pc magazine gives Avira Security Suite 9 a Thumbs Down Review

[Securon]

Greetings! It appears P.C. Mag didn't think much of Avira Security Suite 9! Anybody read the review,and if so what are your impressions of the review. Sincerely...Securon

[Page42]

Here's the link (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2344681,00.asp) for anyone interested. I haven't read it yet, but I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine. :)

[Macstorm]

hmm what did you expect? -{ Quote: "CONS
Malware protection is intrusive, complex." }-haha.. have you ever read something so funny ::)

Well I'm not shocked a bit. Indeed, I think the same of that magazine as I do of its editor :thumbd: :thumbd: :thumbd:

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Here's the link (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2344681,00.asp) for anyone interested. I haven't read it yet, but I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine. :)" }-
.
Unfortunately you may be right, but I've always found Neil's reviews thorough and evenhanded. On rare occasions I don't completely agree with his conclusions, but I always appreciate his in-depth testing. Sometimes I think people claim "bias" when they can't find any substantial basis to refute his findings. By the way, I have not carefully read this review of Avira Security Suite 9 and can't comment (yet).

OK, I've read the review and I can't find fault with his methodology. There is also the fact that he communicated directly with Avira when he had questions and noted problems. It's hard to understand how some are already simply dismissing the review. I'd like to see the objectors comment in detail about what they feel is inaccurate.

[BrendanK.]

I think he writes in the magazine for an everyday "couldn't care less" user, who just wants protection without pop ups. And I mean those pop ups can be easily configured to work things out automatically :|

But the bug is a serious issue. :o

[Eliot]

-{ Quote: "hmm what did you expect? haha.. have you ever read something so funny ::)

Well I'm not shocked a bit. Indeed, I think the same of that magazine as I do of its editor :thumbd: :thumbd: :thumbd:" }-
+1 :thumb:

[Eice]

-{ Quote: ".
Unfortunately you may be right, but I've always found Neil's reviews thorough and evenhanded." }-
Seconded.

In cases where I have used the product in question before, I often find that the comments in his reviews are in line with my personal experiences - although I don't always agree with the final score he dishes out, which are mostly from the "average user"'s point of view.

[Saraceno]

I don't agree with his review, or score, and I think Avira is a top product.

But his review is well written, and he's talking if you were a total 'novice' user, how your experiences might be. These ratings won't apply if you're a reader here, as your 'technical' ability is much higher.

Also keep in mind, other products, such as McAfee got two and a half stars, and a-squared received two stars. So he is critical and believes in a high 'everyday user' standard.

[tipstir]

Advert plug-in this month for Avira Software, next time another software company bid for being ontop of the Advert chart.. We're all here better judge to believe what the mag reports anymore.. I tested everything out there and what I use is listed under my sig...

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Advert plug-in this month for Avira Software, next time another software company bid for being ontop of the Advert chart.. We're all here better judge to believe what the mag reports anymore.. " }-
.
I'm not understanding this. Can you explain what you mean?

[Arup]

Finally, Avira is crud, now we can all rest in peace and continue using our crud.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Here's the link (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2344681,00.asp) for anyone interested. I haven't read it yet, but I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine. :)" }-I don't know about that Eset got a pretty good review and I haven't seen adds from them.???http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343639,00.asp

[Osaban]

Neil Rubenking is the guy who gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editor's award at the time as the best suite. Do I have to add anything? I have to give him credit that he is commenting on the "Avira's suite" which I think like all suites have too many things to offer and in the end, some aspects can be less successful than others.

He is conveniently avoiding Avira's best capability and first law of any antivirus application: if it is detected and denied access, you won't have to clean anything. He goes on forever about cleaning infected machines, spam, parental control, etc.

[Page42]

-{ Quote: "I don't know about that Eset got a pretty good review and I haven't seen adds from them." }-
I said I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine, but I didn't mean to imply that I felt that way myself. On the contrary, NR usually does a superb job with his reviews... and who really keeps track of who the advertisers are? Not me. ;)

[Arup]

Cons

Malware protection is intrusive, complex. Serious bug in on-demand malware scan. WebGuard failed to block phishing sites. Spam filter slows e-mail downloading to an unacceptable extent. Rudimentary backup and parental control.

Nothing further needed from Mr. Rubenking.

[Page42]

-{ Quote: "He is conveniently avoiding Avira's best capability and first law of any antivirus application: if it is detected and denied access, you won't have to clean anything." }-
I don't think he is avoiding it. He writes:
-{ Quote: "I rely on the large, independent labs to test antivirus products against their huge collection of static samples—that's something I just couldn't do myself. Unfortunately, West Coast Labs hasn't tested Avira for its checkmark certifications, and ICSA Labs has tested only the suite's Linux product. Windows versions of Avira's antivirus have received the VB 100% award from Virus Bulletin on seven of the last ten tests, though the most recent failure was just last year. By comparison, Windows-based antivirus technology from Symantec and ESET got the VB 100% award on all ten of the last ten tests.

AV-Comparatives in Austria runs separate antivirus tests for signature-based on-demand detection and for nonsignature heuristic detection. Avira rated Advanced (the second-highest rating) on both tests, but suffered many false positives. AV-Test, another European lab, gave Avira its best ratings: Very Good in all categories except two. And even in those two (low false positives and proactive detection), it scored Good. Of the antivirus products I generally review, the only others with no scores below Good were F-Secure Internet Security 2009 and Norton's antivirus technology. But detecting viruses is only half the story." }-

[fce]

please forgive PC Mag. author....it's FP :lurking:

[Legendkiller]

i fail to understand if pcmag's review are so worse than why are their review's being posted here?
only to criticize? its been happening for years now and i think the mod's should do something about it...
Pcmag is not my magazine so i don't care if they are being blasted review after review....
But my point is what is the fun? just ignore them...

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "i fail to understand if pcmag's review are so worse than why are their review's being posted here?
only to criticize? its been happening for years now and i think the mod's should do something about it...
Pcmag is not my magazine so i don't care if they are being blasted review after review....
But my point is what is the fun? just ignore them..." }-


Good point, but I am really happy to see Avira being declared poor, that way us poor Avira users can rest in peace using our poor bad AV.;D

[Legendkiller]

-{ Quote: "Good point, but I am really happy to see Avira being declared poor, that way us poor Avira users can rest in peace using our poor bad AV.;D" }-
ya rite.....he hehe
i am using it myself................poor us....

[Kees1958]

I have read the review, I think the reviewer has some points.

Back in Avira 8 the default option of the free version was Ignore, you could not change it (had to buy the paid version). My wife once downloaded a file with a virus, Avira 8 popped up, but left it untouched. Off course you can blame the user, fo rnot reading the presented info, but Avast default action is to delete for instance.

I have corresponded with Avira on it and theire reply was that when using Avira in its default mode (check at read and writes) Avira could also find a critical executable which was infected, using the default delete could make the system malfunction (e.g. hang on next re-boot).

When running unattended scans, they advised to use 'complete' reporting option, so you can hand pick them later with an attended/interactive scan afterwards.

Since I use Avira to check at write only, I switched back to Avast. Since V9 (with the powerfull heuristics), I am using V9 again. The free version does not have greyed out automatic options, so I thought it used the setting of the scan (not through when reading the review).

So for me the review has value (not agereing with all opinions and keeping the free version on the PC), but the reviewer has a point that most 'innoceny/ un savvy/unexperienced' users asume that their 'expert'AV is configured out of the box with the best settings.


Regards Kees

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "I don't think he is avoiding it. He writes:See quote at post # 16" }-
Virus Bulletin have failed Avira for ONE FP. The results show FAIL at the same level as AVs who missed more than 100 signatures. Same story with AV Comparatives who gave Eset Advanced +, and Avira Advanced, even though Avira detected 2.1% more than Eset (out of 1.3 Million samples= 25,931 detections). The difference in FPs between Avira (24) and Eset(13) was 11 FPs!

These aren't opinions, nuances, small laboratories differences, we are speaking the language of numbers, and the results speak for themselves.

[Boost]

-{ Quote: "Finally, Avira is crud, now we can all rest in peace and continue using our crud." }-


PC Magazine is the same joke that also said Firefox is dead :argh:



Just another joke to laugh at from PC Make-crap-up-zine.

[Bambo]

-{ Quote: "Virus Bulletin have failed Avira for ONE FP. The results show FAIL at the same level as AVs who missed more than 100 signatures. Same story with AV Comparatives who gave Eset Advanced +, and Avira Advanced, even though Avira detected 2.1% more than Eset (out of 1.3 Million samples= 25,931 detections). The difference in FPs between Avira (24) and Eset(13) was 11 FPs!

These aren't opinions, nuances, small laboratories differences, we are speaking the language of numbers, and the results speak for themselves." }-

Yep, and this is rarely explained in ads, on forum "recommendations". Even AV-Comparatives hardly makes much effort - not compared to how much it means for stars and glory. FPs should be punished and complained about but so should lower detection rate. If program handles FP badly it might be ok to take out a star, but when nothing is comprimised there is no need for FP scare.

Well evaluaitons is also about price, I think Avira should be 50$ for 3 licenses, tops. Norton for example comes with the 1 user - 3 pcs - can change expenses somewhat. Avira is a no nonsense product, price should follow/reflect.

[TJP]

This kind of thread will always bring out the fanboys and haters in equal measure ::)

Having just read the entire article (and not just the summary page like a few posters), I believe Neil J. Rubenking scored Avira fairly based on his experience with Avira's product.

Further, I didn't read any bias in this report. The issues encountered in regards to virus and root kit removal are serious and were acknowledged by Avira as bugs and will be fixed.

Just for perspective, I looked up his review on what I am using currently, KIS 2009. and I'd agree with the overall score and some of the cons listed.

Cheers.

[trjam]

I agree Kees. If everyone can get beyond that feeling that someone just shot their favorite dog, there are some valid points. So from that perspective, I agree with it.

[raven211]

Sure, the reviewer seems criticize pretty much everything he can, but he's actually also reasonable and got some points - one of them being what I've experienced personally; repetive prompts because of bad removal. What if you deny access to malware which tries to run time after time? Okay, maybe you shouldn't get repetitive prompts for that since it should deny access all the time, but I recall that wasn't the case for me. The prompts are one reason I've set it to automatically first try and repair the file in question (seriously, how often does that work now-a-days?) and as second action quarantine it. This with AHEAD heuristics set to med. Definitely hope it works...

[vijayind]

From what I understand from the review there is a Avira acknoledged bug in the anti-malware module.

So Niel is probably right in downcasting Avira. Hey, they gave a supposed biased reviewer buggy software. And now when he finds the holes, he sure is going to make noise.

[Arup]

He only highlighted the bugs, never harped on the undisputed fact and the most important facet for any AV suite that when it comes to detection, Avira is supreme. He is talking about a bug which could affect a novice user but in case of novice user, almost anything could, that would mean getting lured in a chat session to download a malware etc.

In cons all he talks about is firewall, no mention of the AV module and thats considered a balanced test? Malware protection intrusive, complex, I see so malware protection which detects 99% is complex to him.

Bottom Line
Avira's suite needs a complete makeover, starting with the UI. Testing revealed a serious bug in the on-demand malware removal scanner—a bug that can leave ordinary users unprotected. The spam filter, while accurate, slowed e-mail downloading to a huge degree.

Pros
Firewall successfully protects against hack attacks and exploits. Good accuracy in spam filter. Small impact on system performance. Strips malware from incoming Web and e-mail streams.

Cons
Malware protection is intrusive, complex. Serious bug in on-demand malware scan. WebGuard failed to block phishing sites. Spam filter slows e-mail downloading to an unacceptable extent. Rudimentary backup and parental control.

[Patrician]

-{ Quote: "Cons

Malware protection is intrusive, complex. Serious bug in on-demand malware scan. WebGuard failed to block phishing sites. Spam filter slows e-mail downloading to an unacceptable extent. Rudimentary backup and parental control.

Nothing further needed from Mr. Rubenking." }-


So nothing for a technically aware user to be worried about then?

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "--- the most important facet for any AV suite that when it comes to detection, Avira is supreme." }-

Hang on... I do agree and know that Avira IS supreme in that department, but you're saying that detection is most important? What's the reason to detect most malware if not everything can be removed effectively and seemless? As I mentioned in my previous post, that's been a BIG issue when using Avira in the past. I chose it for its detection, then switched because it was bad at removal. Great removal is one reason NAV is probably my first choice for an AV. It's been excellent at removing malware and has pretty good detection - and even if the detection infact isn't the greatest (don't worry - I've experienced that too myself), I never run any security soft. alone, and I don't see many here doing so either. Layered approach is the only way to be sure. NAV also handles removal automatically as long as the user shouldn't decide for some reason - and I don't see any reason not to. Why would anyone want malware left untouched on their PC? Compared to many others, I see the logic of Norton's automatic removal approach for malware.

If I've misunderstood your post, let me know. :)

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Hang on... I do agree and know that Avira IS supreme in that department, but you're saying that detection is most important? What's the reason to detect most malware if not everything can be removed effectively and seemless? As I mentioned in my previous post, that's been a BIG issue when using Avira in the past. I chose it for its detection, then switched because it was bad at removal. Great removal is one reason NAV is probably my first choice for an AV. It's been excellent at removing malware and has pretty good detection - and even if the detection in fact isn't the greatest (don't worry - I've experienced that too myself), I never run any security soft. alone, and I don't see many here doing so either. Layered approach is the only way to be sure. NAV also handles removal automatically as long as the user shouldn't decide for some reason - and I don't see any reason not to. Why would anyone want malware left untouched on their PC? Compared to many others, I see the logic of Norton's automatic removal approach for malware.

If I've misunderstood your post, let me know. :)" }-


I think we are going in loops again, every tests done also show that Avira removes as well as it detects. I would tend to agree that the removal interface is daunting to a first time user but it doesn't falter when it comes to detection and removal. Would you like an infected system file be automatically removed rendering your system useless or would you rather have Avira or other AV try and clean it first before removing it?

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "I think we are going in loops again, every tests done also show that Avira removes as well as it detects. I would tend to agree that the removal interface is daunting to a first time user but it doesn't falter when it comes to detection and removal. Would you like an infected system file be automatically removed rendering your system useless or would you rather have Avira or other AV try and clean it first before removing it?" }-

With automatic malware removal, I ofc meant handling the malware in question as good as possible automatically - but maybe Norton would make my OS unusable, I've yet to know but obviously don't hope so.

Often, for those types of malware (e.g. OS-file-replacers), the only solution is still to repair that whole installation with your CD/DVD, and still the overall solution to malware is a reformat, cause you never know. :)

I should have been more clear; Norton doesn't auto-remove - it auto-"fixes". ;D

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "With automatic malware removal, I ofc meant handling the malware in question as good as possible automatically - but maybe Norton would make my OS unusable, I've yet to know but obviously don't hope so.

Often, for those types of malware (e.g. OS-file-replacers), the only solution is still to repair that whole installation with your CD/DVD, and still the overall solution to malware is a reformat, cause you never know. :)

I should have been more clear; Norton doesn't auto-remove - it auto-"fixes". ;D" }-


I am all for the fix idea, I have seen my share of infected files, how bout when its under use and can't be autofixed, do you then want Norton to auto delete it?

[Saraceno]

I agree with a number of others here, it is the reviewer's experience with the product, so if he runs into problems, detailing his experience is what he is paid to do.

I read through his a-squared review, and others including Kaspersky, Norton, Avast, McAfee, ThreatFire, Panda, Comodo etc, and his aim seems to be to look for the most straight-forward, out-of-the-box, easy to use, problem free setup.

So keep in mind, it's from an everyday novice user point of view, not a wilders forum reader. And it's the everyday novice user who seems to run into the most problems, and have no idea when it comes to alerts and notifications.

About his other reviews, Kaspersky, Norton, ThreatFire, Avast, get solid points for just installing and taking care of 'business' (less user difficulty). eg quote from Kaspersky review:
-{ Quote: ""As noted earlier, for almost every security event the suite takes appropriate action on its own. You won't be pestered by confusing queries as to whether this or that program should be allowed to access the network or the Internet. That's just as it should be. When users are faced with traditional "noisy" program control they don't know how to answer. They quickly learn that clicking deny can disable important programs, so they click allow, allow, allow. There goes your program control!"" }-

The positive part of his reviews, he takes into account a program's technical support, and provides feedback with support if he encounters any problems.

I'm by no means saying what he says is gospel, but I've read far far worse! :)

[Sportscubs1272]

I do like his reviews and he does have a valid point about the bug not being fixed promptly and the current GUI. I wish he could do a review with the premium version alone or with a third party firewall with his tests.

I use Antivir Premium and Online Armor paid on both of my systems. I'm not really crazy with suites and I wonder if a lot of antivirus companies get bogged down with the other components. Maybe they should outsource the firewall and spam components and just concentrate on the core essentials.

I'm curious if the keylogger test is really beneficial? Does he test only commercial ones and/or trojans with keylogging abilities?

[Fly]

I've read the review and have only one word for it: lame.

[progress]

It seems that Avira has a lot of work to do ::)

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "So keep in mind, it's from an everyday novice user point of view, not a wilders forum reader. And it's the everyday novice user who seems to run into the most problems, and have no idea when it comes to alerts and notifications." }-
In a sense, that's how product reviews should work - to benefit the type of users who read them. I honestly doubt many here who criticize Rubenking actually need him and his reviews to find out which product works for them.

There are people who read PC Magazine to find out about products, and then there are people who already know all about those products and merely want reviews to vindicate their own choices. Rubenking apparently decides it's more important to cater to the former group. Smart decision.

Personally, I know what it's like to be asked for software/hardware recommendations, it happens to me all the time. Simply foisting what you yourself want onto other people, although perfectly justified (since they're asking you for your opinion!), rarely produces good results, and is actually not what people really mean when they ask you that. What they really mean is: "What's suitable for me?" I encourage my friends to try Linux, OpenOffice, Opera etc all the time, but what some of them think about these software would send the fanboys frothing at their mouths. It's hard enough to give unofficial recommendations to personal friends, I wouldn't want to be a professional writer for a tech mag who's expected to do it well for millions of strangers.

[Saraceno]

Agree with every word Eice. He's writing for those who have probably just bought a PC/laptop. Or those who don't care for AVs, but might change because they had AVG installed when they first got their computer, and other people seem to have other products.

And I know what you're saying when someone asks for a recommendation. I often give others my recommendations (you got to try Z+Y+X! Not one, but all!), when really, not only are they shaking their head at my 'nonsense', something simple would do (X).

Slightly off-topic: only recently I setup 'Opera' on a work computer for a user. Explained how easy it is to use. Walked past a week later and saw them back using IE6. Said later to me tabs were too confusing. They liked the 'one window'.

[Leo2005]

well some points are really strange in the test, some even not correct and in other points he shows that he did not go through the whole cofiguration, cause features he asks for does exist.
for example the antispam, where he is telling that it is disabled by default. this isn't correct.
but concerning the download speed of mails he is absolutely right. this is a really slow. to speed this up he only needs to disabled the realtime blacklist or set the timeout to 1 second.

concerning automatically deleting malware found by antivir is possible, for guard and for the scanner by simply setting it to automatically. but to have this by default will a risk.
he does not mention in one word the new summarize at the end of the scan, which appears by default. so he changed this setting for his scans.
with the default settings the bug, which seems to be the most important point for him in this test, wouldn't appear.

but he is right in the points that changing the start mode of the guard is missing, the firewall shouldn't allow all aplications in priviliged mode (can be changed in the configuration) and that features like the webfilter are hided so one cannot find them easily. this are things that need to be changed like other things.

[lodore]

while i dont like avira some of those comments are not true.
it is not complex to understand.
since when was backup part of a internet security suite?
it shouldnt even be there.
that seruios flaw needs to be fixed asap.
not being able to remove detected malware is useles.
i also agree that the firewall shouldnt give full access to all applications as default.

Pc mag dont know how to reivew programs.
they always give norton and mcafee's bloated versions a decent review everytime.
i would put a security suite down for having file backup definatly not up.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "In a sense, that's how product reviews should work - to benefit the type of users who read them. I honestly doubt many here who criticize Rubenking actually need him and his reviews to find out which product works for them.

There are people who read PC Magazine to find out about products, and then there are people who already know all about those products and merely want reviews to vindicate their own choices. Rubenking apparently decides it's more important to cater to the former group. Smart decision.
" }-

This isn't about explaining Einstein Relativity theory to idiots and addressing a bunch of physics enthusiasts. It is about saying what needs to be said: He relies on sources that are themselves unreliable in terms of how to categorize results. If you are a novice, you want to have a product that excels in detections, period. One can go on forever having smalltalk about what's what in terms of marketing. There is only one real hard fact in this business: either you get infected or not, and Avira so far has shown with real numbers to be on top. "Smart decision"? For whom? For his sake, for sure, for people finding out about products certainly misleading.

Am I writing all this to vindicate my choice? You really think I choose an AV application as I'd choose a particular car or house? Everything is abstract with code, just binaries, a name and results: we all want our system with the best protection available.

[Arup]

I wonder what Consumer Reports will say when and if they test AV?

[trjam]

One review, that just happens to be a tad negative about Avira and the whole world blows up. Before this, many reviews of Avira being good and life move cheerfully along.

See this is what ~Snip~ my ass off. We cant stand to have anything but ~Snip~ in our glass. I have seen so many other loyal users to products do the same exact thing. Brand loyality, geez.::)

At least be honest and allow folks to openly debate the good and bad without getting offended. Let me show you how.

Avira has one of the best AVs on the market. Their firewall totally sucks. Antispam is very good, IMO. There, that is my review, some good, some bad, so attack away now.:dry:

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "If you are a novice, you want to have a product that excels in detections, period." }-
Which was very correctly mentioned in the review. Avira's detections earned accolades from Rubenking. I see no injustice being done here.

As for what novices want, period... you'll really have to pardon me, but I just don't recall you being elected as their representative spokesperson.

-{ Quote: "There is only one real hard fact in this business: either you get infected or not, and Avira so far has shown with real numbers to be on top." }-
Indeed. It's just one of the greatest mysteries of the world why Avira doesn't have 100% share of the antivirus market.

[Boost]

-{ Quote: "One review, that just happens to be a tad negative about Avira and the whole world blows up. Before this, many reviews of Avira being good and life move cheerfully along.

See this is what ~Snip~ my ass off. We cant stand to have anything but ~Snip~ in our glass. I have seen so many other loyal users to products do the same exact thing. Brand loyality, geez.::)

At least be honest and allow folks to openly debate the good and bad without getting offended. Let me show you how.

Avira has one of the best AVs on the market. Their firewall totally sucks. Antispam is very good, IMO. There, that is my review, some good, some bad, so attack away now.:dry:" }-


I like Ford!

You couldnt pay me enough to drive a GM ;D

Each automaker has their good and bad vehicles,it's all in what you prefer in the end and what you want parked in the garage.

Honda's last forever,but I dont own one.

Choices in life,how awsome it can be!

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "
Indeed. It's just one of the greatest mysteries of the world why Avira doesn't have 100% share of the antivirus market." }-

I really don't think people really read all the posts in a given thread. Neil Rubenking gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editors choice award back in 2004. Even people who are prepared to trust Norton again, would admit that their 2004-2005 versions were the worst industry could supply in a long history of controversy. I was a beginner then trusting journalists like Rubenking...

To give a simple answer to your mysteries of the world, it is thanking these people (do you know how to say thank you to a magazine, without pronouncing those words?) that big players, we don't want to name anybody do we, managed to have almost the complete monopoly of the market.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "I really don't think people really read all the posts in a given thread. Neil Rubenking gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editors choice award back in 2004. Even people who are prepared to trust Norton again, would admit that their 2004-2005 versions were the worst industry could supply in a long history of controversy. I was a beginner then trusting journalists like Rubenking..." }-
Well, he doesn't seem to have changed his ways five years later either, rating such a fine product like Avira as beneath Symantec! ;)

-{ Quote: "To give a simple answer to your mysteries of the world, it is thanking these people (do you know how to say thank you to a magazine, without pronouncing those words?) that big players, we don't want to name anybody do we, managed to have almost the complete monopoly of the market." }-
Rest assured that many of us here are free from "propaganda" and have heard about Avira and how great it is. The fact that we don't all use Avira pokes quite a few holes in your theory, don't you think?

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "Well, he doesn't seem to have changed his ways five years later either, rating such a fine product like Avira as beneath Symantec! ;)


Rest assured that many of us here are free from "propaganda" and have heard about Avira and how great it is. The fact that we don't all use Avira pokes quite a few holes in your theory, don't you think?" }-

Let me just reiterate, there is no theory, but numbers. These numbers coming from the very sources that we know, are open to interpretation, yours, mine, and Rubenkings's, so you are probably right everyone should make up their mind accordingly. Avira has been improving through the years and the results show a very dynamic company deserving some attention based not on loyalties but field results. If you don't use Avira, it doesn't mean you are not well protected, GDATA as an example has better detection percentages, and other players are worthy one's consideration. The point is reporting misleading information.

[Eice]

Osaban, at the risk of sounding pompous, allow me to assure you that I am right. ;)

When it comes to detection rate, rest assured that even many experienced users don't feel interested in quibbling over a few fractions of a percent, let alone novices, and it's often the overall polish and well-thought-out, well-implemented features that are the dealbreaker. There is no "only one hard fact" in any business, real or otherwise, nor are novices all after a specific feature, period, which is personally important to you but not necessarily as vital to them. Lambast a reviewer for not putting your priorities first when you're not even his target audience, and, well, you're wrong right from step one.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "I really don't think people really read all the posts in a given thread. Neil Rubenking gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editors choice award back in 2004. Even people who are prepared to trust Norton again, would admit that their 2004-2005 versions were the worst industry could supply in a long history of controversy. I was a beginner then trusting journalists like Rubenking...
" }-
.
Personally, I have avoided Norton products for many years and would not recommend them because of the impact on system performance, difficulty with uninstalling, etc. You have to take into account what's best for the average user though. I'm a technician and know that the average user needs to educate himself if he wants to keep his system free from malware, but in the real world most users are not competent to configure security software. The best that many can do is understand that security software is necessary and must be kept up to date (in other words they have to actually renew the yearly subscription). The software has to do the rest and require as little user input as possible. From that point of view Avira 2009 is too complicated and confusing. It is suited more to advanced users who can understand the complexity and make appropriate choices. Currently I think the best product for the average user is Norton 2009 (AV or IS) because Symantec has addressed most of the problems (slow installation, system overhead, buggy uninstall) and because by default it is silent. I don't think it's perfect or enough - just a good compromise.

[Iam_me]

This PCMag magazine love one product.. And its NORTON..
It scores top everytime. ;D

The guy who wrote this article also came to the conclusion that Nortons Firewall protects better against leaks than Comodo Internet Security..:argh: something Completley Contradicting all testings known to man.. And he got this conclusion from public tests..

Bottom line: He don't know what he is talking about and he fails to do tests, even if he speeks well, he don't really have full understanding of the things he does. :thumbd: As he was the only one that got CIS to fail SIMPLE public leak tests it already passed when all others ran the test.

Even if I don't use Avira myself I still know that it got really great detection.
Its worth much more than 2 of five. :thumbd: :thumbd:

[Saraceno]

Agree with you Victek, for the average user, who knows nothing, they just want to browse the web and never want to see a popup/alert. They probably wouldn't even be aware if the tray icon of their security program was missing.

Anyway, you'll never have a product that will please everyone. If you trim down on features, you appeal to the masses, but not to those who like to configure their setups.

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "I am all for the fix idea, I have seen my share of infected files, how bout when its under use and can't be autofixed, do you then want Norton to auto delete it?" }-

Ofc it depends. If it actually is the OS-file-replacer kind, there's simply nothing more you can do than repair your installation or reformat. In the other cases, if it's malware, then absolutely. So, yeah, then I'm for auto-delete I guess - best way to do it in any case where it's needed. ::)

[vijayind]

I still can't understand what the fuss is all about.Avira submitted their software to PcMag because they wanted their opinion and they got it.

Avira has taken the review in its stride and I bet their bosses in germany are telling their employees to work out all kinks, so that Neil is forced to eat his words when he reviews Avira Premium Suite 10.

If you really are a fanboy/loyal user/fan of Avira, IMO you should probably send your feedback and pressurise the company to make changes fast to make it the perfect security product (for everyone including the layman). So that there can Avira World Domination ( Ahahaahahaahaaa )

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "I still can't understand what the fuss is all about.Avira submitted their software to PcMag because they wanted their opinion and they got it.

Avira has taken the review in its stride and I bet their bosses in germany are telling their employees to work out all kinks, so that Neil is forced to eat his words when he reviews Avira Premium Suite 10.

If you really are a fanboy/loyal user/fan of Avira, IMO you should probably send your feedback and pressurise the company to make changes fast to make it the perfect security product. So that there can Avira World Domination ( Ahahaahahaahaaa )" }-

... Incase it isn't already. ;D But seriously, I think that's the greatest approach every company can take to satisfy all sides - fix all the valid kinks that exist and get to their attention.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "... Incase it isn't already. ;D But seriously, I think that's the greatest approach every company can take to satisfy all sides - fix all the valid kinks that exist and get to their attention." }-
Totally Agreed :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[Arup]

If the criticisms were really constructive and the tone of review fair, yes, we would take it in stride. All he did was pick on a issue and blow it out of proportions and never once did he mention the attributes of Avira and the reason why people use it. Nothing is perfect and Avira is far from it, the fact that it has consistently scored at the top of every tests thrown at it is not even mentioned once, all I heard was bitch, moan and groan.

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "If the criticisms were really constructive and the tone of review fair, yes, we would take it in stride. All he did was pick on a issue and blow it out of proportions and never once did he mention the attributes of Avira and the reason why people use it. Nothing is perfect and Avira is far from it, the fact that it has consistently scored at the top of every tests thrown at it is not even mentioned once, all I heard was bitch, moan and groan." }-

Amen to that. ;D I too see this in this review - where there's something to pick on, he picks on it really hard, not being fair with what is really good about the software. He does give it credit for some things, but he's definitely not being totally fair overall.

Out of curiousity - has ESET been featured in their magazine? I recall a pretty decent score for their latest Smart Security that he's reviewed as well.

[funkydude]

Don't drag ESET into your Avira love fest. Keep the topic on the topic.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "If the criticisms were really constructive and the tone of review fair, yes, we would take it in stride. All he did was pick on a issue and blow it out of proportions and never once did he mention the attributes of Avira and the reason why people use it. Nothing is perfect and Avira is far from it, the fact that it has consistently scored at the top of every tests thrown at it is not even mentioned once, all I heard was bitch, moan and groan." }-
.
It's interesting how our POV differs. Currently I use Norton Internet Security 2009. I tried Avira and Kaspersky and eventually settled on NIS because at this time it provides the best combination of features and functionality for me. If a serious bug or limitation is discovered in NIS (or when something clearly better comes along) I will not hesitate to switch. I'm not attached to any company or product. I'm only interested in acquiring the best security software possible for my systems and I'm grateful to the reviewers who exam the products in detail and uncover every little flaw.

[raven211]

-{ Quote: "Don't drag ESET into your Avira love fest. Keep the topic on the topic." }-

WTH do you mean by that? I only tried to see a pattern - AND I'M STILL TALKING ABOUT THE REVIEWS!

[greenhorn113]

-{ Quote: ".
It's interesting how our POV differs. Currently I use Norton Internet Security 2009. I tried Avira and Kaspersky and eventually settled on NIS because at this time it provides the best combination of features and functionality for me. If a serious bug or limitation is discovered in NIS (or when something clearly better comes along) I will not hesitate to switch. I'm not attached to any company or product. I'm only interested in acquiring the best security software possible for my systems and I'm grateful to the reviewers who exam the products in detail and uncover every little flaw." }-

Amen to that, a sensible post, my 2 cents for what it's worth, I tried the Avira Suite, having been a licensed user of Avira Premium but ditched the suite ( 6 month trial ),because I found it buggy, now using KIS (2 year license) with Online Armor without firewall and Edge and so far so good but I won't hesitate to switch if I encounter any problems.

[ronjor]

A simple magazine review turned into a "this versus that thread". Thread is closed.