Gizmo's Tech Support Alert

[Someone]

Hi

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...re-remover.htm

The editor of that page did a review and tested SAS, MBAM, AdAware, A-Squared, Spybot and Spyware Terminator.

Out of nearly 200 malware collected from Hong Kong websites, the results were SAS came first with 176, MBAM with 104, AdAware 86, Spybot and Spyware Terminator 5%-8% and A-Squared 3.

Interesting results!

What do you people think?

Thanks

[EliteKiller]

It's a complete 180 from Gizmo's previous review of SAS.

Finally, Microsoft’s own offering, Windows Defender, is a free download and increasingly effective malware scanner and real time protection utility, and a worthy addition to your arsenal.

If it's so effective then why not list the scan results?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by EliteKiller

It's a complete 180 from Gizmo's previous review of SAS.


If it's so effective then why not list the scan results?

Hi

I realise that. Well that review was ages ago, and according to SAS, it was wrongly tested. So now it should be right, I guess, since it's actual malware, not HIPS tests.

I think the editor of that page is still testing more products.

Thanks

[Firebytes]

Originally Posted by EliteKiller

It's a complete 180 from Gizmo's previous review of SAS.

That's what I was thinking but you beat me to the post. His last review brought forth threads such as this here at Wilders.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Firebytes

That's what I was thinking but you beat me to the post. His last review brought forth threads such as this here at Wilders.

Hi

As I just said before, that was a long time ago. I do believe it was probably the wrong way to test SAS, but NOW, the editor of that page has tested it against real infections.

[Firebytes]

Originally Posted by Someone

As I just said before, that was a long time ago. I do believe it was probably the wrong way to test SAS, but NOW, the editor of that page has tested it against real infections.

Looks like I was typing my last post as you were posting yours. Anyway, I agree that it was tested in a wrong way for his last review. That is the main thing, not that it was a little over a year ago, which to me isn't that long. SAS was good then too.

[acr1965]

Does anyone know how an antispyware product compares against the spyware protection in a premium product such as Avira Premium?

Also, saw A-squared tested surprising low.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Firebytes

Looks like I was typing my last post as you were posting yours. Anyway, I agree that it was tested in a wrong way for his last review. That is the main thing, not that it was a little over a year ago, which to me isn't that long. SAS was good then too.

Hi

I don't get it, how is it the main thing?

They seem to have realised their mistake and changed their view already.

I suppose SAS was good a year ago too, I don't really know because at that time I knew nothing about this stuff.

Thanks

[Someone]

Originally Posted by acr1965

Does anyone know how an antispyware product compares against the spyware protection in a premium product such as Avira Premium?

Also, saw A-squared tested surprising low.

I was about to ask that question too!

Because I was wondering in the case of AVG, where they had bought Ewido, which is specifically anti-malware, whether it would be better than most anti-viruses in detecting malware.

[Firebytes]

I meant that it was the main reason his review has now changed, in that he is now testing in a more proper way it seems. I didn't think the time mattered as much in the 180 degree turn around of the review since SAS was good then too even though he panned it at the time.

[bellgamin]

I place no more credence on Gizmo's "reviews/ratings" than I do on those published by PC magazines -- for exactly the same reasons.

Okane talks, I think so, neh desho-ka?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Firebytes

I meant that it was the main reason his review has now changed, in that he is now testing in a more proper way it seems. I didn't think the time mattered as much in the 180 degree turn around of the review since SAS was good then too even though he panned it at the time.

What was the main reason? I didn't see any particular reason.

Thanks

[Firebytes]

nevermind

[Someone]

Originally Posted by bellgamin

I place no more credence on Gizmo's "reviews/ratings" than I do on those published by PC magazines -- for exactly the same reasons.

Okane talks, I think so, neh desho-ka?

Hi

What are the reasons?

But I think Tech Support Alert is more transparent because users are now editors and everyone can put comments.

Thanks

[Thankful]

Different collection, different results.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=211867
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=210039

[Someone]

Originally Posted by Thankful

Different collection, different results.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=211867

Hi

Well that test is testing only rogue products so it is different.

[innerpeace]

Would a computer with 200 infections even function? If so, would it let you install an anti-whatever? Also, how did he know the infections were cured?

[Someone]

Originally Posted by innerpeace

Would a computer with 200 infections even function? If so, would it let you install an anti-whatever? Also, how did he know the infections were cured?

I think so.

By downloading and installing the software?

I don't know. I've asked him.

[Someone]

Originally Posted by EliteKiller

If it's so effective then why not list the scan results?

Hi

The tester just tested Windows Defender recently and it scored 0!
So he'll remove the recommendation soon.

And he also tested Spyware Doctor SE, which got 50/159.