<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comparing NOD32 Version 2.7 to Version 3.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/</link>
	<description>Custom Software and I.T. Services</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:05:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: InterSys</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>InterSys</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-54</guid>
		<description>We&#039;re eSET Partners and fin NOD32 v2.7 to be an excellent, tight, fast piece of code. wonderful software.. v3 is OK, but not as tight or fast.. so we often find ourselves downgrading to overcome problems. In all, hightly recommended though.. whether for servers, mailservers or desktops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re eSET Partners and fin NOD32 v2.7 to be an excellent, tight, fast piece of code. wonderful software.. v3 is OK, but not as tight or fast.. so we often find ourselves downgrading to overcome problems. In all, hightly recommended though.. whether for servers, mailservers or desktops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laptop cases</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>laptop cases</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-53</guid>
		<description>The first is overhead. On a desktop, a Trend install is 197MB on disk; NOD32 takes 28MB. The Trend memory footprint on my SBS server (with the Messaging component) was about 330MB--large enough to cause daily alerts about allocated memory. The NOD32 memory footprint (without the Exchange component) is about 43MB, and the alerts have stopped. thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first is overhead. On a desktop, a Trend install is 197MB on disk; NOD32 takes 28MB. The Trend memory footprint on my SBS server (with the Messaging component) was about 330MB&#8211;large enough to cause daily alerts about allocated memory. The NOD32 memory footprint (without the Exchange component) is about 43MB, and the alerts have stopped. thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Berry</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Berry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-52</guid>
		<description>I decided to do some more testing of Trend Client-Server compared to NOD32. See http://blogs.mcbsys.com/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-27-to-Trend-Client-Server-36.aspx .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I decided to do some more testing of Trend Client-Server compared to NOD32. See <a href="http://blogs.mcbsys.com/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-27-to-Trend-Client-Server-36.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.mcbsys.com/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-27-to-Trend-Client-Server-36.aspx</a> .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Berry</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Berry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-51</guid>
		<description>I changed from Symantec Coporate AntiVirus to Trend CSM 3.5 in February 2007, upgrading to 3.6 in May 2007.  Like NOD32, Trend had lots of configuration headaches.  But in response to the question about what sets NOD32 apart from Trend CSM, two points come to mind.  

The first is overhead.  On a desktop, a Trend install is 197MB on disk; NOD32 takes 28MB.  The Trend memory footprint on my SBS server (with the Messaging component) was about 330MB--large enough to cause daily alerts about allocated memory.  The NOD32 memory footprint (without the Exchange component) is about 43MB, and the alerts have stopped.

The second point was the case two weeks after installating Trend CSM where it identified several email attachments as &quot;possible&quot; worms, then passed them directly to the client desktop.  Each one, when submitted to Trend&#039;s automated online analysis, came back immediately as a confirmed threat.  Yet the &quot;recommended action&quot; in Trend&#039;s ActiveAction was to pass on these threats to the desktop and leave it up to the user to decide whether they wanted to execute the worm.  The failure here in my book was not so much that the worm was new to Trend, but that the default was to pass the suspicious file to the end user.  Not exactly a Worry-Free (TM) approach from a system administrator&#039;s perspective!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I changed from Symantec Coporate AntiVirus to Trend CSM 3.5 in February 2007, upgrading to 3.6 in May 2007.  Like NOD32, Trend had lots of configuration headaches.  But in response to the question about what sets NOD32 apart from Trend CSM, two points come to mind.  </p>
<p>The first is overhead.  On a desktop, a Trend install is 197MB on disk; NOD32 takes 28MB.  The Trend memory footprint on my SBS server (with the Messaging component) was about 330MB&#8211;large enough to cause daily alerts about allocated memory.  The NOD32 memory footprint (without the Exchange component) is about 43MB, and the alerts have stopped.</p>
<p>The second point was the case two weeks after installating Trend CSM where it identified several email attachments as &#8220;possible&#8221; worms, then passed them directly to the client desktop.  Each one, when submitted to Trend&#8217;s automated online analysis, came back immediately as a confirmed threat.  Yet the &#8220;recommended action&#8221; in Trend&#8217;s ActiveAction was to pass on these threats to the desktop and leave it up to the user to decide whether they wanted to execute the worm.  The failure here in my book was not so much that the worm was new to Trend, but that the default was to pass the suspicious file to the end user.  Not exactly a Worry-Free (TM) approach from a system administrator&#8217;s perspective!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale Unroe</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale Unroe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-50</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m yet even more convinced to avoid ESET.  US customer pre-sale support was not acceptable.  What is of true value with this product to set it apart or even on par with Trend&#039;s CSM for SMB?  This is especially true now with Trend&#039;s new Smart Host mail scanning checking mail before it ever reaches the gateway.  I realize people want alternatives and this sounded good but the reality is inadequate and seems cludgy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m yet even more convinced to avoid ESET.  US customer pre-sale support was not acceptable.  What is of true value with this product to set it apart or even on par with Trend&#8217;s CSM for SMB?  This is especially true now with Trend&#8217;s new Smart Host mail scanning checking mail before it ever reaches the gateway.  I realize people want alternatives and this sounded good but the reality is inadequate and seems cludgy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Woodall</title>
		<link>http://www.mcbsys.com/techblog/2008/03/comparing-nod32-version-2-7-to-version-3-0/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Woodall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/mark/post/Comparing-NOD32-Version-27-to-Version-30.aspx#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Nod32 is a great product according to the current rankings. Its # 3 I believe. When I used it years ago it didnt like my TurboTax files at all. I just bypassed em in the scans.
Ive sold a few on my site and only one person didnt like it out of a half dozen or so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nod32 is a great product according to the current rankings. Its # 3 I believe. When I used it years ago it didnt like my TurboTax files at all. I just bypassed em in the scans.<br />
Ive sold a few on my site and only one person didnt like it out of a half dozen or so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

