is toptenreviews still faulty?

[metallicakid15]

seems like they finally have a actual reveiw hxxp://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/


i like the wholething of buying bitdefender and getting spysweeper free

[bigc73542]

This test still has inaccuracies in it and I don't believe I would really put much stock in the way they test.

[JerryM]

Don't know much about the methods, but as far as I'm concerned Bit Defender 9 is as good overall as any other. I have used it for a year, and am pleased with it. I am using the same license on my laptop at no additional cost.

The free Spysweeper makes it the best buy IMO.

While the test is probably not the best, I observe that if some do not find their favorite named the best, the test is faulty. I can't argue technically, but I do know my own experience, and BD is not only with the front runners it gets better all the time.

AV Comparatives rated BD as Advanced + on the on-demand test, and 2nd to NOD on the Restrospective test. The tester said that the Advanced + AVs were essentially equal. In that test BD came in 5th.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Different tests seem to get different results. Bit Defender is always near the top in all.

Jerry

[bigc73542]

I agree BD is a good av, but the info on some of the other av's was inacurate which throws the test out the window as far as I am concerned.

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> I agree BD is a good av, but the info on some of the other av's was inacurate which throws the test out the window as far as I am concerned. <-QUOTE}

Although I do not know much about testing such things, I do admit that some of the rankings seem flaky. I am of the opinion that when KAV and NOD do not rank at the top, but instead rank behind some others that are shown, something seems wrong with the tests. While I do like BD, and have no plans to change, I believe that KAV and NOD are the two best as far as detection is concerned.

Jerry

[hollywoodpc]

{QUOTE-> I agree BD is a good av, but the info on some of the other av's was inacurate which throws the test out the window as far as I am concerned. <-QUOTE}
Agreed !! Not so much them pushing BD . It is more about where the others seem to have placed .

[rdsu]

{QUOTE-> I agree BD is a good av, but the info on some of the other av's was inacurate which throws the test out the window as far as I am concerned. <-QUOTE}
Same opinion... ;)

[ronjor]

Listed on the Spyware Warrior (http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm) site.

[hlc]

May be this test contains not only the virus test,but also other tests like Easy to use,Online Virus Scanner,or some other additional tests.These additional tests could be influence the final result...:-\ :-\

[Detox]

The test is absolute garbage, and the site doesn't "finally" have a "review..." Spammers have been trying to link that site here in Wilders forever now. Go to the root directory of their homepage and you will see they have "reviews" trying to sell whoever paid them the most for all sorts of things. The site definitely belongs on the Rogue List; and that's just where it is.

[metallicakid15]

so is the offer of buying bd and getting spysweeper free faulty also?

[Detox]

Lol - well it looks like that Herman's Street place found out what the top10 folks were up to - clickt he link now from top10 and you get

{QUOTE-> This link is no longer valid.

The associate name "TopTenReviews,TopTenReviews" for this link was not found in the store's associates list. Please e-mail the merchant to let them know of the problem.

You may be able to find the store you are looking for in this listing of registered ShopSite stores. <-QUOTE}

Wonder why?

Anyway I wouldn't get too excited since the site selling BD says {QUOTE-> FREE Spy Sweeper Download <-QUOTE} which tends to mean it's just the download that's free - whoopee. Usually a free "download" like that means you get the thing and install it for free but it's a trial or else you're gonna have to pay if you want any updates.

[tobacco]

Of course, if the antivirus your using isn't listed with top ones, your gonna say its bogas.I agree NOD32 should be listed with those top three and using anyone of those including NOD32, will give you the best chance at staying virus free.Using anything else, including Norton, your detection and removal rates will suffer.I saw on another forum yesterday about some recent trojans that are showing up in emails and the only 2 AV's that caught it were Kaspersky and F-secure.

[Detox]

Actually, that would be illogical and the reason I am convinced the site is bogus has more to do with what Eric Howes has on his Spywarewarrior page...

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

{QUOTE-> false positives work as goad to purchase (1); site is affiliate for listed products [A: 10-21-04 / U: 10-21-04] <-QUOTE}

The false positives as a goad to purchase is talking about the "toptenreviews" branded rogue "antispyware."

[tobacco]

I've spent hours looking at different reviews and tests but mostly the tests because almost all reviews are biased.And the only reason i commented here is because those results reflect the results i've seen.I see Kaspersky usually with the best detection rates, followed closely by F-secure,NOD32 and BitDfender.Some times the order is changed alittle, but it's always these AV's at the top.I have failed to see a recent testing that Norton was on top.Thats because it has slipped in it's detection and removal rates.Go look for yourself.

[Nitrox]

Here is something very interesting, go to this page on Herman Street :

http://www.hermanstreet.com/store/software_security-privacy.html

On the left side is a topten review logo, when I clicked on it, the good Doctor Web notified me about a script exploit, something called IRC.Whacked which is a worm when I looked up what it could be.
Now it could be a false positive, I'm not sure, but after reading these posts here, I doubt it's false.:o

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I've spent hours looking at different reviews and tests but mostly the tests because almost all reviews are biased.And the only reason i commented here is because those results reflect the results i've seen.I see Kaspersky usually with the best detection rates, followed closely by F-secure,NOD32 and BitDfender.Some times the order is changed alittle, but it's always these AV's at the top.I have failed to see a recent testing that Norton was on top.Thats because it has slipped in it's detection and removal rates.Go look for yourself. <-QUOTE}Of course, you could take a look at a test such as av-comparatives.org (http://www.av-comparatives.org/), one that has a clearly defined test protocol and has a shot of objectively quantifying performance, and come to a different conclusion. Yes, KAV/etc. are there at the top with Symantec/Norton and McAfee right in the middle of that mix, usually in 2nd-4th spot. KAV is generally 1st on any demand test I've seen. Symantec/Norton has lagged somewhat on retrospective assessments, but those are a statistically much noisier test protocol.

So overall, no, Symantec/Norton has not slipped in detection relative to peers or past history.

Blue

[tobacco]

Years ago, norton was the best but it clearly isn't now.So with all the problems with this product including inferior detection rates compared to some of the other AV's, why do people still use it?.That's what i would like to know!.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Years ago, norton was the best but it clearly isn't now.So with all the problems with this product including inferior detection rates compared to some of the other AV's, why do people still use it?.That's what i would like to know!. <-QUOTE}From what I can see BlueZannetti answered this question.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Years ago, norton was the best but it clearly isn't now.So with all the problems with this product including inferior detection rates compared to some of the other AV's, why do people still use it?.That's what i would like to know!. <-QUOTE}tobacco:

Detection rates are in the top tier, not inferior as you suggest
My personal opinion is that Live Update still needs some work
I'd prefer more frequent automated updates, but frankly, you don't need to update your AV every 12 minutes (I prefer daily....)
2004 seemed to be the trough with respect to performance. I've not tried it since, but most reports that I trust have it as quite suitable in the current 2006 release
People use it for a variety of reasons including: Availability in retail outlets
Prepackaged with their PC purchase
Covered by a joint home/work license (Corporate)
It is simple to use and works well without significant customized configuration
If you have other preferences, fine. But don't feel compelled to belittle the choice of others when, to put it bluntly, your underlying facts are wrong.

Cheers,

Blue

[tobacco]

I will say my peace and then let this norton thing die.And i am a former norton user.What i hoped to accomplish here is to wake up some of the users who have been sitting on norton out of habit.This product has way more problems than it should and there are at least 3 or 4 better choices out there that will give you more protection with fewer hassles.I don't see anyone pushing the K-car anymore and that's because it was a lemon too!.

[NAMOR]

Where's Randy_Bell at? ;D

[bigc73542]

Randy Bell and myself know that Norton 2005/2006 is an excellent product and don't need to enter in a Norton bashing contest with people that obviously have not used Norton for at least several versions and are baseing their rant on outdated info.

[JRCATES]

{QUOTE-> tobacco:

Detection rates are in the top tier, not inferior as you suggest
My personal opinion is that Live Update still needs some work
I'd prefer more frequent automated updates, but frankly, you don't need to update your AV every 12 minutes (I prefer daily....)
2004 seemed to be the trough with respect to performance. I've not tried it since, but most reports that I trust have it as quite suitable in the current 2006 release
People use it for a variety of reasons including: Availability in retail outlets
Prepackaged with their PC purchase
Covered by a joint home/work license (Corporate)
It is simple to use and works well without significant customized configuration
If you have other preferences, fine. But don't feel compelled to belittle the choice of others when, to put it bluntly, your underlying facts are wrong.

Cheers,

Blue <-QUOTE}

Well said, Blue. I think that sometimes people get too caught up EMOTIONALLY to speak factually and/or intelligently on a subject. To suggest that Norton has "inferior" detection rates shows more than an obvious bias, it shows utter disgust and contempt! And I'm not even a Norton user!

[tobacco]

Look

I think what irks me is why people get so defensive about what there using.Now, i don't use this product personally at the moment, but going by what i'm seeing on the web, there is alot of users experiancing problems.Now if you use it, why not accept it the way it is instead of getting defensive about it.I've used F-secure for 2 years now without infection and i know its not the easiet on resourses.I don't notice it on my machine but i've read some users do.So that's the way it is.Accept it.If someone showed me its detection rates were slipping and starting to let nasties through, then i'm gonna switch real fast.I'm not going to deny it and defend it till i'm blue in the face.

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> Look

I think what irks me is why people get so defensive about what there using.Now, i don't use this product personally at the moment, but going by what i'm seeing on the web, there is alot of users experiancing problems.Now if you use it, why not accept it the way it is instead of getting defensive about it.I've used F-secure for 2 years now without infection and i know its not the easiet on resourses.I don't notice it on my machine but i've read some users do.So that's the way it is.Accept it.If someone showed me its detection rates were slipping and starting to let nasties through, then i'm gonna switch real fast.I'm not going to deny it and defend it till i'm blue in the face. <-QUOTE}


In the first place you haven't shown anyone anything about detection rates except your obvious dislike of the product and your own personal opinion. If the detection rates of norton are as bad as you say get the links to some reputable testing sites and prove what you are ranting about. Personally I am tired of listening to your unsubstantiated claims.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I think what irks me is why people get so defensive about what there using.Now, i don't use this product personally at the moment, but going by what i'm seeing on the web, there is alot of users experiancing problems.Now if you use it, why not accept it the way it is instead of getting defensive about it.I've used F-secure for 2 years now without infection and i know its not the easiet on resourses.I don't notice it on my machine but i've read some users do.So that's the way it is.Accept it.If someone showed me its detection rates were slipping and starting to let nasties through, then i'm gonna switch real fast.I'm not going to deny it and defend it till i'm blue in the face. <-QUOTE}tobacco,

I'm not defensive about it since I'm not a user on my home machines as well. NOD32 and KAV on various home PC's are my preference. Symantec is my employer's preference, so I use it there and it is fine in all respects.

Test results abound on the web, and most aren't worth the electrons they consumed in their generation. Some tests are preformed using well articulated and described test procedures and screening of the underlying testbed, those are the one's I pay attention to. They tend to fall in line with my usage experience as well.

I realize Symantec has issues, many products do. LiveUpdate can be a problem. In my informal assessment, again born of personal experiences, it is that deficiencies here are the likely cause of many user problems since most users are blithely unaware when LiveUpdate heads south on them, leaving them with outdated signature files. Lest there be users out there who infer from this that Symantec is alone in this regard, my wife and son have been equally unaware when their copies of KAV WS 5.0 spontaneously stopped updating as well. I caught this 3-4 weeks into the problem - more than once I might add - it's a well reported, but apparently low frequency, issue. I happen to have a couple machines afflicted with whatever is the cause.

Say what you will regarding Symantec, but detection rates are not an issue. I've pointed to a specific, reliable test that supports my view. Do you have an objective source for yours?

Cheers,

Blue

[tobacco]

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72


This tested everything including spyware scanners.And i didn't say norton's detection rates are bad.I said inferior which means not as good.And if you show me a few recent tests that show norton with the best detection rates, then i will say to you all that norton does deserve all the hype it gets.Fair!.

[bigc73542]

I don't know to many people that have much faith in the site you linked but here are some most knowledgable people here do respect Here (http://www.av-comparatives.org/) and Here (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml) and Here (http://www.westcoastlabs.org/)

[tobacco]

Of course they wouldn't.They're an independant lab so they can put forth an unbiased test.Why do you think they included most of the products including spyware scanners?.All i'm asking is to be shown tests that show norton finishing with the best detection rates.The one you just included, norton didn't fair to well.

[bigc73542]

Tobacco, I don't understand why you can't see the results on these sites. On av-comparatives on demand test.

Kaspersky av 99.65%
Norton AV 98.31%
mcafee AV 98.04%
Nod32 av 95.50%

[NAMOR]

{QUOTE-> Of course they wouldn't.They're an independant lab so they can put forth an unbiased test.Why do you think they included most of the products including spyware scanners?.All i'm asking is to be shown tests that show norton finishing with the best detection rates.The one you just included, norton didn't fair to well. <-QUOTE}


Are you looking at the On-demand comparative tests or the Retrospective/ProActive Tests?

[tobacco]

Bigc

I'm going to end the debate.You have your opinion, i have mine and we each have others backing up our points of view.But the biggest reason i'm stopping is i just realised you include a link to a Symantec web site selling what else Norton Antivirus.How convenient!.

[bigc73542]

If you are speaking of the link in my signature, yes it is convenient. it is not there to promote the use of Norton products but it is probably the best AV information site available. There is a lot of virus and malware info there that can be very useful to the average user and professional alike. That is why the link is there.

[aigle]

I amsure top 10 review is fraud and deceiving, nothing else. They are very clever to advertise useless utilities and hide it by advertising some good ones at the sametime, so any beginner thinks all their reviews are correct.

Modern business and advertisement has a lot of fraud element. I believe in consumers opinions provided they are capable enough to comment.

[webmonkey010]

I know personally the people that run that site. They only put high paying products in their top rankings. I heard their CEO say to a company I was working for that if they didn't pay them more commissions, they were going to be dropped from the rankings.

Plus they run their own e-commerce store to sell the products they are supposed to be "reviewing". Don't trust them. Tell everyone you know not to trust them. They have made a lot of money creating review sites they are supposed to help consumers, but all it does is make them rich. Would you trust a site like that?

[aigle]

IT,s simply radiculous.

[the Tester]

Regarding Norton and what it detects.

I did see that 98% score.
I think that they have improved lately.
Correct me if I'm wrong here,but didn't Symantec recently hire a highly-regarded researcher? Peter something?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Regarding Norton and what it detects.

I did see that 98% score.
I think that they have improved lately.
Correct me if I'm wrong here,but didn't Symantec recently hire a highly-regarded researcher? Peter something? <-QUOTE}
Peter Ferrie, well known for excellence in dealing with polymorphics. :)

[the Tester]

{QUOTE-> Peter Ferrie, well known for excellence in dealing with polymorphics. <-QUOTE}

That's the name.
Thanks Firecat.

[metallicakid15]

why do you guys resurrect old threads :)

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> why do you guys resurrect old threads :) <-QUOTE}
Because some of these threads are UNFORGETTABLE! ;D

@webmonkey010: Good post, thanks for the information. Out of curiosity, I just wanted to know which company were you working for at that time? :)

[quding]

{QUOTE-> Because some of these threads are UNFORGETTABLE! ;D

@webmonkey010: Good post, thanks for the information. Out of curiosity, I just wanted to know which company were you working for at that time? :) <-QUOTE}
Firecat may get something to do with firefox,haha

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Firecat may get something to do with firefox,haha <-QUOTE}
Why do you say that? :)

[quding]

{QUOTE-> Why do you say that? :) <-QUOTE}
cat is similar to fox,so firecat is similar to firefox,haha
only a joke
by the way,do you work for NOD32?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> cat is similar to fox,so firecat is similar to firefox,haha
only a joke
by the way,do you work for NOD32? <-QUOTE}
I get the joke now ;D

And no, I do not work for NOD32. The link is just a tribute for the reseller who sold me a student license for NOD32 when my regional distributor refused and charged exorbitant prices even beyond the prices listed on Eset's site. :)