| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 95301 | 2008-12-01 18:01:00 | Free Norton 360? | mabix (10146) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 724729 | 2008-12-05 09:06:00 | Thats a good question - try doing a google search - millions of people all say the same thing, that Nortons doesn't live up to these so called 'Lab" tests - so are all those people world wide wrong also ?? Ask any one here that does this sort of thing for a job, or works on PC's regularly - most will agree - Nortons doesn't do what the reports say it does. I haven't seen a single PC through my workshop in the last 5 years that has had Nortons and hasn't had some sort of infection when it says its clean. Proof is in the REAL results. Years ago I used to think the same - I always used norton - one Friday night when the software was set to scan it did its thing at 8 pm - and found no infections - when it finished I turned off the PC - Saturday morning Norton corrupted on startup - The sub was due to expire two weeks later, and I wanted to try nod - I used another PC to download a Trial Version removed Norton, rebooted installed Nod and Instantly 6 infections detected - yet the night before Norton said it was fine. I wouldn't say Nod is perfect, but its sure a lot better than Norton - been proven time and time again. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 724730 | 2008-12-05 09:06:00 | what is the methodology for pro tests? They always seem to draw the wrong conclusions | Greven (91) | ||
| 724731 | 2008-12-05 09:09:00 | what is the methodology for pro tests? They always seem to draw the wrong conclusionsI read someplace, most of the time they take clean machines, infect them with so called "controlled / Known infections" then the tests are run. In the Real world, every day usage that doesn't happen. | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 724732 | 2008-12-05 09:18:00 | I read someplace, most of the time they take clean machines, infect them with so called "controlled / Known infections" then the tests are run. In the Real world, every day usage that doesn't happen. That explains everything |
Greven (91) | ||
| 724733 | 2008-12-05 09:26:00 | That explains everything I don't know if that 100% how its done, I only read it someplace. Heres a test for any antivirus - if you go to This site (www.eicar.org) - down the page, near the bottom are some samples,download any one- if your AV detects them as a virus thats good . Nod32 wont even let them download Nod stops it cold (www.imagef1.net.nz) IF the AV does let it download its not to good at detecting - no idea if Norton stops them or not. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 724734 | 2008-12-05 09:28:00 | I wonder if a particular AV corp pays the firm testing the AVs to get a good rating... | jwil1 (65) | ||
| 724735 | 2008-12-05 10:01:00 | Don't know whats going on - there is actually two sides to the discussion / facts - 1. The so called Controlled LAB tests that say its a good product - some people believe them. then 2. Thousands of real world, every day users world wide that contradict the results, and have infected PC's , damaged files and complete opposite results to lab tests, service techs like myself who see these infections almost every day on failed Norton products. I know who I believe ;) |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 724736 | 2008-12-05 18:08:00 | I wonder if a particular AV corp pays the firm testing the AVs to get a good rating... PC World claimed they didn't get paid when someone asked some time ago. |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 724737 | 2008-12-05 18:21:00 | Exactly right. There are two sides to the discussion. It is a bit like the global warming debate, experts in their field all having different views. I am not a fan of NIS but you can find just as many good reviews and tests and satisfied customers as there are those who say it is useless. We even have many members here who use it and are completely satisfied with it. I am not sure that this forum takes a completely unbiased approach to some products and even when improved versions are available there is a tendency to discredit it by any means available because of a mind set and general long standing dislike of the product. I can't believe all the computer magazines and expert testers would rate a product highly if they were not satisfied with the results they were getting. They could not afford to put their reputation at risk by giving incorrect information. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 724738 | 2008-12-05 18:35:00 | the macs antivirus quarantined them straight away. I will also add these are the first viral this machine has had. | plod (107) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||