Which one to use between Viruscan 2005 or NAV 2005?

[PC-Engine]

I'm currently using a limited subscriptions NA 2005, but it seems to hog up my resources, however I like the interface because it's nice and simple. Anyone have experience with both AV packages and can tell me which one uses more resources? I'm strictly talking about the 2005 versions of both.

 

[_xxx_]

Look here:

http://www.schadentech.com/Reviews/Antivirus/conclusion.htm

McAfee is the better in terms of detection rates. I would suggest to go with the Kaspersky, though. Even higher detection rates than McAfee and easier on your system.

 

[PC-Engine]

Thanks, I will try the trial version to see if I like the interface.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Ugh! Better to go with Kaspersky or F-Prot than that bloatware!

 

[PC-Engine]

Is it fairly safe if I'm behind a hardware firewall? I have a wireless DSL modem/gateway that I connect to get to the internet. I'm also running WinXP. I'm thinking of getting Kasperky's Security Suite which includes anti hacking and anti spam in addition to the AV or should I just get the AV alone. :?

 

[London Geezer]

My god i must be really tired, i read Post subject: Which one to use between Vatican 2005 or NAV 2005? at first.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Is it fairly safe if I'm behind a hardware firewall? I have a wireless DSL modem/gateway that I connect to get to the internet. I'm also running WinXP. I'm thinking of getting Kasperky's Security Suite which includes anti hacking and anti spam in addition to the AV or should I just get the AV alone. :?

Depends how much you want to spend and how many CPU cycles you want to give up to it. If you're on wireless, you need to take more care over your security anyway. The firewall will help protect you from the general internet, but wireless gives you all kind of LAN security and performance issues too.

 

[vb]

try F-Secure Internet Security 2005
very effective and quiet av solution that includes a firewall and a licenced Ad-aware

 

[Pete]

From what I've read, Symantec's Corporate Edition AV is supposed to be better than their consumer edition (NAV). Dunno if that means less intrusive or easier on system resources, though.

Trend-Micro's AV is also supposed to be pretty good, according to the internet security suite reviews I've read (PCMag, CNet, etc).

 

[gokickrocks]

id recommend kaspersky as well

 

[ANova]

All bow down to NOD32.

Least used system resources (two processes), among the best detection rates, simple interface and the fastest scanning.

NAV 2005 is a huge resource hog, stay away. The corporate edition is much better.

 

[Althornin]

From what I've read, Symantec's Corporate Edition AV is supposed to be better than their consumer edition (NAV). Dunno if that means less intrusive or easier on system resources, though.

Both.
It is simply a vastly superior product in comparison to the personal editions.

 

[_xxx_]

I'm a McAfee user, because of the detection rates mostly. With 1 gig of RAM, I really don't care if the SW needs 10 or 50 MB. It's always up-to-date and saved me many times.

But I'd NEVER use any Symantec products. Crappiest crap out there.

 

[Guden Oden]

[chant]NOD32! NOD32! NOD32! NOD32![/chant]

 

[silence]

[chant]NOD32! NOD32! NOD32! NOD32![/chant]

wasnt me that told you about it?
but yeah...i love it, its really great, no resource problems, great detection, upgrades daily....

 

[PC-Engine]

Wow thanks for the input guys! I'll try the various recommended AV software to see which interface is a nice compromise of ease of use/functions and I'll stay away from McAfee and NAV from now on.

 

[_xxx_]

[chant]NOD32! NOD32! NOD32! NOD32![/chant]

Detection rates of NOD32 are about 80%, which is rather miserable. Not the way to go.

 

[Guden Oden]

You have a source for backing up that claim? Eset themselves claim industry-leading detection rates.

 

[silence]

maybe this can help

 

[JBark]

I just use AVG, mainly because it's free. It's caught a few viruses, so I guess it works.

http://free.grisoft.com