Talk:NOD32
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Correct or not, it's an ad
Nuke it. It doesn't belong here. -- Unregistered Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.195.125 (talk • contribs).
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)
[edit] 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)
