Nemesis Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 which one do you think is better? people say good things about both programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jdawg Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 havent tried AVG but nod 32 works great for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudeboy2025 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Haven't tried either of them. I used to use McAffee before but after I reformatted my computer I just use the virus scanner included with Zone Alarm Security Suite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jdawg Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 tried ZA way too much pain in the keister ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Lite Posted January 24, 2006 Administrator Share Posted January 24, 2006 AVG is poor in terms of detection and speed of updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterripper Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 whoa, that is almost a stupid question to ask, everybody knows nod32 is better than avg and also i can tell you from experience that nod32 is better and i know this because i have tried every single av out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I haven't tried AVG ,but I can assure you that NOD32 has not let me down. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoTheRuso Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 i second that NOD32 is great, been usin it for awhile now and dont plan to switch ever. its incredibly low on resources, good detection, and i havent had a virus for like 4 months. saw somwhere that a new version is in the works, with a new UI, cant wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preso Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 what a comparison...AVG and NOD32. different class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myidisbb Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 what a comparison...AVG and NOD32. different classavg is poor as stated above by an adm. but nod32 not prefect either. it does not do that (word starts with an H) type of scans noted by the same adm. nothings prefect in the end. most software makers are going to a suite style programing that covers popup, warm, virus, spy and firewall. even microsoft going that way. nor are those kind prefect either. always check your settings. norton 2005 had problems with reading compress files. their own website said to uncheck the option to scan them. kind of pointless then :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Lite Posted January 26, 2006 Administrator Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'd be interested in the info you posted about BB, where on the symantec site does it reccomend disabling scanning of compressed files? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myidisbb Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'd be interested in the info you posted about BB, where on the symantec site does it reccomend disabling scanning of compressed files?ill have to look it up againcheck norton. they have changed they layout and troubleshooting. without the error code i dont think i can find it. they also had where if you got an error when doing liveupdate and not everything donwloaded they said to unistall and reinstall. which gave you a whole new year of sub.my biggest problem with norton 2005 was if i had internet connection on and shutdown/reboot it would start auto protection errored. (having to have internet off and reboot to fix it.)i did find a new thing on their site about compressed filesSituation: When you download a compressed file, such as .ZIP, ARJ, TAR, and AV scanning is enabled, the file is not scanned.Solution:Symantec is aware of this problem. Currently, there is no known solution or workaround.i believe this was also a problem scanning manual and schedule scans. it looks like they updated it to just not even scan so there would not be an error message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Lite Posted January 27, 2006 Administrator Share Posted January 27, 2006 But i assume it is scanned on extraction? So this isn't really a security risk. Scanning archives in realtime is poinltess. SFX/ Installers is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.