Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



shahed26

eset smart security or symantec endpoint protection v11

Recommended Posts

hi

please help me here, am trying to choose a security software for my xp. but am stuck here, because both of these products eset smart security and symantec endpoint protection v11 are very good.

all i want to know is which one of these will give me the best protection, and also consume few system resources

thank you.

Edited by shahed26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Symantec in my humble opinion, but I would advice you to install each on a test system and compare the foot print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally prefer Avast for antivirus, Comodo for firewall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think eset smart security is better than symantec

With eset smart security , it’s not necessary to sacrifice speed for detection. Scanning and update processes happen behind the scene without a perceptible decrease in performance.eset smart security Antivirus includes one of the fastest scanners in the industry,

Compare antivirus software and you'll discover that eset smart security is by far one of the smallest applications in the industry, especially for providing protection against a wide range of threats. For example, the v2.7 of ESET NOD32 Antivirus installer is just 11 MB. The program utilizes approximately 15 to 22 MB of RAM.

Forrest

Brothersoft Support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm..... i wonder how many of these answers are based on tests that they ran on each of the applications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm..... i wonder how many of these answers are based on tests that they ran on each of the applications

One: mine :whistle:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESET with no questions asked.symantec has shown over time that their products doesnt even worth looking at... its hasnt been only my experience!

Edited by Woomera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ESET with no questions asked.symantec has shown over time that their products doesnt even worth looking at... its hasnt been only my experience!

Have you used both in a multi-country based company, consisting of 55.000 users in one of these countries alone? :whistle:;) The solutions which Symantec offers for corporate environments beats ESET every day in regards to configurability, management, scalability, et cetera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the heck!!? why is this even an argument? in the past, symantec has been more of a virus than anythign else. i thought this was common knowledge!

for one thing it uses HUGE system resources. that is an ABSOLUTE FACT.

to make it worse for symantec, ESET is INSANELY more effective. amongst the best in the industry. Its heuristics are unbeatable. eset either matches or beats symantec in every way when it comes to detection.

so you have eset, that uses virtually no system resources AND catches more. then of course there was the discovery that Norton 2005 actually ran as a rootkit, behind the scenes, the only antivirus to do so, so you didnt actually know what the hell it was doing (and why it uses so much resources). it was practically a virus. even after uninstalling, you needed special tools to completely remove it.

i dont know. im not an expert. im really not. if youre concerned about virus detection: ESET. footprint: Eset. the rest of it...whatever.

most of the problems ive had with peoples PC's in the past has been because of symantec. either because it completely failed to stop anything, or (even more often) it was the virus itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×