No, no Panda products since the end of 2006. Panda Cloud AV is a very good idea but not done well. It is buggy to me and inconsistent. Developers have turned it into bloatware. Actually, I am not aware of pretty much anybody who uses Panda.
After trying Baidu AV, and coming away rather disappointed, (update issue & sizeable FPs) I am now trying Panda Cloud AV. I recall using Panda before back in '05 or '06, before it went cloud. Rather spartan, but I'll see how this works out.
No, it was one of the most resource intensive AVs, despite what they claim. Also had other issues. Might've changed, but not trying it out any time soon.
Nope, it lagged my boot-up last time I tried it. Might want to see the current version but don't feel like doing that for now. Problem is, everyone goes cloud today. I'm not saying cloud is a bad thing though, maybe it's better than the old way. Hey, I said maybe.
It's called gimmick sensei, gimmick. Hardly call it gimmick now though since everyone calls their features as cloud nowadays. hxxp://www.av-comparatives.org/detection-test/ Do note that in most real-life scenarios anything above 90% is supposed to be sufficient enough.
i read compares with panda av from 2005-2006, saying panda is heavy. very true, maybe, but that was not the cloud av. it's like comparing oranges and bananas. i run panda cloud av for over a year and it has been trouble-free and very light. you can select to scan inside archives or not, automatically disinfect/delete or not. the detection rate is not the highest among the av's, but it is still over 97%. that can't be bad. and you can always see when it has updated. although this is important only when you are offline.
I haven't used Panda for more than a year now. By the state of the AV, I'm not sure I'll go for it any soon.
I used to but: 1. Detection wasn't/isn't the best, albeit still good. 2. Heard it has high disk I/O, though I noticed no impact. 3. Liked Avast! more for some reason, though I use Bitdefender now. 4. Didn't like the icon.