Talk:ESET NOD32/Archives/2015/January

Resource Requirements

I believe someone more knowledgeable than I am of Wikiediting should make the article more in line with other Wiki articles on antivirus products by adding a 'resource requirements' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.54.53 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested that this be page be moved to a new place "ESET Software". Please feel free to discuss. Amhoyle (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Weakly Agree ... IF:

1. I think there would have to be a redirect of nod32 to the ESET Software.
2. reason: for lack of time and to conserve space, see windows. Meaning, I personally prefer to find things under the title they are known for.
3. Better yet, A page about the actual company ESET Software that described the company ESET Software, who they are, the history of the company, and how they came into being, their management structure, etc.

Personally, I like NOD32, and think it it one of the very few AV programs worth paying for; but, that's POV and OR, so my argument would have to be that the boxed software's large print has NOD32 as the selling item. I understand that ESET Software is the company that makes it, but many laymen users would be confused by that. IMHO. Ched (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a page already for ESET, which is the company which makes the software. ESET software small case "s" may be less confusing - I was meaning the "software made by ESET" not ESET Software a company. I agree a redirect is definitely in order if the page is moved. According to ESET's website, NOD32 is ESET NOD32 Antivirus not, NOD32, so really, IMO, I think it should be have ESET somewhere in the title. I still think that due to the fact that all of the software by ESET are so interconnected they should be on one page. Amhoyle (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well explained, so I'd change my thoughts to Agree. So long as we can find "NOD32" .. LOL ;) Ched (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok as it is now showing as a backlog on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page as everyone who has discussed is in agreement, I propose that I make the change.Amhoyle (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

I have attempted to restructure and tidy this article to better represent ESET NOD32 Antivirus and ESET Smart Security.

Amhoyle (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

big improvement ... thx. Ched (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ESET NOD32 Antivirus and ESET Smart Security

ESET NOD32 Antivirus and ESET Smart Security are esentially the same product, and are based on exactly the same antivirus engine, Smart Security having firewall as well. Given their similarity, I think the NOD32 article should be about all ESET software, since they are so heavily interconnected - separate articles would inefficient. The article name would probably be better to be something like "ESET Software" as NOD32 is no longer the full name of any of the products from ESET. They also share the same definitions and version information.

Amhoyle (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Matousec Firewall Challenge

I have added that ESET Smart Security 3.0.672.0 scored a 4% in the Firewall Challenge compared to Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 8.0.0.454 87%.

Yes, I know this is going to be removed and it will tick a lot of people off, however people have a right to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.218.91 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong here, Smart Security is a suite that contains a firewall and NOD32 as seperate pieces of software. This article is about NOD32 only and has nothing to do with that rating. It would be like putting a criticism of MS word on the MS Excel page. Danno81 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

:Note that "ESET Smart Security" redirects to this article. Anyone bother making a new article? TechOutsider (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

Article needs to be redone

Seems like someone just thrown it together. Capitalization errors everywhere. Unclear sequence. I anit going to edit it; NOD32 sucks =) TechOutsider (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

Could we please refrain from slamming the various AV companies, and maybe focus on the the real bad guys? Every AV program has its good points and its bad points to be sure. It's really the guys who write the viruses who need to be called on the carpet. I personally have added what positive input I could over at Norton, even if it's not my favorite. I think we should concentrate on providing quality informative articles about each of the AV programs, so that people who come to Wikipedia to research the pros and cons of each, can come away with a well-rounded informed opinion of each AV program. As of the end of 2008, beginning of 2009 NOD32 has rated very highly at many of the independent testing groups. I ask that we simply point out what each program does well, and where each program has shortcomings. Properly informed computer users equal a safer computer environment. Ched (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Wording

What exactly is meant by "low results" in regards to security tests and spyware tests? Does it mean good results or bad results? Explain what you are trying to say more clearly when writing a Wikipedia article, not everybbody thinks the way you do, so not everybody will know what "low results" refers to,, word your entriesa more clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.59.208 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article doesn't seem to be neutral - it looks to be slanted in favor of the subject. Can someone check this? --65.147.25.81 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The facts/opinions seem pretty much correct/uncontroversial, but the language could be toned down. I've added {{advert}} --Piet Delport 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NOD32 Comment

As bias as this sounds it's pretty much on the money.

I work for a competitive AV company and am quite aware if NOD32 and it's capabilities.

It is a very good engine that performs remarkably well in the VB awards. Hasn’t missed one to date. As a desktop AV solution it is good value for money. Negative a lack of centralised multi-platform update - NOD32 Remote Administrator tool can only manage and update Windows computers. Also no gateway solution. Still a good, relatively inexpensive desktop AV.

I also work with a competitive AV company and all the claims in this article are true. The only negative thing I can think of for NOD32 is it's not the most user friendly interface. Other than that, it's great.

--personnaly i find the user interface fine, better than that of some other things like NAV it has very good "threat sense" - hereustic scanning

it runs very fast on windows and has a low system foot print personnally i think this review is quite neutral though it could do with a "positives" & "negatives" from an unbiased source 84.92.246.41 09:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have had good experiences with it too, but that's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform, and the discussion page is not a product review page. Testimonials to the effectiveness of NOD32 don't belong here, or in the article. --70.131.118.218 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft? and speed?

i've seen in print ads that it's lightning fast .. also, while NAV2004 was out, i could cap DV with NOD32 running while my dad, running NAV couldn't. also, i hear that Microsoft scans their releases with NOD32 before RTM releases... (we'll just ignore that Korean XP virus SNAFU...) -- Plonk420 01:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cap DV? 68.39.174.238 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably "capture digital video". Power piglet 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this, nod32 is lightning fast. This is not only because its largely written in assembley, but because its design is so light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.81.163 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's (Eset, as part of a Internet Security package) about somewhat better than average, according to: www.passmark.com/avreport.Mpvdm (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Norton is light. TechOutsider (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

Correct or not, it's an ad

I don't consider it to be an ad. This article seems to me giving a true facts, not marketing talk. Maybe there should be mentioned some cons, but I'm not aware of any (as a homeuser).

It seems legit now, and it DEFINATELY "belongs here", it's a well known commercial software that's run print ads in major publications and has been recognized and certified by numerous respected trade organizations. 68.39.174.238 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it's really NOT well-known commercial software. I learned about it through word-of-mouth, and I know more coders who have never heard of it than coders who have. I've never seen a print ad in any publication at all, let alone a major one. Would you like to name this "major publication" of yours, instead of assuring us it exists? A page number would be nice, too. --70.131.118.218 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people I know in the IT industry have heard of this independently, just because you yourself have not heard of it means nothing. You do not singularly define what should and should not be on Wikipedia, if you knew about absolutely everything you wouldn’t even need to come here. Maybe it says something about coders rather than NOD32!? The “If I don’t know about it, it can’t be true” mentality doesn’t really help a site that's about encyclopaedic accuracy and learning. Leave that for uninformed drunken chats at a bar on a Friday night ;) Danno81 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To determine where it is a "well known" or not, you have only to Google for its name and count the results. I did just now, and "nod32" returns 21,700,000 results. Sounds well known to me. Dream Focus (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'll have a go at cleaning this article up so that it better complies with NPOV, let me know what you think when it's done. pbeesley1989 15:42, 21 July 2006 (GMT)

• As of today, even though I don't think it's quite up to WP's NPOV standards, I think it does a good job of informing what this software is, and it does cite references. I think the article would benefit from a CRITICISM section, but it should definitely be kept in the Wikipedia. SaulPerdomo 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • a CRITICISM section would be a valuable addition were there something to put in it and perhaps NOD32 is quite unique in this regard. So far the only thing close to factually founded criticism I've come across for the product itself (which is of course what the article covers) is that some find the UI a little complicated when trying to configure NOD32. Typically this comment has come from novice and less experienced PC users however is well balanced by comments and feedback by those more expereinced and technically minded that prefer the degree of configurability that the current interface provides for, so IMHO this is simply a matter of personal preference and I would feel uncomfortable adding even this to a CRITICISM section. Cheers NOD32user 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Eset Smart Security section should be moved to it's own page, since it's a separate product. This page could be confusing with both of them being merged like they are currently. The reception and criticism sections for example are likely to be quite different for each product.Code Ninja (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Technical concerns aside, this article could do with some consolidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.56.10 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

Well, I thought I would add a Criticisms section as the other AV products mostly have them. Had a look around the web to see what I could find. Couldn't find anything of substance. Only a few 'nitpicks' from individual unremarkable bloggers. Everybody seems to love it. It doesn't always come out absolutely top in all tests or reviews, but it's pretty d*mn close. Certainly slam-dunks everything else. The only real grouse was the old clunky interface, but that's long gone. I kind of feel we should have a Criticisms section to match the other AV pages, but if I put 'none' or a few nitpicks it'll look stupid. Can anyone find an authoratative referenced criticisms? If not, maybe it doesn't need a criticism section. But give 'em time. They'll slip up eventually :) 212.71.37.110 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are actually discouraged. If there is any valid criticism, it should be included in relevant sections.--Svetovid 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is an encyclopedia. We should not report "criticisms" here. However we should report properly established and notable facts about a product, good or bad - such as Norton being memory-hungry. Sensiblekid (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you omit criticism, the article is POV. Plain and simple. If the article lists good points, it must also necessarily list bad points. The way to avoid the situation is to list neither, so that you don't end up advertising the product, like this article currently does. --70.131.118.218 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality does not require inventing criticisms. Find some verifiable and notable problems and incorporate them into the article. Creating a new criticism section just to give a veneer of neutrality is less than useless. 68.2.244.69 (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

The whole article could do with a rewrite, and perhaps renaming!

All that EMON AMON stuff relates to an obsolete version (2.7). Also, NOD32 is now just a component in ESS (althoug it's still available separately). Sensiblekid (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take out the EMON AMON stuff, I don't see any reason to keep it, as it's not a part of the current 3.0 version. I'll also add a screenshot of 3.0 Hkpolitik (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to remove history from an encyclopedia. -69.87.199.190 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

History is kept, if you click on the "History" tab .... but don't we know that already? --D235j (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-protection module?

Looking through the history of the article I noticed something edited out last month.

• Eset Smart Security and NOD32 antivirus lack a Self-Protection module, making them vulnerable to viruses and illegal patches.

It was deleted because it was in the wrong section, but seems to be a very important bit of information, if there are references to confirm its true. It seems like an odd weakness to have, from a company that thought of everything else. Can someone offer proof of this claim, and then re-add that part in? Dream Focus (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The new version 4 release adds a self-proteciton module, according to the changelog. Aryeh Goretsky (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Versions 2 and 3 also had sophisticated self-protection. Self-protection has been around for AV products for the last ten years and it's completely ludicrous to suggest NOD32 lacks it. I guess it's due to letting anybody edit WP - including fanboys and employees of other manufacturers :) 89.5.238.87 (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Selling in US trade-embargoed countries

Since ESET is not an American company, it is the only major antivirus company that can legally sell its products in US trade-embargoed countries like Iran

Is this claim right? What about companies like Fsecure and Norman? Øs (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, there's nothing in the cited link to back the statement (demonstrating that it's sold in iran hardly demonstrates that others aren't...), and there clearly are other major non-US antivirus companies. Provider uk (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Diablosblizz

Judging by his edits and unsubstantiated criticisms of various products, this guy is either grossly misinformed or works for a competing manufacturer. 89.5.238.87 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Roadmap

I apologize for being a biased about ESET software on the talk page. I will work on this article until GA-class. If anyone else wishes to help, please sign a note below this post. Firstly, a roadmap. The images in the infobox must be resized; currently they are unnecessarily high resolution. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

v2.70 vs v4.0

It's not Wiki-able of course, but when I went to upgrade (having a borderline spec old PC), ESET Tech Support said to stick with 2.70 because it has "exactly the same detection rate as v4.0", and "largely uses the same engine with a new GUI". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.34.41.155 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)