evil_lbt
join:2003-08-13
Arcadia, CA
1 edit | NOD32 vs. Kaspersky
Which one is better in terms of the virus detection? I know NOD32 is lighter on the system resources compare to Kaspersky.
Any thoughts? |
|
Frydays
join:2005-10-21
USA | I am using nod32 now cuase of the kav killing hardrives thing and well nod32 is ok but its not as good as kav 7 i say stay with or get kav 7 just be sure to buy an extra hardrive for when you need it im thinking of doing that |
|
diver196
join:2003-12-09
| reply to evil_lbt
There is really no answer to your question. If you started this thread at Wilders, they would close it. By the way, it is a wild exaggeration to say KAV is killing hard drives. Primarily, on some machines chkdisk runs slow. This is supposed to be fixed in the next version. KAV is tops in most detection tests, except that Nod32 appears to have better heuristics. According to AV-Comparatives, Nod32 was slow to add missed samples to its signature files. From my personal experience, Nod32 is weak at cleaning, but this may be improved in the new version. Cnet showed KAV to slow systems down the least. Nod32 has a geekish interface (to be fixed in the new version).
I could go on forever. Image your system and trial each one. Anyone around here could tell you anything and make it sound like a pronouncement of truth coming directly from God.
--
Only those defenses are good, certain and durable, which depend on yourself alone and your own ability. -The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. |
|
evil_lbt
join:2003-08-13
Arcadia, CA | reply to evil_lbt
Re: NOD32 vs. Kaspersky
Thanks all for your input. I guess I will give KAV a try again. I tried it in the past, but didn't work out well. |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Frydays
quote:
I am using nod32 now cuase of the kav killing hardrives thing
There are no reports of KAV killing hard drives.
The issue is related to slowing down chkdisk on some users computers and this is not widespread.
--
Factual information or nothing at all. |
|
GrumpyBear
Premium
join:2004-02-23
Federal Way, WA
| reply to evil_lbt
I have not previously jumped in the middle of this iswift/chkdsk controversy, but I do feel that KAV was a contributor to my hard drive failure. I often use P2p and sometime go to risky sites, so I like to do a system scan often. After often scanning my system with Kav 6, I started getting chkdsk errors. I don't routinely run chkdsk, but if the NTFS has problems and need chkdsk, I can't defrag the drive.
My time to run chkdsk continued to increase. Finally I thought the computer had hung up after about 30 minutes and I hit the reset button. Turned out to be a dumb move, as my drive would no longer boot into windows.
I can not prove that KAV caused the problem, but I am now afraid to run a system scan on my new drive and introduce the iswift markers on all my files. An AV program that I am afraid to use is not something I can live with. Although I like KAV, I don't plan to renew and will only come back to KAV after this problem is fixed. |
|
tempnexus
Premium
join:1999-08-11
Boston, MA
1 edit | reply to evil_lbt
I ran both dual booting VISTA and XP, XP runs NOD, VISTa runs KAV 7.
KAV in my testing detected few that NOD32 missed. So yeah personally it was faster and they responded faster to my submissions.
And yes VISTA sees the XP partition so I can scan XP from VISTA. |
|
Hutch
My Throne is the Dunny
Premium
join:2000-10-14
Out House
| reply to evil_lbt
Try them both out if you can, and decide use which one suits you best. Thats the only advice I can give you.
I am a KAV user who has not experienced the issues, others have reported to be happening with their systems. So I can really not comment on what they have experienced.
--
If you see words not spelt the U.S.A way don't criticise. I live in another part of the world that uses old Queens English. |
|
winterforge
Premium
join:2000-07-23
Seattle, WA
clubs: 
1 edit | reply to evil_lbt
Flip a coin, they both rock. NOD32 is $39 and KAV 7 is $59. I chose NOD32 for that reason, because everywhere I looked it was a tie in people's preference.
--
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect." - Steven Wright
|
|
DRM Killler
@rr.com
| reply to GrumpyBear
said by GrumpyBear  :After often scanning my system with Kav 6, I started getting chkdsk errors. I don't routinely run chkdsk, but if the NTFS has problems and need chkdsk, I can't defrag the drive. My time to run chkdsk continued to increase. Finally I thought the computer had hung up after about 30 minutes and I hit the reset button. Turned out to be a dumb move, as my drive would no longer boot into windows. The average life span of all hard drives is 3 1/2 years. 6 % fail in within their fist year. All hard drives do, and will wear out and fail. The more you use them and do full system scans, the faster they wear out. This happens whether or not Kaspersky happens to be used. CHKDSK errors are the early warning signs of imminent failure, and the big warning flag to keep your data well backed up and to consider a new drive soon. It has always been this way, long before Kaspersky came along. |
|
tmaertin
Crash Into Me
Premium
join:2002-04-03
North Tonawanda, NY
| reply to evil_lbt
i tried them both out and chose NOD32 for the following reasons:
1) KAV dramatically slowed my internet connection down, cutting me to about half speed with settings "turned up"
2) KAV slowed XP down slightly, but just enough to annoy me (ie - anything in my computer/windows explorer just seemed to hang for an extra second). i have 2 gigs of RAM, so there should not be any slowdowns)
3) NOD32 has superior heuristic detection, and as of the last av-comparatives on demand test from August, caught 1% fewer viruses than KAV
4) i experienced the chkdsk issue as well off the trial version of KAV
as others have said, try both and see. i went into KAV knowing what could happen and being prepared to reinstall XP. i ended up having to due to chkdsk, but it wasnt a huge inconvenience.
for me, the slight difference in detection was offset by system performance and better heuristics.
--
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show your world to me. |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
| reply to evil_lbt
Not meaning to get OT, but perhaps you may want to make it NOD32 vs. Avira Premium. I finally decided to try out Avira for 3 months free, and my initial reaction is "Where have you been all my life"?
I too like "light" AV's... so price may be my deciding factor, but I probably will be in a NOD32 vs Avira...
As for KAV, er... "No comment"... LOL..
--
Don't Forever Alter Your Computer! Don't Install or Use Anything with Kaspersky or The Free AOL Version of KAV, AOL Active Virus Shield! (KAV Version)
|
|
Desmond
@isnet.net
| said by StraitShoot :Not meaning to get OT, but perhaps you may want to make it NOD32 vs. Avira Premium. I finally decided to try out Avira for 3 months free, and my initial reaction is "Where have you been all my life"? ... LOL.. A member of this forum means Avira has a "weakness in the on demand scanner"
»Re: AntiVirGear.com : New Rogue Anti-Spyware |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to DRM Killler
said by DRM Killler :
The average life span of all hard drives is 3 1/2 years. 6 % fail in within their fist year. All hard drives do, and will wear out and fail. The more you use them and do full system scans, the faster they wear out. Then how come I have a computer that has a hard drive that is almost nine years old? I don't buy that hard drives fail quickly. Mine never have..but then I am not the sort of running scared all the time user who obsesses about running a full AV scan every day. I NEVER run full scans. But I got the KAV chkdsk problem anyway.  And it is not a 2 or 3 minute delay at stage two of chkdsk. It is much worse than that and I haven't had Kaspersky on this computer for almost one year now. So, I beg to differ with you when you try and say that it doesn't matter if KAV causes chkdsk errors because folks will have their hard drives die quickly anyway. That is NOT true in my experience.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to Desmond
said by Desmond :said by StraitShoot :Not meaning to get OT, but perhaps you may want to make it NOD32 vs. Avira Premium. I finally decided to try out Avira for 3 months free, and my initial reaction is "Where have you been all my life"? ... LOL.. A member of this forum means Avira has a "weakness in the on demand scanner" » Re: AntiVirGear.com : New Rogue Anti-Spyware True...but guess what? I left NOD32 for the very same reason. Eset thought it more important to offer that damn web scanner which is worthless junk IMO than to beef up the on demand scanner. It wasn't "sexy" enough but being the first to have a web scanner was very "sexy". I left in disgust. What I personally want in a AV is an outstanding on demand scanner and I don't care about much else. Sure, Avira real time scanner would catch that rogue spyware application when you go to install it but I was upset because they have concentrated, like NOD32, on web scanners and other "junk" instead of concentrating on having more unpacking ability for the on demand scanner. I'm told that is because both vendors are just doing what the users want and that I am in a small minority of users who practice safe computing, and prefer to not use a real time scanner, and thus expect the on demand scanner to be outstanding.
For most users, what I was griping about is not really relevant.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Hazeleyze
join:2003-05-09
Wauseon, OH
| I, too, am kind of disgusted about the web scanner. I have no problem with Nod 2.7 but it seems like Nod v3 is web scanning by proxy which in turn bypasses the individual rules for each program. My firewall, Outpost, only asks for proxy access for the program and then after that all individual rules for that program are irrelevant and gives the program full access.
I prefer not to allow HTTP in my mail because it's just another avenue for a nasty to gain access. With Nod v3, I couldn't stop the HTTP because of the proxy to Thunderbird allowed all access.
Of course, when I brought this to their attention neither Outpost nor Nod seemed to care, so I will be looking for another solution when my subscription runs out. |
|
MorpheusUK
join:2003-09-09
| reply to evil_lbt
I;ve been running KAV since v4.5 on varying machines including one with an IBM Deathstar drive in and have never had a problem and haven't experienced the chkdsk slowdown issue. I run a weekly full scan (in fact its running as I type) and yet even when running on a HD notorious for its failure rate everything is going strong. The fact that your HD failed is just bad luck as someone else says it happens, some seem to last forever or on least until you pull them out of your oldest machine as you upgrade drives others don't. In the time since I bought my DeathStar my brother has had two HD's fail and he doesn't use KAV and I strongly suspect virtually never runs a full scan.
I had a license for Nod32 around v2.5 IIRC and just didn't like it. There was nothing inherently wrong and I wasn't that worried about the differences in detection rates it was down to personal preference. My advice is try them both and make a choice that suits you and remember for every vocal person who has a problem with product x there are usually at least as many if not more others who don't.
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not after you |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to Hazeleyze
said by Hazeleyze :I prefer not to allow HTTP in my mail because it's just another avenue for a nasty to gain access. With Nod v3, I couldn't stop the HTTP because of the proxy to Thunderbird allowed all access. I wouldn't like that either. I read all mail in plain text. I would not want my AV to interfere with my settings for OE. But I don't allow any AV to scan my mail.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Jer03
join:2006-08-16
Las Cruces, NM
| reply to evil_lbt
Each has its advantages, and the only way to know which suits you the better is to try both. Until you do that there is no way to know if either will run well on your system.
I have tried both, and either would suit me. However, I prefer KIS/KAV 7 and have KIS on both my machines. You will find that some emotional arguments result from the "which is best" question.
Since both have 30 day free trials give each a try. A trial might make it obvious to you if you find one does not run well.
I would suggest you ignore the chkdsk comments until you try Kaspersky. While it is a real problem for some, most of us do not experience it to any degree.
Regards,
Jerry |
|
