NOD32 for win XP

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Nick, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. Nick

    Nick Guest

    has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is it
    stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use alot of
    system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    thanks
     
    Nick, Jun 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nick

    Duane Arnold Guest

    "Nick" <> wrote in
    news:40c35fce$0$29811$:

    > has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    > it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use
    > alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    > thanks
    >
    >
    >


    I use NOD32 on XP Pro and Win 2K Pro machines and have been doing so for
    a couple of years. I do deep scans and scan every file on the machines
    with NOD32. NOD32 has knocked down everything that has come at it. NOD32
    is light on the resources and runs in half the time of Norton. I use to
    use Norton on my machines for a couple of years, but I dumped Norton
    because it was a resources HOG and the *Death Update* that would kill
    Norton on the machine more than a few times, forcing me to reinstall
    Norton.

    I like the IMON feature in NOD32 that scans the TCP/IP traffic looking
    for anomalies and allows me to terminate the connection, leaving the
    email at the POP3 server.

    HTH

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jun 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    detection, too.

    KAV (Kaspersky)
    http://www.kaspersky.com/


    On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    Nick scrawled:

    >has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is it
    >stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use alot of
    >system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >thanks
    >


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Nick

    Duane Arnold Guest

    °Mike° <> wrote in
    news::

    > It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    > but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    > detection, too.
    >
    > KAV (Kaspersky)
    > http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    > <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    > Nick scrawled:
    >
    >>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    >>it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use
    >>alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>thanks
    >>

    >


    I think that if that were said in alt.comp.anti-virus there would be some
    serious *heat* about that. :)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jun 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:34:05 GMT, in
    <Xns9500A88A4344Bnotmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    Duane Arnold scrawled:

    >°Mike° <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >> but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >> detection, too.
    >>
    >> KAV (Kaspersky)
    >> http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>
    >>
    >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >> Nick scrawled:
    >>
    >>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    >>>it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use
    >>>alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>thanks
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >I think that if that were said in alt.comp.anti-virus there would be some
    >serious *heat* about that. :)
    >
    >Duane :)


    That's fine, since alt.comp.anti-virus is populated by
    a bunch of kiddies, who know next to nothing.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:34:05 GMT, in
    <Xns9500A88A4344Bnotmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    Duane Arnold scrawled:

    >°Mike° <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >> but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >> detection, too.
    >>
    >> KAV (Kaspersky)
    >> http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>
    >>
    >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >> Nick scrawled:
    >>
    >>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    >>>it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use
    >>>alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>thanks
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >I think that if that were said in alt.comp.anti-virus there would be some
    >serious *heat* about that. :)
    >
    >Duane :)


    I should add that they're all brainwashed regarding NOD32, too.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Nick

    Duane Arnold Guest

    °Mike° <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:34:05 GMT, in
    > <Xns9500A88A4344Bnotmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    > Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >
    >>°Mike° <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >>> but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >>> detection, too.
    >>>
    >>> KAV (Kaspersky)
    >>> http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >>> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >>> Nick scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    >>>>it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it
    >>>>use alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>>thanks
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>I think that if that were said in alt.comp.anti-virus there would be
    >>some serious *heat* about that. :)
    >>
    >>Duane :)

    >
    > I should add that they're all brainwashed regarding NOD32, too.
    >


    Before you go off the deep end on this, there are some fine people in
    that NG like I would suspect there are fine people here as well.

    And you can bet they are not all brainwashed regarding NOD32 either. :)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jun 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:56:59 GMT, in
    <Xns9500AC6C6D24Dnotmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    Duane Arnold scrawled:

    >°Mike° <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:34:05 GMT, in
    >> <Xns9500A88A4344Bnotmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    >> Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >>
    >>>°Mike° <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>> It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >>>> but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >>>> detection, too.
    >>>>
    >>>> KAV (Kaspersky)
    >>>> http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >>>> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >>>> Nick scrawled:
    >>>>
    >>>>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is
    >>>>>it stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it
    >>>>>use alot of system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>>>thanks
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I think that if that were said in alt.comp.anti-virus there would be
    >>>some serious *heat* about that. :)
    >>>
    >>>Duane :)

    >>
    >> I should add that they're all brainwashed regarding NOD32, too.
    >>

    >
    >Before you go off the deep end on this, there are some fine people in
    >that NG like I would suspect there are fine people here as well.
    >
    >And you can bet they are not all brainwashed regarding NOD32 either. :)
    >
    >Duane :)


    I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    doesn't include you. :)

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Nick

    Duane Arnold Guest


    > I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    > generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    > but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    > it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    > all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    > "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    > doesn't include you. :)
    >


    I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I believe in
    or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I have had my run-
    ins with some in the NG.

    However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the product.
    :)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jun 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:16:02 GMT, in
    <Xns9500AFA7FABE2notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    Duane Arnold scrawled:

    >
    >> I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    >> generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    >> but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    >> it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    >> all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    >> "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    >> doesn't include you. :)
    >>

    >
    >I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I believe in
    >or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I have had my run-
    >ins with some in the NG.
    >
    >However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the product.
    >:)
    >
    >Duane :)


    That's great, and if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.

    For my part, over the years of live testing, Kaspersky outdoes
    NOD32 every time -- NOD32 is a good product, but overrated,
    and too many of it's fans tend to evangelise about it, much like
    Linux users. :)

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #10
  11. Nick

    Duane Arnold Guest

    °Mike° <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:16:02 GMT, in
    > <Xns9500AFA7FABE2notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    > Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >>> I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    >>> generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    >>> but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    >>> it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    >>> all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    >>> "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    >>> doesn't include you. :)
    >>>

    >>
    >>I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I
    >>believe in or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I
    >>have had my run- ins with some in the NG.
    >>
    >>However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the
    >>product.
    >>:)
    >>
    >>Duane :)

    >
    > That's great, and if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.
    >
    > For my part, over the years of live testing, Kaspersky outdoes
    > NOD32 every time -- NOD32 is a good product, but overrated,
    > and too many of it's fans tend to evangelise about it, much like
    > Linux users. :)
    >


    I have read a couple of your posts and you seem to be on the ball from
    what I have read. :)

    But I have also read pots from far too many people on different topics *I
    did some tests and my facts are this.* :)

    When anyone who makes that kind of statement becomes a verified and
    certified *testing* facility, then and only then will it hold any
    meaning. :)

    It's late and time to eat.

    Later

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jun 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:40:34 GMT, in
    <Xns9500B3CFBF615notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    Duane Arnold scrawled:

    >°Mike° <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:16:02 GMT, in
    >> <Xns9500AFA7FABE2notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    >> Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    >>>> generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    >>>> but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    >>>> it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    >>>> all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    >>>> "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    >>>> doesn't include you. :)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I
    >>>believe in or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I
    >>>have had my run- ins with some in the NG.
    >>>
    >>>However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the
    >>>product.
    >>>:)
    >>>
    >>>Duane :)

    >>
    >> That's great, and if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.
    >>
    >> For my part, over the years of live testing, Kaspersky outdoes
    >> NOD32 every time -- NOD32 is a good product, but overrated,
    >> and too many of it's fans tend to evangelise about it, much like
    >> Linux users. :)
    >>

    >
    >I have read a couple of your posts and you seem to be on the ball from
    >what I have read. :)
    >
    >But I have also read pots from far too many people on different topics *I
    >did some tests and my facts are this.* :)
    >
    >When anyone who makes that kind of statement becomes a verified and
    >certified *testing* facility, then and only then will it hold any
    >meaning. :)
    >
    >It's late and time to eat.
    >
    >Later
    >
    >Duane :)


    You do realise that "verified and certified" virus testers
    and reviews are OWNED by the antivirus companies, I
    presume?

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 6, 2004
    #12
  13. With respect to your comment on "detection", is this an opinion or is
    it based upon some sort of independant test, if so would you kindly
    cite the source?

    My suspicion is it is an opinion and as such is worthless.


    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:58:40 +0100, °Mike° <>
    wrote:

    >It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >detection, too.
    >
    >KAV (Kaspersky)
    >http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >
    >
    >On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    > <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    > Nick scrawled:
    >
    >>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is it
    >>stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use alot of
    >>system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>thanks
    >>
     
    Edward W. Thompson, Jun 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Excuse me for my intrusion into such a nice and lively discussion but I
    like to add that I used AVP, then migrated to Kaspersky and now I have
    been using NOD32 for the last 3 years and I have never ever got a virus,
    a trojan or a worm into my system, win 3.0, then win98, briefly ME and
    lately XP home and XP pro (3 PCs)
    NOD32 update itself daily and some times twice a day, I'm now at update
    1.78 or so.
    Just my $0.02
    Have a good one.
    Benito

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:55:52 +0100, °Mike° <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:40:34 GMT, in
    > <Xns9500B3CFBF615notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    > Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >
    >>°Mike° <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:16:02 GMT, in
    >>> <Xns9500AFA7FABE2notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    >>> Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    >>>>> generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    >>>>> but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    >>>>> it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    >>>>> all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    >>>>> "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    >>>>> doesn't include you. :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I
    >>>>believe in or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I
    >>>>have had my run- ins with some in the NG.
    >>>>
    >>>>However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the
    >>>>product.
    >>>>:)
    >>>>
    >>>>Duane :)
    >>>
    >>> That's great, and if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.
    >>>
    >>> For my part, over the years of live testing, Kaspersky outdoes
    >>> NOD32 every time -- NOD32 is a good product, but overrated,
    >>> and too many of it's fans tend to evangelise about it, much like
    >>> Linux users. :)
    >>>

    >>
    >>I have read a couple of your posts and you seem to be on the ball from
    >>what I have read. :)
    >>
    >>But I have also read pots from far too many people on different topics *I
    >>did some tests and my facts are this.* :)
    >>
    >>When anyone who makes that kind of statement becomes a verified and
    >>certified *testing* facility, then and only then will it hold any
    >>meaning. :)
    >>
    >>It's late and time to eat.
    >>
    >>Later
    >>
    >>Duane :)

    >
    >You do realise that "verified and certified" virus testers
    >and reviews are OWNED by the antivirus companies, I
    >presume?
     
    Benito Kamela, Jun 7, 2004
    #14
  15. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    No, it is not based on opinion, it is based on
    personal experience of live testing; the source
    is me.

    Your suspicion is wrong.


    On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 06:42:36 +0000 (UTC), in
    <>
    Edward W. Thompson scrawled:

    >With respect to your comment on "detection", is this an opinion or is
    >it based upon some sort of independant test, if so would you kindly
    >cite the source?
    >
    >My suspicion is it is an opinion and as such is worthless.
    >
    >
    >On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:58:40 +0100, °Mike° <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >>but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >>detection, too.
    >>
    >>KAV (Kaspersky)
    >>http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>
    >>
    >>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >> Nick scrawled:
    >>
    >>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is it
    >>>stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use alot of
    >>>system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>thanks
    >>>


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    That's nice....


    On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 06:42:50 GMT, in
    <>
    Benito Kamela scrawled:

    >Excuse me for my intrusion into such a nice and lively discussion but I
    >like to add that I used AVP, then migrated to Kaspersky and now I have
    >been using NOD32 for the last 3 years and I have never ever got a virus,
    >a trojan or a worm into my system, win 3.0, then win98, briefly ME and
    >lately XP home and XP pro (3 PCs)
    >NOD32 update itself daily and some times twice a day, I'm now at update
    >1.78 or so.
    >Just my $0.02
    >Have a good one.
    >Benito
    >
    >On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:55:52 +0100, °Mike° <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:40:34 GMT, in
    >> <Xns9500B3CFBF615notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    >> Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >>
    >>>°Mike° <> wrote in
    >>>news::
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:16:02 GMT, in
    >>>> <Xns9500AFA7FABE2notmenotmecoml@216.148.227.77>
    >>>> Duane Arnold scrawled:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I wasn't going off the deep end, and, of course, I was speaking
    >>>>>> generally -- of course there are some fine people in that group,
    >>>>>> but over the years I've been reading it, at this moment it's at
    >>>>>> it's lowest ebb that I've ever seen. The majority *are* morons,
    >>>>>> all too eager to believe whatever they're told, just because
    >>>>>> "it's alt.comp.antivirus, so it must be etc...." I just hope that
    >>>>>> doesn't include you. :)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I have been doing this since 1971 and there is not a whole lot I
    >>>>>believe in or I am impressed with anymore. And you can best believe I
    >>>>>have had my run- ins with some in the NG.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>However, NOD32 has done its job for me and I am satisfied with the
    >>>>>product.
    >>>>>:)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Duane :)
    >>>>
    >>>> That's great, and if you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.
    >>>>
    >>>> For my part, over the years of live testing, Kaspersky outdoes
    >>>> NOD32 every time -- NOD32 is a good product, but overrated,
    >>>> and too many of it's fans tend to evangelise about it, much like
    >>>> Linux users. :)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I have read a couple of your posts and you seem to be on the ball from
    >>>what I have read. :)
    >>>
    >>>But I have also read pots from far too many people on different topics *I
    >>>did some tests and my facts are this.* :)
    >>>
    >>>When anyone who makes that kind of statement becomes a verified and
    >>>certified *testing* facility, then and only then will it hold any
    >>>meaning. :)
    >>>
    >>>It's late and time to eat.
    >>>
    >>>Later
    >>>
    >>>Duane :)

    >>
    >>You do realise that "verified and certified" virus testers
    >>and reviews are OWNED by the antivirus companies, I
    >>presume?


    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 7, 2004
    #16
  17. You pointed out in a previous post the possible short-comings/bias of
    "commercial" testing of AV programs as the testing is not done at arms
    length. Why are the results of your tests any more vigorous or
    objective? It is unlikely that you have the resources to undertake
    exhaustive tests of all AV programs.

    While you, as we all are, are entitled to our opinions, I still
    suspect, without other evidence, which you have failed to provide,
    your statements re AVs are nothing more than opinions and are
    worthless.

    The test of my opinion is one of reasonableness.

    On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:32:20 +0100, °Mike° <>
    wrote:

    >No, it is not based on opinion, it is based on
    >personal experience of live testing; the source
    >is me.
    >
    >Your suspicion is wrong.
    >
    >
    >On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 06:42:36 +0000 (UTC), in
    > <>
    > Edward W. Thompson scrawled:
    >
    >>With respect to your comment on "detection", is this an opinion or is
    >>it based upon some sort of independant test, if so would you kindly
    >>cite the source?
    >>
    >>My suspicion is it is an opinion and as such is worthless.
    >>
    >>
    >>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:58:40 +0100, °Mike° <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's much better on the resources than Norton,
    >>>but it's not as good as Kaspersky; that goes for
    >>>detection, too.
    >>>
    >>>KAV (Kaspersky)
    >>>http://www.kaspersky.com/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:17:46 +0800, in
    >>> <40c35fce$0$29811$>
    >>> Nick scrawled:
    >>>
    >>>>has anyone use Nod32 v.2 for windows xp. i need users opinions... is it
    >>>>stable. does it find virues and remove they safely? and does it use alot of
    >>>>system resources like Norton...and ease of use.
    >>>>thanks
    >>>>
     
    Edward W. Thompson, Jun 8, 2004
    #17
  18. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 06:37:40 +0000 (UTC), in
    <>
    Edward W. Thompson scrawled:

    >
    >You pointed out in a previous post the possible short-comings/bias of
    >"commercial" testing of AV programs as the testing is not done at arms
    >length. Why are the results of your tests any more vigorous or
    >objective?


    Because I am not "owned" by an antivirus company.

    >It is unlikely that you have the resources to undertake
    >exhaustive tests of all AV programs.


    Why is that unlikely? That statement is proof enough
    of the narrowmindedness of your stance -- you know
    *nothing* about me.

    >While you, as we all are, are entitled to our opinions, I still
    >suspect, without other evidence, which you have failed to provide,


    That's your problem, isn't it? You want me to post
    numbers. Well, I have news for you: *that* wouldn't
    prove squat; hypothetically I could come up with any
    amount of data you want, and it would be completely
    unverifiable.

    >your statements re AVs are nothing more than opinions and are
    >worthless.


    Ok, you argue that my statements are nothing more
    than opinions. The same can be said, then, for the
    statements/reviews/etc. released by "officialdom"
    in the antivirus arena -- do you REALLY think that
    their 'releases' are absolute truth? They're not, no
    more than my statements are.

    As I have said, you are wrong, but you are entitiled
    to believe whatever you want.

    >The test of my opinion is one of reasonableness.


    There is no "reasonableness" in your opinion; you would
    not believe me, no matter what I said, or what "data"
    I provided -- yes, that's *my* opinion, and carries as
    much "reasonableness" as does yours. Occasionally,
    one has to take another person on their word -- this is
    usenet, remember? There is NO WAY that I could say,
    or do, anything to prove to you, beyond doubt, the
    truthfullness of my words, of which, IMO, you have no
    intention of believing.

    >On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:32:20 +0100, °Mike° <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>No, it is not based on opinion, it is based on
    >>personal experience of live testing; the source
    >>is me.
    >>
    >>Your suspicion is wrong.
    >>

    >


    <snip>

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 8, 2004
    #18
  19. It appears we do have an agreement, that is based upon your postings
    on this and other subjects, I am unlikely to believe anything you have
    to say.

    You are correct, I know nothing about you and that is precisely why
    your statements are treat with a large dose of scepticism.

    You do understand arrogance, I suppose.


    On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:37:22 +0100, °Mike° <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 06:37:40 +0000 (UTC), in
    > <>
    > Edward W. Thompson scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >>You pointed out in a previous post the possible short-comings/bias of
    >>"commercial" testing of AV programs as the testing is not done at arms
    >>length. Why are the results of your tests any more vigorous or
    >>objective?

    >
    >Because I am not "owned" by an antivirus company.
    >
    >>It is unlikely that you have the resources to undertake
    >>exhaustive tests of all AV programs.

    >
    >Why is that unlikely? That statement is proof enough
    >of the narrowmindedness of your stance -- you know
    >*nothing* about me.
    >
    >>While you, as we all are, are entitled to our opinions, I still
    >>suspect, without other evidence, which you have failed to provide,

    >
    >That's your problem, isn't it? You want me to post
    >numbers. Well, I have news for you: *that* wouldn't
    >prove squat; hypothetically I could come up with any
    >amount of data you want, and it would be completely
    >unverifiable.
    >
    >>your statements re AVs are nothing more than opinions and are
    >>worthless.

    >
    >Ok, you argue that my statements are nothing more
    >than opinions. The same can be said, then, for the
    >statements/reviews/etc. released by "officialdom"
    >in the antivirus arena -- do you REALLY think that
    >their 'releases' are absolute truth? They're not, no
    >more than my statements are.
    >
    >As I have said, you are wrong, but you are entitiled
    >to believe whatever you want.
    >
    >>The test of my opinion is one of reasonableness.

    >
    >There is no "reasonableness" in your opinion; you would
    >not believe me, no matter what I said, or what "data"
    >I provided -- yes, that's *my* opinion, and carries as
    >much "reasonableness" as does yours. Occasionally,
    >one has to take another person on their word -- this is
    >usenet, remember? There is NO WAY that I could say,
    >or do, anything to prove to you, beyond doubt, the
    >truthfullness of my words, of which, IMO, you have no
    >intention of believing.
    >
    >>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:32:20 +0100, °Mike° <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>No, it is not based on opinion, it is based on
    >>>personal experience of live testing; the source
    >>>is me.
    >>>
    >>>Your suspicion is wrong.
    >>>

    >>

    >
    ><snip>
     
    Edward W. Thompson, Jun 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Nick

    °Mike° Guest

    On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 06:59:43 +0000 (UTC), in
    <>
    Edward W. Thompson scrawled:

    >It appears we do have an agreement, that is based upon your postings
    >on this and other subjects, I am unlikely to believe anything you have
    >to say.
    >
    >You are correct, I know nothing about you and that is precisely why
    >your statements are treat with a large dose of scepticism.
    >
    >You do understand arrogance, I suppose.


    Of course I do; it's what you've displayed, in abundance, in
    this thread. There's no need to brag, though.

    --
    Basic computer maintenance
    http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
     
    °Mike°, Jun 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Edward Doyle

    Nod32 AntiVirus

    Edward Doyle, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    568
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 6, 2004
  2. Edward Doyle

    Nod32 Antivirus

    Edward Doyle, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    542
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. Slacker

    Nod32 SP2 update

    Slacker, Aug 31, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    Edward W. Thompson
    Aug 31, 2004
  4. Stinkin' Lurker

    NOD32 splash screen

    Stinkin' Lurker, Aug 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,264
    bobby
    Aug 21, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,049
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page