I AM DETERMINED!AVG is better.

[adiel]

i knew people who think nod32 is the greatest av would be like this...but anyway..just to make myself clear..i am not a great av tester..and i am not trying to be a big smart pc security wizard..but i am at least pc user who loves his security..its my right...so when i heard people talking about nod32 that its great..naturally i was interested..but i am just trying to say that i am DISAPPOINTED.i mean so much big talk and performance???nothing.
And i know the difference between a virus and a trojan...but its You who are missing the whole point...AVG is also not a trojan hunter like nod32..but the whole point is that even when avg is not a trojan hunter still it can detect many trojans that nod32 CANNOT...am i making myself clear?
and i use avg peofessional..i just gave an example that even avg free is better than nod323..because i have free addition too..and its my persoanl experience.and stop telling me about those websites with rankings..what should i do about these rankings when avg instantly detected those trojans on my pc and nod32 did'nt???got it?and try to be understanding..rather than being sarcastic.

[xor]

Then try a AV such as Kaspersky or even the new GAV and you (can) detect more trojans.
Or use TDS / TH with your scanner together.

just my 2 cents

-[xor]-

[Paul Wilders]

adiel,

No doubt your are entitled to your own opinion. Although IMO you still do miss the point as for antiviruses is concerned - so be it.

Thus, if you are a happy camper using antivirus X: good for you.

That said: since you obviously are a happy camper, you've made your point. Please post your preferences on the appropriate forum - like this one.

regards.

paul

[the Tester]

Adiel.You mentioned that AVG detected trojans on your pc that NOD32 didn't.That probably won't change.The reason being that NOD32 is an anti-virus program!When I use an anti-virus program,I want it to detect viruses.KAV is one av program that detects more trojans than most av programs.That's cool!But not a selling point to me.IMO the best layered protection is a good av program and a good anti-trojan program.Test AVG vs. TDS-3,Boclean,or Trojan Hunter for trojan detection.I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't fair well!Understand though that I have nothing against AVG or any other free av program.If someone wants to run AVG,it's a free country.But I won't agree that AVG is better than NOD32 in the category that matters,anti-virus protection.

[Straight Shooter]

Think about how many virures or trojans you may NOT be detecting, because AVG is not a winner at Virus Bulletin (at least not 20 times!) and because you don't have a dedicated trojan detector, like TDS or Trojanhunter.. I am not trying to be smart b saying this, but when AVG found those trojans it was just "luck"...

I would rather have over $100 on my computer for security software, and not have any problems, instead of a freebie or rely on only one product for my security. To me, that's dangerous.. Malware is getting worse and worse, and I KNOW what it's like to have your sytem down because of mis information, or not making a sound investment. That's why I have NOD32, a software and a hardware firewall, and a dedicated anti trojan.. Also I have MRU Blaster, Tracks Eraser Pro, and Spybot S&D...

[sig]

So are you trying to convert people or what? If you're happy with AVG, fine.

Will you convince others that AVG is a better AV than NOD? Not likely, based on your posts to date. Everyone else has their own experiences too and reasons for their judgment on which AV to use. And they may also consider the views of people and/or organizations based on an established track record and known expertise in that area. Which as far as I know anyway, you don't have.

Something else to consider in anecdotal tests: methods of detection may differ among different products, whether AV or AT. I recall another round of "tests" by another pc user (not a professional) long ago who claimed that his results proved that "Brand Z" scanner was no good because it didn't alert on cetain malware in a zipped file. But Brand Z's method is to detect the malware and prevent infection upon execution of the file and it indeed did its job when someone attempted to unzip and run the file. But the "tester" was oblivious to that. The tester didn't get that the methodology of detection differed from some other similar apps but the detection and protection was really there. Instead he/she claimed that Brand Z was bad. But his test wasn't a true test of Brand Z's functionality.

So until and unless the methodology of the tests themselves, the nature and presentation of the malware and a knowledge of how the scanner is supposed to work is all detailed, there's no way to tell if the tests and the results are valid or not.

BTW while many AV's do include many Trojan in their defs, that's not their main gig. KAV reportedly is the best at trojan detection among the AV's. With the rest, especially for folks who get around and download a lot on the net, a dedicated anti trojan is recommended, regardless of the AV used. NOD is not a trojan scanner nor does it claim to be. That's why people should get what they believe suits them best for their individual needs.

[SSP]

-{ Quote: " quoting: adiel link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45587 date=1043884174]i am at least pc user who loves his security..its my right" }-

It is your right to be pig headed and obstinate too. If AVG is so good why has it only 1 VB100%? If NOD32 is so bad why has it 21 VB100%? I think you are just a troll looking for some attention.

[flawed_cat]

Well guys, I be at risk for troll #2.
I tried the world's best #1 Anti-virus: Nortons.
Now the disc sets in the rack unused. If I
had to use Norton's AV I wouldn't use any at all.
I guess I've Been using AVG6 for a couple years now.
It has caught every virus/worm/trojan I've ever got and regardless of any test results, it hasn't let me down yet.
Just caught and removed the last infection a few days ago.
I don't know how great Nod32 is but AVG ain't bad.

[sig]

I know of a number of people who have also used AVG for years with good results. I didn't say it was bad. But I wouldn't argue that it's better than all the other AV's. Others have said it didn't catch stuff and they wound up infected. YYMV.

And who said Norton's the "world's best #1 anti-virus?" Their ads or a mag in which they advertise? #1 best seller perhaps. ;)

[adiel]

For people who did'nt read my first post iwould make it clear that i am just comparing AVG and nod32..not any other av. and secondly i would like to say
why do you people always miss my point??how many of you have actually TESTED your av?i think most of you just read that nod32 has won 200 awards so thats the best..those rankings and awards are nothing compared to personal experience...and i have avp too and its certainly great..no doubt about it..and i use AVG professional..but i am just comparing free edition because i tested on free edition which gave better results than nod32..i just want to say that nod32 does'nt deserve so much praises.and about rankings..recently pcmag had ranked aniti viruses..they did'nt even bothered including nod32 in that top av list..so what?would you believe them?

[msingle]

flawed_cat you say that AVG has caught every virus/worm/trojan you've ever got? This is said by everyone who will defend AVG to the death against any other solution.

My question to you is how do you know it caught every one? Obviously either it caught them or it didn't but if it didn't a message isn't going to pop up and say "sorry, you are now infected with xxx virus and we can't fix it so you ought to go with a more robust AV program".

Point is you wouldn't know whether or not it has caught everything unless you've scanned with other tools as well to cross check every once in awhile.

You may not get a message - you're computer just may start acting weird or any of the other symptoms.

So maybe you should have said - AVG has caught every virus/trojan/worm that it caught but I haven't a clue as to how many it didn't catch.

And if I may ask what turned you against NAV to the point that you would get infected rather than use it if it was your only choice?

-{ Quote: " quoting: flawed_cat link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45621 date=1043893230]
Well guys, I be at risk for troll #2.
I tried the world's best #1 Anti-virus: Nortons.
Now the disc sets in the rack unused. If I
had to use Norton's AV I wouldn't use any at all.
I guess I've Been using AVG6 for a couple years now.
It has caught every virus/worm/trojan I've ever got and regardless of any test results, it hasn't let me down yet.
Just caught and removed the last infection a few days ago.
I don't know how great Nod32 is but AVG ain't bad.
" }-

[sig]

Adiel: Having had a glimpse at the testing methodologies of some commercial mags I wouldn't necessarily give their rankings a great deal of credence.

And I think you missed the point. What was your testing methodology, what did you test and how? You've provided no specific data to provide a basis for an analysis of your results.

I can say I tested AV brands x and y and my results say x detected 30% more than and y; ergo x is clearly better than y.

There. Are you convinced brand x is better than y?

(And BTW, the Wilders.org does test the products they review.)

[msingle]

Adiel,

You mention that PC Magazine review of AV programs and make it sound like NOD32 wasn't good enough to even include in the review. This amongst your posts saying how good AVG is compared to NOD.

Is that the same PC Magazine review that had this to say about AVG pro? "Grisoft also offers AVG 6.0 Free Edition, which lacks some features, such as scan scheduling and product support, though it has a simpler interface. But since AVG missed six viruses on our Virus Detection test and had seven false positives, even the free version isn't worth the price.

I take that to mean, based on the review, the free or pro version isn't worth it. Whether it's believable or not, you brought the review up basically saying that NOD32 wasn't even worth the magazine's time. So, you put weight on the fact the review doesn't include NOD32 but don't put weight on the fact that AVG Pro tied for worst of all reviewed and according to them not worth the price even for the free version?

Irony will always get you.

-{ Quote: " quoting: adiel link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45627 date=1043894816]
For people who did'nt read my first post iwould make it clear that i am just comparing AVG and nod32..not any other av. and secondly i would like to say
why do you people always miss my point??how many of you have actually TESTED your av?i think most of you just read that nod32 has won 200 awards so thats the best..those rankings and awards are nothing compared to personal experience...and i have avp too and its certainly great..no doubt about it..and i use AVG professional..but i am just comparing free edition because i tested on free edition which gave better results than nod32..i just want to say that nod32 does'nt deserve so much praises.and about rankings..recently pcmag had ranked aniti viruses..they did'nt even bothered including nod32 in that top av list..so what?would you believe them?
" }-

[notageek]

Well, I'm not going to get into this little who's better thing. I just got a few things to say. If anyone is using any kind of free AV always make sure you go to a online AV scanning site and scan to make sure your free AV is not missing anything.

[xor]

i think all here should calm down a little ;D

[-rox-]

[xor]

-{ Quote: " quoting: notageek link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45656 date=1043899531]
If anyone is using any kind of free AV always make sure you go to a online AV scanning site and scan to make sure your free AV is not missing anything.
" }-

Or is even infected ;D ;D ;D isn't it ? ;D

[flawed_cat]

So, how do you know the AV you use has caught everyone?
I also have a backup AV installed for cross reference. I noticed from a link someone gave here that the "Editors #1
choice" was Nortons...but the "Members #1 choice" was AVG. Nortons is problematic on my OS plus being way to much for my little system. I like something lite...like AVG.
And so far, ever since AVG decided to go "Free," I've been using it without any problem. So, if it was an open door
for infection I wouldn't notice it, eh? I've got all kinds of infections but just don't know it? I'm not saying AVG is better than, just that it's good enough for me. It is not
as useless that some of you guys seem to think and I
don't think your's is bullet proof. For safety I would rate
something like Norton Ghost, Drive Image, etc., just as
important, if not more so.



-{ Quote: " quoting: msingle link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45628 date=1043895165]
flawed_cat you say that AVG has caught every virus/worm/trojan you've ever got? This is said by everyone who will defend AVG to the death against any other solution.

My question to you is how do you know it caught every one? Obviously either it caught them or it didn't but if it didn't a message isn't going to pop up and say "sorry, you are now infected with xxx virus and we can't fix it so you ought to go with a more robust AV program".

Point is you wouldn't know whether or not it has caught everything unless you've scanned with other tools as well to cross check every once in awhile.

You may not get a message - you're computer just may start acting weird or any of the other symptoms.

So maybe you should have said - AVG has caught every virus/trojan/worm that it caught but I haven't a clue as to how many it didn't catch.

And if I may ask what turned you against NAV to the point that you would get infected rather than use it if it was your only choice?

-{ Quote: " quoting: flawed_cat link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45621 date=1043893230]
Well guys, I be at risk for troll #2.
I tried the world's best #1 Anti-virus: Nortons.
Now the disc sets in the rack unused. If I
had to use Norton's AV I wouldn't use any at all.
I guess I've Been using AVG6 for a couple years now.
It has caught every virus/worm/trojan I've ever got and regardless of any test results, it hasn't let me down yet.
Just caught and removed the last infection a few days ago.
I don't know how great Nod32 is but AVG ain't bad.
" }-
" }-

[Tassie_Devils]

-{ Quote: " quoting: notageek link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45656 date=1043899531]
Well, I'm not going to get into this little who's better thing. I just got a few things to say. If anyone is using any kind of free AV always make sure you go to a online AV scanning site and scan to make sure your free AV is not missing anything.
" }-
Ditto.

The fact that AVG "hasn't let you down yet" is purely luck. Wait until a *real* nastie comes to a screen near you soon. Even the best of them has failures, let alone a free one.

AVG is a nice FREE one, but you get what you pay for.

I have recommened AVG to some people who REFUSE to pay for an AV, but emphasise they must also use 1 or more programs to try and overlap their security.

Someone in here said "layered" approach [sorry for not recognising the poster, forgot :) ] and THAT is the only way to go. LAYERED.

#1: Good DEDICATED AV [no, you won't get me to fall in what's *good* trap
#2: Good DEDICATED AT [ditto]
#3: Dedicated Script Blocker [ie: Wormguard, Script Sentry]
#4: Firewall [lots nice FREE ones out there. Kerio, Sygate, ZA]

In that order IMO.

Dedicated in the sense you don't put your family car on a race track & vice versa. A program solely dedicated to finding a particular nastie is the best way IMO.

Then things like javacools' tools: MRU Blaster, Spywareblaster, SpywareGuard, BrowserHijack Blaster

Also: Spybot, AdAware6.0 [now that its out ~ PLUS/PRO versions only at moment ~ FREE one later]

[flawed_cat]

Well Tassie_Devils, if only what you said was true, "You get what you pay for." I've got two paid for AV's and only use one as a backup to the free one. I'll wait for that *real* nasty to come and don't expect it to be much of a problem
unless it's an overhead nuclear blast that fries all the transisters. I don't have much of a problem with viruses or worms since I started using an AV. None to be exact. But
alas, I've been warned...The End Is Near! ;D
---------------------------------------------------------
SpywareBlaster~Freeware
SpyBot~Freeware
Script Sentry~Freeware
RegProt~Freeware
I get the feeling I got more than I paid for.
Freeware doesn't mean Badware at all. ;D

[Tassie_Devils]

LOL flawed_cat and then when the end does come your nick may well end up being

flayed_cat ;D

[flawed_cat]

That's cool!
You can eat me after I'm flayed if you want. ;D ;D

[msingle]

This is like a religious war or a debate about politics or abortion. People have their own ideas and if they are stuck in a certain belief and don't have an open mind you'll never be able to convince them that they are wrong or that they could be more right.

Any AV program is better than none at all. I know tons of people who don't have any protection at all. So the fact that you are using any AV protection at all shows you have more common sense than a lot of people.

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: "Any AV program is better than none at all." }-

True!! Too many people are using "none at all." The people who are regulars at security boards and sites like this are generally not the people whose systems are the ones wrecking havoc across the Internet, with multiple malware infections, while they have no clue what's going on. It's everyone else that's the problem.

If only those "masses of unprotected machines" would get something. If all the unprotected computers used AVG, it'd be a huge improvement from the way things are now.

I think an informed user can do just fine using AVG. I consider myself informed and I use AVG. Therefore, it must be true. ;D ;D

[UNICRON]

For a debate to have merit the opposing arguers must be willing, given a sufficient amount of evidence, to admit they are wrong. There must be SOME evidence that, should it arise, convince any party that they are wrong.

Since there can be AT MOST only one TRULY right answer and all others must be wrong, it is statistically unlikely any one arguer will be right. Be prepared for that.

If you feel that there is no one right answer to a question, that is because the question has not been defined in a quantifiable way. "What is the best AV?" is such a question. "What is the best AV for on demand detection of this particular list of 'in the wild' viruses that are inside zip files?" is not.

Members of a debate must be seeking the truth above all else, especially above the desire to be right. As soon as that desire is involved, the debate is worthless.

Unfortunately, as with religion, politics, abortion...., this is rarely the case when discussions of AV, AT, FW, OS.... are considered.


PS.

I do not agree that any AV is better than none at all. Those that mangle your system when there is naught a virus to be found are worse than nothing.

[sig]

My understanding is that AVG free and pro are essentially the same product, but the pro has additional features. The virus defs are the same. Are there any qualitative differences between them, detection- wise? I just ask since some people criticise AVG on the basis that it's freeware. But I understand that the version usually used in the published tests people cite is AVG Pro. If there is no qualitative difference in detection between the two, then if it is or isn't good, the price isn't the reason.

"I do not agree that any AV is better than none at all. Those that mangle your system when there is naught a virus to be found are worse than nothing."

An excellent point! I once had an AV recommended to me because it amazingly caught all sorts of things other AV's didn't catch! I tried it and they were right! False positives on system files. Yikes! Luckily I was so amazed at the results I checked them all out. And then dumped the AV.

[Goldsmith]

I've had three different "Aunty V's" on various systems...
McAfee's, Norton's, and AVG.

On my older, and lesser machines, almost anything that consumed system resources would either freeze me, or slow things down to where they were no longer usable.

As my PC's got updated, I tried the "pay for it" method of virus detection, and removal.

On my IBM 365, running at 233Mhz with only 64Mb of RAM, I couldn't do any form of active scanning without a complete siezure. Even AVG, which is fairly gentle on resources, had to scan from the constantly updated set of "rescue" disks I kept.

Now, my machine is a new HP, with a P-4, running at 2.35Ghz, with 512Mb of RAM. It came with Norton antivirus pre-installed (90 day 'free' trial) It scans everything, both going, and coming...well, it 'says' it does, anyway.

As with all the rest, if it misses something, how are you to know? The only way is by symptoms, and by keeping tabs on what is running.

I think it comes down to what you have 'faith' in, not what you pay. I would imagine that any antivirus program (reputable?) is going to do the job, as long as it's properly (and knowledgeably) set up, and run.

I don't know if I'm going to continue with Norton after the trial period runs out, bad experiences with them in the past (unanswered e-mail, unresponsive support desks) led me to install AVG on my other machines. I like the configurability that comes with AVG, and also the fact that it's free. I set it to use heuristics, to start with boot up, to use the plug in for OE, and to scan ALL files, rather than executables. I also scan everything I download as the final step as the files are being written to my D'load folder.

I also like the fact, that it put's the message on my outgoing mail, giving the database date, and that the contents are certified.

There were several viral attachments stopped by AVG, that came as e-mail from known persons, and more than several, that came from 'unrequested' mailings. It makes me feel safe, and I know that I am playing an active part in protecting myself, and anyone else I contact via the web, or e-mail.

I also run Zone Alarm Pro, I used the free version for a while, but found it not quite right, the way it did things, and wanted to have more control.

Just a passing thought...who would have the most to gain from a virus outbreak? the guys giving protection away for free?...or the folks with something to sell, like protection from a virus that they recently 'discovered' ??? ::)

[msingle]

To Goldsmith:

I'm not bashing AVG at all here. It just seems that a lot of the fans of AVG say things that just don't make sense.

For example, you mentioned not having any support with NAV so you went with AVG which has no support whatsoever on the free version. Are you saying that support is important or not? Because when you talk about bad experiences with NAV you make it sound like that's one of the main reasons you changed - the lack of support - but you moved to something without any support at all. Doesn't make sense.

Second is the certified stamp on emails. Certified against what? What does a little statement prove to anyone besides giving a false sense of security? I've seen those things on emails where the database date was like 2 months before the date of the email. Point is, even with the little stamp, that doesn't mean anything really.

On the free vs. fee thing there might be something to that argument. The same kind of thing could be said for free security tool makers though. If you want to talk conspiracy theories why not produce a free security tool, make sure it won't stop a certain type of malicious code or behavior, and then try and sell people on your paid version after they get infected or hacked.

Just my 2 cents.

[Goldsmith]

I've written the folks at AVG twice, and BOTH times, I got a response (not an automated "go to our website" message)

NONE of the times that I asked Norton for help, did I get ANY response!
They are too busy with their bottom line(IMO)

Support of software products is VERY important to me, in fact, I don't often use unsupported software for very long.

The certification on my outgoing e-mails, certifies that the content was checked by my AVG antivirus program, against the virus database that is presently current on my system. I updated the program AT LEAST once a day.

I have only once been infected by a virus (to my knowledge), and at the time, I was running McAfee,s PAID version. My hard drive was completely wiped!!!

"Sense of security"??? There IS no security, only the ability to be as secure as possible, so any sense of security could be considered "false"

We can only take all the precautions we can, and stay alert.

If you turn on your computer, and connect to the net, or put in any media or programs, then you are at risk, for all I know, signals can be hacked into this box through secret signals in the AC current I supply to it.

I keep my guard up, and deal with real people, that I trust.
"Paranoia" is the belief in "imaginary" threats. I think once a threat has been imagined...it's no longer "imaginary"

The world is filled with self serving, greedy companies, out to make a profit from other folks fears.

There's also a surprisingly large number of people who care. They are known by their actions...seek them out. ;)

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "Members of a debate must be seeking the truth above all else, especially above the desire to be right. As soon as that desire is involved, the debate is worthless.
" }-

Well said.

I went from a paid Anti Virus product to trying AVG Free for several months, after I was infected with a fully up-to-date AVG, I went hunting for testing sites and found http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index.xml

At this point I wasn't prepared to listen to every "Backyard Expert", I wanted to know from experienced, unbiased and independent people what actually was the BEST, with history at being the BEST.

I had put 3 friends onto AVG as they thought they could not afford Virus protection, all 3 became infected over the next 6 months, all 3 now have Nod32.

I do NOT care what AV anyone uses, for me I just want the best, FULL STOP! And there are ALWAYS going to be "Backyard Experts" that know best, and their way is the only way, no matter what evidence is set before them, I am NOT one of these people, and have NO time for such people...

In regards to AVG, I wish you well in your choice...

Cheers ;D

[rodzilla]

> At this point I wasn't prepared to listen to every "Backyard Expert", I wanted to know from experienced, unbiased and independent people what actually was the BEST, with history at being the BEST.

Every antivirus vendor will tell you that his is the best virus detector ... but there can be only one real "best" at any given time, and according to Virus Bulletin's tests, for the past five years NOD32 has consistently detected more viruses than any other program.

Some people on here and other forums regularly try to shoot Virus Bulletin's credibility down ... even to the extent of suggesting that I promote VB as the #1 antivirus product tester only because NOD32 wins every test hands down.

That's codswallop!

In the early days of computer viruses many people considered me as the #1 independent antivirus product tester in the world. I had a virus suite which was more comprehensive than any single antivirus vendor's at the time, and I knew what I was doing. When Virus Bulletin first appeared on the scene I suspected it of being (a) a bandwagon jumper out for a quick buck, or (b) a shill for Sophos ... but I was wrong. After a few months of publication I could see that the guys at Virus Bulletin weren't just glorified computer journalists but real "antivirus men" who knew what they were doing ... they had a virus suite which was almost as good as mine ... they weren't playing favorites ... and their test results were always within a cat's whisker of my own. That made them pretty damn good in my book.

When I became professionally involved in the antivirus industry I quit antivirus product testing, apart from testing opposition products from time to time for my own benefit. Since that day I've gone on record many times supporting Virus Bulletin as the best and fairest of all professional antivirus product evaluators.

The figures shown in Virus Bulletin test comparisons point to "my" current program, NOD32, as being the world's #1 virus detector for the past five years ... but I distributed AVP/KAV from 1995 to 2001 ... a period which included three years of VB tests which didn't rate "my" program as #1. Even so, throughout those years I still maintained that VB was the best and fairest of all professional evaluators.

Virus Bulletin gives no-one a second chance at the VB100 Award. There's no providing you with samples of missed viruses so you can fix your program and submit it again for a second bite of the VB100 cherry ... if you miss detection first time around, you get the black mark ... and imo that's a Good Thing.

I've had my fights with Virus Bulletin, and I don't agree 100% with their test parameters ... but everyone has to play by the same rules, and unless/until VB changes those rules, they're the best and fairest the industry has to offer.

> And there are ALWAYS going to be "Backyard Experts" that know best, and their way is the only way, no matter what evidence is set before them,

Yep ... there's a self-appointed "virus expert" on every streetcorner ... and they all know more about antivirus program testing than Virus Bulletin. Just ask them and they'll tell you. :)

> I am NOT one of these people, and have NO time for such people...

I try my best to be tolerant, but my tolerance wears thin when said "virus experts" ignore the facts (or cast aspersions on Virus Bulletin's competence/honesty/integrity) and start trying to feed me camel pellets. Occasionally I'll hit back at perps with a flame (which usually goes right over their pointy heads, but provides amusement for other readers) but mostly I just drop the thread. Like you, I simply can't be bothered with such people.

[msingle]

To Rodzilla:


What do you think of the ICSA Labs tests versus Virus Bulletins? What do you think the difference is in results between the two?

From what you've said here and other places I see you trust Virus Bulletin. Do you trust any other review sites or results?

And finally, do you really think that the ZDNet/Cnet group are paid off somehow by McAfee and Symantec or they just give good reviews to whoever spends the most in advertising? I don't ask that question because I've necessarily seen you say it but I've seen a lot of sites that say this type thing in regards to the big magazines.

Thanks.

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "I try my best to be tolerant, but my tolerance wears thin when said "virus experts" ignore the facts (or cast aspersions on Virus Bulletin's competence/honesty/integrity) and start trying to feed me camel pellets. " }-

LMFAO, well said Rod ;D

Cheers ;D

[rodzilla]

> What do you think of the ICSA Labs tests versus Virus Bulletins? What do you think the difference is in results between the two?

> From what you've said here and other places I see you trust Virus Bulletin. Do you trust any other review sites or results?

I trust all professional antivirus testers to some degree ... but Virus Bulletin is the only one which doesn't charge a fee for testing, and VB gives you only one bite at the VB100 cherry. In my book, this eliminates any possible hint of suspicion of weighted results.

When NOD32 sponsored the Virus Bulletin annual conference in New Orleans last year, some people said "That's VB's payoff for rating NOD32 as the #1 detector for all those years!" How bloody ridiculous is that ? No-one with more than a single working brain cell could possibly believe that Virus Bulletin ... a publication owned by an opposition antivirus vendor ... looked at NOD32 in 1998 and said to itself "We'll give this tiny virtually unknown antivirus program a big rating for the next four years, then maybe they will make enough money to sling us a few grand to sponsor VB2002." :) :) :)

I trust a few (very few) commercial magazine testers ... and they're competent computer men who write for magazines ... not just "freelance contributors" who are touted as "virus experts" because they know how to start Windows and can spell "PoopScan".

Without a doubt the best in the business was Jan Wikstrom, former long-time Technical Editor of PC World, and later, Technical Editor of PC User. Jan was a highly competent hardware and software man in his own right, and he supervised a huge well-equipped testing facility ... but he was never too big in the head to ask for help with viruses, and he even worked in co-operation with Virus Bulletin to double-check his own findings. I was sorry to see him retire. He'll be a hard act to follow.

> And finally, do you really think that the ZDNet/Cnet group are paid off somehow by McAfee and Symantec or they just give good reviews to whoever spends the most in advertising? I don't ask that question because I've necessarily seen you say it but I've seen a lot of sites that say this type thing in regards to the big magazines.

You hear this "payola" question asked a lot, by a lot of different people ... questions like "When have you ever seen a heavily advertised product trashed by a review in the magazine carrying the ads ?"

Personally I'd hate to think that any editor would be a party to "good editorial in exchange for advertising dollars" ... it's a breach of professional ethics with which neither I nor Eset would ever become involved.

I prefer to think that wildly ridiculous claims (good or bad) in product reviews are down to sheer incompetence on the part of the reviewer rather than "payola" ... but a while back CNet's constant ramming of Symantec products prompted even the staid old Virus Bulletin to write .....
=====
"A little more rooting around the site revealed some heavily undisguised bias: CNET's summary of every AV product listed (a total of ten, from eight different vendors) ends with a strong recommendation of Norton AntiVirus over the product in question. The more cynical among us might wonder exactly how much Symantec forked out for such staunch loyalty."
=====
( http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/cnet.xml )

I guess we all have to make up our own minds about whether "payola" exists or not, based on our own impressions of what we read.

[Melwyn]

-{ Quote: " quoting: adiel link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=0#45627 date=1043894816]
those rankings and awards are nothing compared to personal experience...
" }-

I do not agree.
If you're not a professionnal AV tester, you could make some mistake while testing AV. So awards are better value than personal experience.

It's like saying people earn much money on casino because you have won much money yourself one night. Statistics are here to show than the winner at casinos is... the casino itself.

AV software is not a subjective matter. While playing a game, you could disagree with the game tester, the game tester has perhaps loved the game, you don't, that's possible because game playing IS a subjective matter.

But AV software is an objective matter.

For example : you tested AVG and NOD32 with trojans you have on CD. First, indeed, NOD32 is not a trojan hunter. Second, perhaps on the... it's an example... 500 trojans you have on your CD, 400 are in AVG database. But perhaps also NOD32 has 1000 more in database that are not in AVG database.

And heuristic system in NOD32 is very good.

So, because you have tested NOD32 and AVG on trojans you have on one CD, you claim professionnal AV testers are wrong ?

I guess YOU missed the point. AV testing is objective, so a subjective opinion has no value.

[Melwyn]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Goldsmith link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=15#45702 date=1043914062]
I've written the folks at AVG twice, and BOTH times, I got a response (not an automated "go to our website" message)
" }-

I used AVG free myself before, I tried to reach support with the @grisoft.com domain (don't remember the address), and the mail returned as "relay denied".

It seems mails sent to grisoft are blocked by my provider, don't know why, perhaps grisoft.com is in some kind of black hole :)

[Melwyn]

-{ Quote: " quoting: rodzilla link=board=24;threadid=6839;start=30#45763 date=1043931125]
...contributors" who are touted as "virus experts" because they know how to start Windows and can spell "PoopScan".
" }-

I can... I can spell it too... popscan... oups.... poopscaan... poopscann... Damnit I will never make it :P

[Goldsmith]

Well, I guess there's no room for any questioning in this "forum"?!
All I did, was express an opinion, based on my actual experiences with various antivirus products, and the "flame wars" began :(

I make no claim to being any kind of computer "expert", neither as a user, or programmer. I suppose that that puts me in the great majority of computer "users" who come to places like this, to learn what works, and what doesn't work in the "real" world.

There seems to be no "debate" here, only the diatribe of (so called) "real experts", who have no patience or time to waste on what they obviously consider "the ignorant masses" (like perhaps 'me')

That's fine with me, but if you want to sell me something...it takes more than an overpowering insistance in your own superiority, and "expertice", based on what you call "unbiased" testing.

C'mon, unbiased...LMAO!

Color me gone...sell it to your "expert" friends :P

[xor]

well said ::)

[msingle]

Goldsmith,

If you feel as if I have flamed you I sincerely apologize. It wasn't meant to come across that way.

My target market is people with little computer experience who take advice from their friends and the local computer store guy and the magazines. And you make some good points about catering to the masses.

I'm trying to understand all the different opinions as well as lab results on AV programs too. It just doesn't make sense, for example, the different results that ICSA has for AVG versus Virus Bulletin. Yet both will proclaim that their testing methodology is right.

I am looking for cheap and free too for my target market as well if I can feel good in recommending those solutions.

The only times I've "downed" AVG is when comments are made by avid fans who won't listen to any other view point and when those comments don't make sense.

For example, I asked the other day about AV that had daily updates like NAV. I said that I had noticed that AVG did not have daily updates and I was attacked for not looking at their website because in fact they did have daily updates. Well, another avid fan who wasn't telling it like it is. I did a little comparison and AVG had like 3 updates in the last 3 weeks and NAV had 14 or 15. So if I point out the mistake there am I wrong?

Likewise with the support thing. On the AVG site it says that there is NO technical support available for AVG free. But people say they get better technical support for the free version than they do with paid AV programs. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If I point out what the site says and ask how the poster comes up with the notion that they get great support in direct contrast to what the company say themselves is that an attack?

And the other thing I've said is the whole idea that XXX AV has handled every virus. Well it doesn't matter which AV they are talking about the truth is that you only know about the ones your AV tells you about. And if it doesn't know about it due to faulty programming or lack of updates again the statement is a little faulty.

So I apologize if I offended you. I do want debate and I do want other opinions but the opinions have to be reasonable for there to be any beneficial discussion. The points I've made in this post I think are reasonable - not attacking but reasonable views on what seems like avid fans gone crazy."

My take on things.

[Madsen DK]

Msingle
Very well said!!
Right on target.
Regards Ole

[Technodrome]

Goldsmith and all!

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Lets not fight about this. This forum is about sharing experiences and opinions among users. Nothing more, nothing less. Let keep it that why. What do you say ?

Here is my opinion:

What Antivirus is the best?
NONE. But there are a few good ones…

CONCLUSION: Everyone should stick with product that works best for him/her! Period.


Technodrome

[Madsen DK]

Hi Tech.
Your last words concludes this topic well.
This war on words- AGV versus XXXAV has gone a little out of hands, i think.
Very fun to read though ;D
Regards
Ole

[rodzilla]

> Well, I guess there's no room for any questioning in this "forum"?!

Sure there is ... provided it's sensible questioning and not just "I tested PoopScan on my script kiddie virus CD and it's the best in the world" codswallop.

> All I did, was express an opinion, based on my actual experiences with various antivirus products, and the "flame wars" began

I saw nothing wrong with your posts ... in fact I agree with your "II would imagine that any antivirus program (reputable?) is going to do the job, as long as it's properly (and knowledgeably) set up, and run." and ""Sense of security"??? There IS no security, only the ability to be as secure as possible, so any sense of security could be considered "false" We can only take all the precautions we can, and stay alert."

I vehemently disagree with your "Just a passing thought...who would have the most to gain from a virus outbreak? the guys giving protection away for free?...or the folks with something to sell, like protection from a virus that they recently 'discovered'" ... but that's not something I'll get into.

My responses were (obviously) aimed at the guy who originally started this thread with his codswallop post ... not at you.

> I make no claim to being any kind of computer "expert", neither as a user, or programmer. I suppose that that puts me in the great majority of computer "users" who come to places like this, to learn what works, and what doesn't work in the "real" world.

That's what Wilders Forums is all about.

> There seems to be no "debate" here,

There's plenty of debate here ... look at some of the other threads.

> only the diatribe of (so called) "real experts", who have no patience or time to waste on what they obviously consider "the ignorant masses" (like perhaps 'me')

I have a lot of patience with people who are looking for help with something they don't understand, and with people who ask serious questions ... but there is a vast difference between "I don't know" and "I know everything", and I have little tolerance for self-appointed "virus experts" and trolls.

> That's fine with me, but if you want to sell me something...it takes more than an overpowering insistance in your own superiority, and "expertice", based on what you call "unbiased" testing.

> C'mon, unbiased...LMAO!

If you're convinced that Virus Bulletin testing is "biased" then perhaps you'd be better off reading CNet.

> Color me gone...sell it to your "expert" friends :P

Don't fall down the steps on your way out!

[minacross]

for me, AVG6 is just fine. :) :)
I have been using it for more than a year now and it saved my pc from e-mail messages attached with files infected with YAHA.J and YAHA.M ;D ;D

[flawed_cat]

I'd put my personal experience over rankings and awards
any day. And in the end, for the consumer, personal experience with the products is what wins or loses. Objective or subjective, what's best for you at this point of time may not be what is best for me at this point in time. Two years ago when I first installed AVG6 I got the same, "You get what you pay for" comment. And by now it has become a meaningless cliche. I don't know if Nod32
actually stops 70% and AVG 30%. But I do know that before
AVG I did 4 FDISK's because of infection and now 2 years later I haven't had to do any. The only reason I posted in the first place was it was beginning to sound like AVG was ditch water not fit for consumption. By now, it all looks like muddy water to me. All the professional testers can dot all the i's and cross all the t's, but when the rubber hits the road it is the consumer's personal experience that will shape his opinion...not awards and ratings.
------------------------------------------------
And support? Two years later and I've never even needed
any support. That goes straight to the top of my list, to not
need any support is better than any support response...to me anyway.

[RAV]

I also use AVG and think it is great. Other AV companies could learn alot by looking at it's UI and low resource usage, let alone the terrific price. I have loaded NOD32 and others on my machine, but keep coming back to AVG FREE.