Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 03, 2016, 05:35:06 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...  (Read 17525 times)

Ralf Maximus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 927
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2007, 07:37:44 AM »
The only time I've been infected with anything since I started using NOD32 was when I did something stupid.  I opened a file I shouldn't have and within seconds things went to shit.   Disk activity off the chart, Process Explorer showed multiple new processes being spawned every second.

NOD32 went berserk, with multiple overlapping threat dialogs (didn't know it could do that) and behind NOD32 I could see new icons appearing on my desktop:  Casino!  Pharmacy!  Free Anonymouse Email!

The last icon I saw appear before I hit the big red power button made me chuckle:
Click here to scan your computer for Malware!

I didn't even try to disinfect.  I booted from my Acronis CD and restored the backup from the night before.  Did a deeeeep scan of all my drives (nothing) and visited each workstation in my network for a manual scan.  All clean.

I'd never actually been the victim of a trojan before.  I felt so *dirty*.  Are feelings of self-loathing and humiliation in the wake of such an event normal?

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,089
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2007, 09:03:36 AM »
... Startup Monitor has saved me more times ...

It is good to realize that Mike Lin is still working [Edit: or is he?]- I used a lot of his programs in the previous century. Do you use the Startup Control Panel, as well?

---

I'd never actually been the victim of a trojan before.  I felt so *dirty*.  Are feelings of self-loathing and humiliation in the wake of such an event normal?

It is common for victims by rape to feel dirty afterwards. I guess the priciples are the same if you are rap.. ehh infected with trojans or the likes. You have taken pride in having a clean machine, but this 'person' (animal) treated you and your pc like worthless pieces of trash.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 09:21:37 AM by Curt »

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2007, 09:14:35 AM »
It is good to realize that Mike Lin is still working - I used a lot of his programs in the previous century.

It doesn't look like any of his apps have been updated in years -shame though as they are useful.

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2007, 11:33:15 AM »
It is good to realize that Mike Lin is still working [Edit: or is he?]- I used a lot of his programs in the previous century. Do you use the Startup Control Panel, as well?

Yes. Also Startup Selector. I looked into better alternatives to StartupMonitor and found a few but the difference in resource consumption was HUGE. It's nice to see an app that constantly monitors several things sit at 0% CPU utilization. I'll take the retro stuff over state-of-the-art crapware anyday.  ;)

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2007, 03:21:58 PM »
From his February 2007 newsletter - http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/88.htm

"Bye-bye Windows! My three-month Macintosh trial may have ended, but my new permanent gig with the Mac is just getting started. Apple's computer and OS X are now my PC and operating system of choice. If you give the Mac three months, as I did, you won't go back either. The hardest part is paying for it — everything after that gets easier and easier. Perhaps fittingly, it took me the three months of the trial period to pay off my expensive MacBook Pro. But the darn thing is worth every penny.

In early November I began a total-immersion trial of the Macintosh as part of my research in gauging whether Vista is most people's best operating system choice. I started by making a brand new MacBook Pro 17 my primary computer. For a month before the trial officially started in November, and the two weeks that followed, I worked on selecting products, converting data, and setting up corporate software systems for my company, Computerworld, as well as finding solutions for personal use. Prior to my adoption of the Mac, I had one Windows computer for both business and home, so the Mac had to handle both sets of tasks too.

After hundreds of hours testing Vista and living with the Mac for three months, the choice was, well, crystal clear. I've struggled to sort out my gut feeling about Windows Vista, but the value and advantage of the Mac and OS X are difficult to miss. Microsoft's marketing materials for a past version of Windows used the phrase, "It just works." But the only computer that tagline honestly describes is the Macintosh. Don't translate that in your mind as, "Yeah, so what, the Mac is easy to use." Any new computing environment takes some getting used to. The easy-to-use aspect is nice, but not all that significant. When Mac users say, "It just works," what they mean is that you spend more time on your work, and a lot less time working on your computer."


I just saw this reply to my post, so I thought I would point out that it is only a partial quote. Here's another paragraph from the same newsletter:

And here is the link for anyone who would prefer to read the whole article instead of little snippets as have been posted thus far:

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/88.htm

Jim
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 03:23:42 PM by J-Mac »

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,395
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2007, 04:01:07 PM »
Does anyone have nod32 3 running on vista? Having a problem with it retaining which modules I have activated.

tranglos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,079
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2007, 08:20:37 PM »
NOD-32 is s-l-o-w...! At least compared to Avira. It takes much less memory than Avira AntiVir or AVG, the on-demand scanner churns through the disks  much faster than either of those, so I was really surprised to see how the on-access scanner in the latest version slows down file operations. By default it scans all files, and between pressing F3 (View) in Total Commander on a 70 MB plain text file, and actually seeing the file contents, there was an 8-10 seconds delay. That's nuts! I then changed the confiuguration to scan only selected extensions, but still, it's scanning all the .exes and .dlls and .docs that are going to be slowing down things all the time.

I'm running the trial version of ESS (the suite) right now, and I like a lot about it, but its on-access scanner is really slow, while ESET claim it is very, very fast ("fastest performance", they say). Note that on their AV comparison page (http://www.eset.com/products/compare.php) Avira is conspicuously absent - I guess that's because they only list software that performs worse than theirs.

That is not to promote Avira, necessarily. The reason I'm trying out NOD32 is that I'm looking for another AV product in the first place. I like the look and feel and functionality of NOD32 much better, and the ESS suite is awfully nice, too. Avira makes a security suite as well, but the firewall gave me 3 bluescreens a day, so it was a no-go. (And AVG had me practically reaching for the Acronis partition image on DVD when the uninstaller crashed - I've had a pretty bad experience with it). That's why I'm finding NOD32 even more frustrating - I love it, but the performance hit keeps me from buying. I'll post details of my performance measurements in a separate post.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 08:22:12 PM by tranglos »

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,089
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2007, 08:41:02 PM »
Your setup must suffer from some kind of mismatch, I think. I have not noticed any delay worth mentioning caused by NOD32.

NOD32.gifScott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...

Dirhael

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
    • defreitas.no
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2007, 08:48:07 PM »
NOD-32 is s-l-o-w...! At least compared to Avira. It takes much less memory than Avira AntiVir or AVG, the on-demand scanner churns through the disks  much faster than either of those, so I was really surprised to see how the on-access scanner in the latest version slows down file operations. By default it scans all files, and between pressing F3 (View) in Total Commander on a 70 MB plain text file, and actually seeing the file contents, there was an 8-10 seconds delay. That's nuts! I then changed the confiuguration to scan only selected extensions, but still, it's scanning all the .exes and .dlls and .docs that are going to be slowing down things all the time.

I'm running the trial version of ESS (the suite) right now, and I like a lot about it, but its on-access scanner is really slow, while ESET claim it is very, very fast ("fastest performance", they say). Note that on their AV comparison page (http://www.eset.com/products/compare.php) Avira is conspicuously absent - I guess that's because they only list software that performs worse than theirs.

That is not to promote Avira, necessarily. The reason I'm trying out NOD32 is that I'm looking for another AV product in the first place. I like the look and feel and functionality of NOD32 much better, and the ESS suite is awfully nice, too. Avira makes a security suite as well, but the firewall gave me 3 bluescreens a day, so it was a no-go. (And AVG had me practically reaching for the Acronis partition image on DVD when the uninstaller crashed - I've had a pretty bad experience with it). That's why I'm finding NOD32 even more frustrating - I love it, but the performance hit keeps me from buying. I'll post details of my performance measurements in a separate post.

The only real performance problem I've had with NOD32 over the years have been with anything compressed with UPX or other similar EXE packers. It just chockes on it, and in the case of one of my folders which holds well over 100 different versions of Xyplorer installation files it takes forever+1 to do a scan if I forget to exclude it. Other than that, it has always been great for me.

That said, I still prefer the 2.7 version to the new 3 one. It's not so much the performance, but rather that the cursed exclusion list gets broken and almost completely cleared every time I upgrade to a new release (which is quite often now that it's a brand new program and all...).

...

In the case of Avira, well I bought a 3 year license a while back intending for it to replace NOD32 as I just wanted to try something new, and after hearing all the praise over and over again over at Wilders I thought I'd check it out. After all, if I didn't like it I could always just pass over the license to another familiy member. Well, that's exactly where it is installed now...and it's not moving back to my own PC anytime soon.

The amount of false positives drove me nuts, the interface when it detects something is a disaster. Why? Well, let me explain. In their infinite wisdom, they made it so that it can't be resized, and because of this it is impossible to read where the file it detect is actually located if it's several folders deep. When you then combine this with all the false positives, you can imagine how frustrating it can get as you sit there trying to decide if you should let it delete the file it just detected as being infected, without having any idea what file it is actually talking about. It should be easy enough to fix, but now almost a year later it still behaves the same way.

Another thing that I thought was really cheap on their side is that they don't let you scan drives/folders on a network with the regular paid Premium version. Oh no, then you have to give them even more coins >:(

...

While NOD32 isn't perfect either, it's been a much better experience than Avira ever gave me...
Registered nurse by day, hobby programmer by night.

tranglos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,079
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2007, 08:54:19 PM »
Your setup must suffer from some kind of mismatch, I think. I have not noticed any delay worth mentioning caused by NOD32.

Same setup in ESS, a month-old and still clean XP SP2 installation, 10000 RPM Raptor drive, 4G RAM and no other security, backup or file-monitoring software running. And briefly: copying a mix of exe, dll and doc files (a little over 3000 files), 1 GB total in size, from a single folder on one drive to another folder on another physical drive:

no AV installed: 42 seconds first lap; 19 to 21 seconds subsequent laps (because the files were now cached by the system)

Avira: 64 seconds first lap; 20 to 23 seconds subsequent laps (almost no delay at all!)

NOD32: 105 seconds first lap; 63 to 73 seconds subsequent laps

ESS: 112 seconds first lap (nearly 3 times slower than when no AV used); 58 to 64 seconds subsequent laps

Values measured to ms precision and averaged over several runs, with system configured exactly the same and restarted between each test.

I do wish NOD32 was faster (on my system, at least!)

.marek

Ralf Maximus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 927
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2007, 09:06:39 PM »
Thanks for the benchmarks!  It's nice to see all those listed side-by-side.

NOD32: 105 seconds first lap; 63 to 73 seconds subsequent laps

Do you have NOD's the "self-extracting archives" and "unpackers" option turned on, and if so are many of the files you're copying self-extracting or compressed with UPX? 

Also, heuristic scanning (while wonderful) causes a performance hit.

Not suggesting you turn any of that stuff off, just curious.

tranglos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,079
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2007, 09:13:43 PM »
The amount of false positives drove me nuts, the interface when it detects something is a disaster. Why? Well, let me explain. In their infinite wisdom, they made it so that it can't be resized, and because of this it is impossible to read where the file it detect is actually located if it's several folders deep. When you then combine this with all the false positives, you can imagine how frustrating it can get as you sit there trying to decide if you should let it delete the file it just detected as being infected, without having any idea what file it is actually talking about. It should be easy enough to fix, but now almost a year later it still behaves the same way.

Another thing that I thought was really cheap on their side is that they don't let you scan drives/folders on a network with the regular paid Premium version. Oh no, then you have to give them even more coins >:(

I completely agree about false positives, although Avira only stubmles on two on my system, and zipping them up helped. The interface is clunky in general, and the free version I've been using won't let you configure the update schedule, so it kicks in at the most inopportune moments. Also, a few months ago they took to putting up an "upgrade" banner ad right on top of all other windows as the update progresses, every day. It's free, so I don't blame them, but I don't want to have to see the banner either. I first tried their suite, but as I mentioned before, the firewall was killing the system.

My main problem finding an optimal AV is lack of viruses on my system :) In 16 years of computing I've only had an actual infection once, back in the days of DOS 6.13 (it was an MBR virus and I fondly remember getting rid of it with Norton Disk Editor and thus saving my data). Meaning, if I see a virus warning, it's a false-positive from Avira - or a valid warning about an infected attachment, which TheBat had already sent to spam folder and I wasn't even going to see it. Meaning, I cannot differentiate between AV products based on detection, I can only trust people like av-comparatives. So I choose instead based on performance, resource consumption, feature set and UI. NOD-32 wins on the last three counts, Avira wins the first one.

tranglos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,079
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2007, 09:22:04 PM »
Thanks for the benchmarks!  It's nice to see all those listed side-by-side.

NOD32: 105 seconds first lap; 63 to 73 seconds subsequent laps

Do you have NOD's the "self-extracting archives" and "unpackers" option turned on, and if so are many of the files you're copying self-extracting or compressed with UPX? 

Also, heuristic scanning (while wonderful) causes a performance hit.

Not suggesting you turn any of that stuff off, just curious.

I'm pretty much using the default config (for the testing), so let me check... Heuristics ON, Advanced heuristics OFF, Runtime packers OFF.

On edit: On the main config window (posted by Curt above), all three of these options are ON. However, Runtime packers and Advanced heuristics are OFF in the dialog shown after clicking the "Setup" button for "ThreatSense engine parameter setup". That's confusing!


But what really got me was trying to view a plain-text file (with an unregistered extension though). Not an executable and certainly not compressed. I didn't time this exactly, but the delay was certainly more than 5 seconds, when using the View command in Total Commander. I've had to switch from scanning all files on access to scanning selected extensions only.

I'm a bit of a speed freak when it comes to the system. Since I spend so many hours in front of it, I hate having to wait for anything, and have just put together a system that doesn't make me wait, mostly. As a result, I may be giving more weight to performance than I really (rationally) should.

« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 09:26:53 PM by tranglos »

Ralf Maximus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 927
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2007, 09:38:32 PM »
Quote
I'm a bit of a speed freak when it comes to the system. Since I spend so many hours in front of it, I hate having to wait for anything, and have just put together a system that doesn't make me wait, mostly. As a result, I may be giving more weight to performance than I really (rationally) should.

No, I'd say you're justified in your concerns.  Five seconds here and ten seconds there can add up over the span of a few months.  If you routinely move massive files, it's certainly worth it to optimize where you can.

The part I find interesting is that NOD32 appears to expend a lot of processing effort (looking at your "subsequent laps" numbers) as opposed to being I/O bound.  Would a quad-core overclocked monster workstation turn in better numbers?

Anyway, I do appreciate your real-world benchmarks.  Thanks!

« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 09:44:42 PM by Ralf Maximus »

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2007, 01:08:40 AM »
I've been using NOD32 (currently using 2.7) for two years now and have not sen a speed issue thus far I have it configured to Blackspear's Extra Settings, which basically is a command line configured scheduled scan that is pretty comprehensive IMO. I haven't seen any particular delays, though that scan - scheduled weekly - takes about 3 hours from start to finish. Not as bad as NAV or McAfee were some years ago on a much smaller PC. Though it is a lot longer than TrendMicro ever took - but I was never impressed with TM's thoroughness.

My biggest issues with Eset is their lack of decent notification - both of updates/upgrades and of license expiration. They do neither at all and you must go to the web site and check to see what upgrades are available. And for your subscription expiration, contacting support gets a reply of, "Please refer to the email you received when you purchased NOD32 for the expiration date." Unheard of nowadays.

Jim

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2007, 06:31:41 AM »
I haven't seen a speed hit except when scanning ZIP archives with heuristic scanning enabled (which was documented and doesn't seem to have been fixed over the last couple of years). No problems so far with version 3.

J-Mac I agree with you about keeping users informed though. There are settings for software updates but they have never offered a single update since I installed NOD32 other than pattern files. In fact I never get any email from them at all either - even though I am subscribed!

nontroppo

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • spinning top
    • View Profile
    • nontroppo.org
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2007, 06:55:02 AM »
FYI: IMON causes havoc for browsers who use more advanced rendering engines (now everything except IE). Progressive content rendering is totally broken when IMON is in Speed mode, and only works in compatibility mode.
FARR Wishes: Performance TweaksTask ControlAdaptive History
[url=http://opera.com/]

Dirhael

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
    • defreitas.no
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2007, 07:34:37 AM »
FYI: IMON causes havoc for browsers who use more advanced rendering engines (now everything except IE). Progressive content rendering is totally broken when IMON is in Speed mode, and only works in compatibility mode.

Never experienced this with any of the browsers I use/have used over the years with NOD32 so while I don't doubt there will be cases where it could be true that it happens, it most certainly isn't for me and many other users.

I should probably clarify that I've never bothered with changing the speed/compatibility modes for the browsers though, so I've been running on the defaults with blackspear's settings.
Registered nurse by day, hobby programmer by night.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 07:36:31 AM by Dirhael »

Ralf Maximus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 927
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2007, 09:51:43 AM »
Perhaps my satisfaction with NOD32 stems from the fact that I use neither IMON nor DMON.

I figure AMON will protect me against anything I get from the 'net, and I do so much Office automation development that DMON keeps freaking out.

For that matter, what's the value of scanning .ZIP archives?  If you unpack one, the results get scanned.  So why bother?

nontroppo

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • spinning top
    • View Profile
    • nontroppo.org
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2007, 10:01:23 AM »
Never experienced this with any of the browsers I use/have used over the years with NOD32 so while I don't doubt there will be cases where it could be true that it happens, it most certainly isn't for me and many other users.

Most users will not notice it, pages simply appear all at once rather than being reflown as content updates. Opera has the most agressive progressive renderer, and I extensively tested on more than one machine with reproducible effects. As I understand it, "efficiency" buffers HTML content and scans once that document is finalised. The browser therefore cannot progressively render. That makes Opera, and to a leser extent Firefox display pages similarly to IE, thus is mostly not noticed.

As AMON will protect one once that content is on disk, why bother with IMON? Perhaps it intercepts javascript which may be cached in RAM before being flushed to disk?
FARR Wishes: Performance TweaksTask ControlAdaptive History
[url=http://opera.com/]

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2007, 10:52:01 AM »
I had an issue with NOD32 2.7 a while back (can't remember what it was now) and ESET Tech Support told me to disable IMON - they said it didn't affect security ... begs the question why bother with IMON at all?

Note there is no IMON.DLL in version 3

Dirhael

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
    • defreitas.no
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2007, 11:04:57 AM »
Never experienced this with any of the browsers I use/have used over the years with NOD32 so while I don't doubt there will be cases where it could be true that it happens, it most certainly isn't for me and many other users.

Most users will not notice it, pages simply appear all at once rather than being reflown as content updates. Opera has the most agressive progressive renderer, and I extensively tested on more than one machine with reproducible effects. As I understand it, "efficiency" buffers HTML content and scans once that document is finalised. The browser therefore cannot progressively render. That makes Opera, and to a leser extent Firefox display pages similarly to IE, thus is mostly not noticed.

As AMON will protect one once that content is on disk, why bother with IMON? Perhaps it intercepts javascript which may be cached in RAM before being flushed to disk?

I still don't notice any difference with IMON on or off, but I also have my Opera executable excluded from the real-time protection so I don't know could have any effect on the results. I am also running admuncher, and due to the way it operates I suspect that it could also have some influence on the results of my testing.

In any case though, as Carol mentions there is no IMON in v3. It doesn't register any Winsock providers at all anymore... :)
Registered nurse by day, hobby programmer by night.

nontroppo

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • spinning top
    • View Profile
    • nontroppo.org
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2007, 12:43:29 PM »
So ESET agree IMON is superfluous I suppose  :)
FARR Wishes: Performance TweaksTask ControlAdaptive History
[url=http://opera.com/]

Lashiec

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,374
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2007, 01:47:12 PM »
tranglos, that huge delay with NOD32 screams something is wrong somewhere in your system. Such thing happening open a text file (as big it may be) with that hardware is not normal.

AntiVir's update scheduling is editable in the free version. And there's some trick to bypass that popup screen, it was posted in... Wilders?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 08:40:53 PM by Lashiec »

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Scott Finnie unimpressed by NOD32 ...
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2007, 02:14:39 PM »
So ESET agree IMON is superfluous I suppose  :)

I think the phrase they used was "IMON is belt and braces" - so long as AMON is running IMON is pretty much superfluous (as are DMON and EMON presumably).