NAV 2005 this September

[HistoryFan]

For users of NAV 2003 who discovered that SP2's new Security Center
doesn't properly work with it, you might want to consider NAV 2005.
According to Amazon.com, is will be available on September 10. I don't
recommend NAV 2004....way too buggy.

 

[Chris Forecast]

For users of NAV 2003 who discovered that SP2's new Security Center
doesn't properly work with it

I was under the impression that Symantec would be releasing a fix for NAV
2003 to make it work properly. Is that not the case?

Chris

 

[Charlie]

Yes that is true.

--
Charlie

- " Keepin' the Blues Alive "
4 9 2 A c o u s t i c B l u e s
www.492acousticblues.com
www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=200514

 

[Mike]

For users of NAV 2003 who discovered that SP2's new Security Center
doesn't properly work with it, you might want to consider NAV 2005.
According to Amazon.com, is will be available on September 10. I don't
recommend NAV 2004....way too buggy.

In what way is NAV2004 buggy? It seems to have been working OK for 6 months
on my system but now you have me worried... could it be letting things in I
don't know about?

Works well with the MS Security centre, by the way.

 

[Andrew Rossetti]

In what way is NAV2004 buggy? It seems to have been working OK for 6
months on my system but now you have me worried... could it be letting
things in I don't know about?

Nothing "buggy" about NAV from my perspective. The only fault is that it
chews up quite a bit of horsepower just to run.

 

[Charlie]

Have you got any data or test results that show how much "horsepower" it
"chews up?".

--
Charlie

- " Keepin' the Blues Alive "
4 9 2 A c o u s t i c B l u e s
www.492acousticblues.com
www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=200514

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Have you got any data or test results that show how much "horsepower"
it "chews up?".

No benchmarks, but I'm running it on a PIII-550, with tons of RAM, and I'd
consider that bare minimum. On a newer machine, it's not as much of an
issue, but it certainly is much more of a difference from NAV 2003 than the
difference between 2002 and 2003 was.

 

[HistoryFan]

In what way is NAV2004 buggy? It seems to have been working OK for 6

months on my system but now you have me worried... could it be letting
things in I don't know about?

Works well with the MS Security centre, by the way.

I've read several reports about NAV 2004 causing system crashes,
slowing down PC performance, and causing multiple error messages. It does a
good job of keeping out viruses and trojans, although I don't think much of
it's anti-spyware/adware capability.

Of course, every anti-virus program generates its share of customer
complaints, but NAV 2004 seems to be at the top. I tried NAV 2004 myself
for a few weeks (upgraded from the 2003 version), and noticed the problems
listed above. NAV 2003 was more stable on my system. No doubt the 2004
version works fine on some computers, but overall I'd say it's a version to
avoid if you're using 2002-3. Besides, NAV 2005 is just around the corner,
hopefully with better anti-spyware/adware detection.

Right now I'm using eTrust EZ Antivirus from Computer Associates. It
doesn't have the pretty graphics and buttons that NAV does, but it's simple
to use, works quietly in the background, and hasn't caused any problems.

 

[Wattsville Blues]

No benchmarks, but I'm running it on a PIII-550, with tons of RAM, and I'd

consider that bare minimum. On a newer machine, it's not as much of an
issue, but it certainly is much more of a difference from NAV 2003 than
the difference between 2002 and 2003 was.

Anthlon 1500+, 256Mb RAM on my machine, and NAV 2004 slowed it down to a
crawl. Even after a clean install of XP when Norton 2004 was the first
thing I installed, it was slow. And when I got viruses or trojans, alot of
the time it couldn't get rid of them.

Change your product if you know what's good for ya.