPHOS Anti-rootkit. From that day I am a little more careful with what I download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweety.Abd Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 ( ps - napolean was less than 5 ft in height , yet he brought the whole world to its knees .... )LOL I didn't know that he was less than 5 ft in height :Pfor example: when kaspersky password manager was not compatible with firefox4 , 1 month later that was compatible.1 month very late in this level of business and security space.when kaspersky blacklisted 1000 license wrongly don't said any thing and don't replace it.that is clear,little company can not do a very brilliant job.ESET : its stability in clean section is very weak and its detection in html risks very weak. Norton is good (not exellent) in every section.when a risks available in your OS you can sure will be detect soon with its reputation and its pulse update.which company can update its definition every 5 minute? There is 1000 reason for choose Norton.come on guy,i don't say to any body you will be a Norton fan;)marry Norton .... <_<Naww, that's a bit too harsh lol :P I know he's been vehemently advertising Norton, but with all due respect, you shouldn't have said that. And McAfee maybe bad at detecting and removal, but it has the lowest false positives which is a very important aspect of an AV, and every product has it own flaws.@ Morteza: We know how much you love Norton, and I do too, but what's wrong is that your belittling every other AV and saying they're crap offends the person who uses them, and you have no right to do so. And it matters not whether the firm is big or small or how many people they employ; for instance Stuxnet was first detected & reported by an obscure AV firm, even smaller than Kaspersky & ESET. You get the gist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majithia23 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 hey tweety , that was just a sarcastically funny remark .... :)what you well said just in the above comment , i just put it in one words ..... :)and actually Napolean was not less than 5ft , its a bit controversial . some say he was about 5" and some about 5.5" .i just wanted to illustrate the point -- its not the size that determines the result .Bcoz our fellow nsaner morteza , has constantly been quoting this in many of his posts , symantec is a big company , so norton is the best ....!! ... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morteza Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 @Tweety.Abd You are joking?In stuxnet case is very different and complex and i don't want to say any thing because you don't believe that but i assume that you're right.1 thing from obscure AV can be good for u?!!!In this world u must select a AV that it is responsible to u ( Kaspersky blocked 1000 license of that in Middle east wrongly and didn't replace that and did not say any thing) and reverse action of that about security risks must be fast ( Firefox problem and 1 month for update 1 product & .... ).Any way every person can choose a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienForce1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Smaller group can do a smaller job,that's very clear.You can see it with its responsibility in fixes and its updates ^_^ . And it matters not whether the firm is big or small or how many people they employ; for instance Stuxnet was first detected & reported by an obscure AV firm, even smaller than Kaspersky & ESET. You get the gist?The Stuxnet worm was first reported by the security company VirusBlokAda (antivirus software vendor from Belarus) in mid-June 2010 . :huh: And here is what I found about a few security companies (nr. of employees in spring,2010) :- ESET 500- Avira 350- Kaspersky 1700- Trend Micro 4250- McAfee 5000- Symantec 18000- Avast 100 (at HQ )- Tall Emu(Online Armor) - 20 -> it`s obvious reading these numbers , even as old as they are , that not the number of employees is what really matters in IT - but their qualities , their level of training and intelligence B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweety.Abd Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Smaller group can do a smaller job,that's very clear.You can see it with its responsibility in fixes and its updates ^_^ . And it matters not whether the firm is big or small or how many people they employ; for instance Stuxnet was first detected & reported by an obscure AV firm, even smaller than Kaspersky & ESET. You get the gist?The Stuxnet worm was first reported by the security company VirusBlokAda (antivirus software vendor from Belarus) in mid-June 2010 . :huh: And here is what I found about a few security companies (nr. of employees in spring,2010) :- ESET 500- Avira 350- Kaspersky 1700- Trend Micro 4250- McAfee 5000- Symantec 18000- Avast 100 (at HQ )- Tall Emu(Online Armor) - 20 -> it`s obvious reading these numbers , even as old as they are , that not the number of employees is what really matters in IT - but their qualities , their level of training and intelligence B)I just forgot what the firm was called, thanks for writing it. :) What I was saying is that size doesn't matter at all, it's all about level of expertise and intelligence as you've pointed out :)@ Morteza: Symantec has more employees because it's not just an AV firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweety.Abd Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 @Tweety.Abd You are joking?In stuxnet case is very different and complex and i don't want to say any thing because you don't believe that but i assume that you're right.1 thing from obscure AV can be good for u?!!!In this world u must select a AV that it is responsible to u ( Kaspersky blocked 1000 license of that in Middle east wrongly and didn't replace that and did not say any thing) and reverse action of that about security risks must be fast ( Firefox problem and 1 month for update 1 product & .... ).Any way every person can choose a product.I was saying that it matters not how big the company is; sure Symantec has vast resources in contrast to other firms, but the difference in quality isn't that great, so quality isn't dependent on the size. There's no point in persisting to argue about trivial matters, as it will yield no good to either of us. We've failed to reach a definitive understand between each other here, and I'm skeptical if we ever could. I sincerely apologize if I've offended you in anyway. I'm leaving this discussion :)Safety and Peace, my good friend :)-Tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienForce1 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 And here is what I found about a few security companies (nr. of employees in spring,2010) :- ESET 500- Avira 350- Kaspersky 1700- Trend Micro 4250- McAfee 5000- Symantec 18000- Avast 100 (at HQ )- Tall Emu(Online Armor) - 20 What I was saying is that size doesn't matter at all, it's all about level of expertise and intelligence as you've pointed out :)@ Morteza: Symantec has more employees because it's not just an AV firm.Norton / Symantec - 17000 are from the marketing department :P ....and 800 are answering to emails/phones on how to uninstall the software :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avmad Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienForce1 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 - now to mend things, here is a test (by Dennis Technology Labs , 26/07/2011) with Norton on first place... :D http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/symantec/DTL_PCVP2012_SYMC.pdf(guess ho is the sponsor ? :P ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmr1684 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 oh come on everybody saying which is best av becoz of another did not detect it previously used to or supposed to do that job. :P here i will also say fake av is best, becoz it will infect everything and detect everything even a new variant of rookit. :lmao:ps: every av company posting in their forums or some wherelse nothing will protect you 100% only commonsense do. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.