NOD32 is a little bit over-hyped on some forums 
If I should choose a payed solution I don’t think it would be NOD32 :-\
Greetz, Red.
Sry landmate but NOD32 is the best on heuristics, FROM the antivirusscanners !!!
But IF i would go for kaspersky as I find it the best antivirus for the moment (decent heuristics and still the best on fingerprints :))
Xan
Hi Xan 
The most recent test on AV-Comparatives shows that Avira has the best heuristics
Avira’s AntiVir PE Premium : 81%
ESET NOD32 Anti-Virus : 71%
But ESET NOD32 produces no false positives, and that can’t be said of Avira’s AntiVir
Greetz, Red.
16 FP’s that’s almost guessing if it’s fake or not. Its like the lottery (:TNG).
I must admit, antivir is better, BUT only recently. Look to the earlier reviews, NOD32 has always been the best. Also, I don’t believe in heuristics… Like I said before, it’s like playing on the lottery. Also, this is just one review, this has almost nothing to do with reallive >:(. Well yeah, times change, so do the malware.
Do you really think heuristics will do something? Wrong!!! Malware makers always, and always test their malware first on the antivirusses etc. to see if they’re detected. If they are, they change something in the source. If they’re not, they release them. So… heuristics is just nothing. (:SAD)
Xan
Cool, a topic for me and rednose alone ;D
Xan
To make a statement you must speak at least one sentence dutch ;D
Schild en vriend !!!
Never had any FP’s with either NOD32 or Avira. But I like Avira over NOD32. Avira always is a top score in any av test.
One more important factor is cleaning or cure. It’s doesn’t matter if an antivirus can detect a threat if it cannot fight it off and delete all traces (at best)
WTF happened :o I am critical about NOD32 and … split off >:( We are not on Wilders here 88)
Greetz, Red.
Well, because I am the OP in this topic I have changed the title 88) And now Ganda is off topic so you have to split him off 
Greetz, Red.
soya >:(
http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/4/4/28/f_chasem_50f9d7c.gif
OK, lets talk about NOD32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…
i know nothing about it (:TNG)
ehm, seriously, among the “cracked” version, Norton & symantec are far more popular than NOD32 here.
The Devil Is Watching You
Josh
IMO NOD32 is way overrated. It’s good, but not the best. NOT ! It’s good for gamers, cos it’s lite. But it’s detection is no better than CAVS 2 and NOD32 lacks independent lab testing.
For example take a look at Burillos testing: https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews_about_cavs/huge_samples_collection-t17746.30.html
Eset Smart Security is even worse. It uses 30 - 35 mb ram. So it’s not so light. The firewall in nonexistent (5% in Matousec tests and I can confirm it - I cracked it in less than 2 minutes).
Believe I used both of these products.
IMO NOD32 is way overratedI don't think so, NOD32 is good and has always been good http://www.eset.com/products/compare-NOD32-vs-competition.php (I still don't know how to give it another name :))
Eset Smart Security is even worseWho cares about smart security, it's the antivirus that matters with NOD32, the rest is just for the money :D.
ehm, seriously, among the "cracked" version, Norton & symantec are far more popular than NOD32 here.Seriously, you .... aree .... tottally ..... [b]WRONG[/b] !!!! NOD32 is together with Kaspersky the most cracked software. You want to know why, cause (by the way, symantec and norton is the same ;D, symantec is the company, Norton the product) <-- they ■■■■■■■ it up with the resources so no cracker want to ■■■■■ it :P.
[shadow=red,left]WARNING : I do not promote or say cracking is good. Cracking is illegal and could be the first breach in your defence !!![/shadow]
Xan
VB100 % is ■■■■ testing. Everyone’s passing it (almost). I mean give me a few results from independent testers and then we can talk.
For example I tested it. Ofcourse you can say I’m not independent now, but I am, cos i don’t care who wins. Even Norton can be a winner I don’t give a ■■■■. NOD32 scored a little bit better than in Burillos tests. I had over 10000 malware samples - both new and old and NOD32 got 73 %. Kaspersky got 97,5, BitDefender 98,2 Norton got 88.2 %
it’s symantec AntiVirus >:(
we have something called google 88)
look here:
http://www.stanford.edu/services/ess/pc/sav.html
i think we better post more about NOD32 before someone kick us out 88)
vote for NOD32 :-TU :-TU
I mean give me a few results from independent testers and then we can talk.Firstly VB100% is independent, secondly test s*ck. You want to know why, because they don't have the samples of the next month.
For example I tested it.Funny, I did too. (:LGH) But also, the samples you have and I promis you, they're old. (with old saying, like 5 months old and not spreading). So they're irrelevant.
I had over 10000 malware samplesAlso here, 10000 is like the new malware coming out every day. Having these are already passed and will probably never come back (unless you changed their sources :))
I’m not as pro NOD32 as it seems, I’m just giving my thought about it. (I don’t use any antivir/antispy/antimalware)
Xan
If the antivirus can detect only new viruses then I don’t need that, cos it’s ■■■■. Who cares if the virus is spreading or not. If I catch something old lets say from eMule or torrent, and it will harm my PC, why do i need that kind of shi**y antivirus ?
I don’t like how NOD32 updates and how it plays russian rullete betting everything on heuristics. I don’t want flames, but NOD32 is overrated. People think that they found the GOD in antivirus. Light, detects everything, no false positives and stuff like that. Naive 
P.S. Oh BTW Norton gets VB100% too and often, so it’s good too. ■■■■ even K7 antivirus got VB100% And believe me that antivirus is a joke ;D
I don't like how NOD32 updates and how it plays russian rullete betting everything on heuristics.I think and I have proof that NOD32 has the only heuristic scanner that isnt playing roulette. Look to antivir, it had more than 16 FP in the last test.
If the antivirus can detect only new viruses then I don't need that, cos it's ■■■■.So you don't want to be protected against the new virusses and just want protection against the old one? I don't get that point, you even don't care that it is spreading or not? So tell me, how can a not spreading virus infect you? It can't couse it isn't spreading, so who cares about them, they're not a threat.
Light, detects everything, no false positives and stuff like that. NaiveTrusting on a AV is always naive. So that point is cleared out ;D (so we do agree about something). Light? It is. No FP? indeed. Detects everything. Of course ...
…
… (heum)
…
NOT ! this is an idiot statement. Why even say that. 88)
The heuristic will catch it, I promise :)If I catch something old let's say from eMule or torrent, and it will harm my PC, why do i need that kind of shi**y antivirus ?
Now if you will excuse me, I have schoolwork to do. (■■■■. forum, my points are dropping >:()
Xan
Good luck on school work.
But I think an antivirus should detect new and old viruses.
And heuristict doesn’t catch anything. When I tested NOD32 without heuristics it didn’t detect only 12 samples, whitch heuristics cought.
P.S. 16 FP’s ? It’s like 0.2 % probability. I’d better get an FP than a virus who quetly sneaked because of signatureless AV ;D
But I think an antivirus should detect new and old viruses.Of course it should, if it has the original one, he 'learn' all his variants (new ones)
And heuristict doesn't catch anything[b]AGAINST[/b]
12 samples, whitch heuristics cought.
and
16 FP's ? It's like 0.2 % probability. I'd better get an FP than a virus who quetly sneaked because of signatureless AV[b]VS[/b]
And heuristict doesn't catch anything.
So you were saying …
Xan
till so far my studywork >:(
