I was upgrading the anti-virus programs for two computers which prompted me to look up Eset, since one of it has NOD32 2.5 which I wasn't sure about. The other one was just a simple upgrade from Avira (Personal) 8 to 9, since it's not meant for internet use and I could always fall back on my computer's NIS09.
Eset.com has a competition chart and listed itself as having the best threat solution products. So I helped myself to av-comparatives, passmark, and virus bulletin. What I found out was that Eset really had a cumulative good track record, no dispute with it's website there, BUT it is not significantly better than Symantec in av-comp's recent tests. In my opinion, history is just for reputation. What matters is a product's current performance.
Symantec's staff are really doing a good job, even bettering Norton 09 products without waiting for Norton 10. I do not know much about what's actually going on behind the scenes, but I find Symantec's forum better than Eset's, especially the staff support. I also do not buy Eset's saying that they do not release updates on the weekends because staff need to be off, except for what they think is a critical def update.
Does Eset's historical reputation warrant a higher price for their products? Can someone also enlighten me with the missed-in-the-wild viruses results posted on eset.com?
edit: KUDOS to Symantec for enabling pulse update to run on battery!
I was upgrading the anti-virus programs for two computers which prompted me to look up Eset, since one of it has NOD32 2.5 which I wasn't sure about. The other one was just a simple upgrade from Avira (Personal) 8 to 9, since it's not meant for internet use and I could always fall back on my computer's NIS09.
Eset.com has a competition chart and listed itself as having the best threat solution products. So I helped myself to av-comparatives, passmark, and virus bulletin. What I found out was that Eset really had a cumulative good track record, no dispute with it's website there, BUT it is not significantly better than Symantec in av-comp's recent tests. In my opinion, history is just for reputation. What matters is a product's current performance.
Symantec's staff are really doing a good job, even bettering Norton 09 products without waiting for Norton 10. I do not know much about what's actually going on behind the scenes, but I find Symantec's forum better than Eset's, especially the staff support. I also do not buy Eset's saying that they do not release updates on the weekends because staff need to be off, except for what they think is a critical def update.
Does Eset's historical reputation warrant a higher price for their products? Can someone also enlighten me with the missed-in-the-wild viruses results posted on eset.com?
edit: KUDOS to Symantec for enabling pulse update to run on battery!
I had used NOD32 AV version few years back. I like the strength of the NOD32. However, times change, I now preferred using a ALL IN ONE program (like NIS2009) and ESET Smart Security just does not do the job.
I personnally think that ESET Smart Security are lacking in features. ESET SS has SPAM, Firewall & NOD32, at that price, I will bgo with NIS2009.
So far, NIS2009 has not failed me, I am very happy with it and will continue to use, unless Norton changes.
Thanks, Seamonster! I really like Symantec for their quick cures for their own hiccups, unlike patch tuesday.
And Stu, I don't mean to try Eset at all, because I've used Norton for a long time and I still trust it to do its job. I just hope to get an opinion about the "missed-in-the-wild viruses" test, since I don't have a vb subsription to read up on the test.
I think it may not be too big a problem about the missed test, but I'm pretty sure Symantec knows what's best for its users
do not be silly dude…just switch to Symantec’s Norton… it’s network for threat assessment is bigger than eset…well every vendor site show such charts and statistics.ask from real users or reviwers…pc mag and cnet have lot to say about symantec…both have given editor choice award to symantec and also let me tell u eset takes more than 45 mb ram in ideal condition… however i have 8GB ram so i don’t care…but for a normal user ram holds importance…other thing is Symantec’s Norton community is the best one i have come accross…Symantec is an age old antivirus and holds experience more than others…they are just new born babies here in the world…and symantec is a grand dady…!!
No 2 AV programs are a like. As mentioned, ESET’s NOD is a pretty powerful program, but the Smart Security part of ESET is really pathetic.
I have 3 security programs (ThreatFire & Malwarebytes…both FREE) of course, NIS2009…So I would think that it gives me better ability to kill those “in the wild malware”.
So far so good, never had any malwares…Touchwood…knock knock.
Usually I don't like the A vs B type discussions as it usually turns into bashing and opinion wars. However I will say that for those who are interested in following the decline of a once promonent AV company they have a support / beta board at the forum over at www.wilderssecurity.com .
why are you worrying this much!! You know Symantec was the first to update it's site for knowledge about confiker and it's product to protect against confiker's latest varient that came this april..it has pulse update feature that does what you want for your missed-in-the-wild viruses theory...!!.In overall symantec wins over eset..Have u not read pc mag review..i think you should take a close look on it..!!
I have been keeping close look on every security suite..and Symantec's Norton has proved to be the best in every single test..regarding protection to performance..!! one day you will come to know it.!! digg out..do your researches and after that you will come to my conclusion..but remember one thing for every security suite consider it's complete malware removal..that is removing traces of threats..Norton is among the best in doing this...
Message Edited by silverhawk on 05-06-2009 07:47 AM
Dear Silverhawk, I'm not worried about it, just that I'm not that well-versed in this "wild" area. It's a bit funny how this thread has turned out, heheh... Anyway, many thanks for your additional info!
I was just more particularly curious about the methods used for the so-called missed-test. Perhaps the forum moderator can be kind enough to correct my title to reflect the topic better, or do whatever deem fit with this thread?
I've learnt a lot here, it's been very constructive to me
