Talk:ESET NOD32

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.^{[citation needed]}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]