AV-comparative February2005

Yeah,tests are tests (theory). But real usage is something else.
But ok,all AVs were tested the same,so it's ok for the test itself

Oh,is ArcaVir planned to be tested in AV-Comparatives tests?

 

IBK,
the connection would be this: if i am buying a product based on a review and i find out later that the review is not actually acurare i would then not be getting what i thought i was getting.

again i would not ask you to do something that you are not comfortable doing, and i can understand you not wanting to say, i was just trying to find out the level of how serious the issue was

 

Thanks for the comparative. Am I reading the number of viruses right...over 386 thousand? How do you get so many samples when no virus scanner has near that many records in its database? Are you using the same viruses packed many different ways?

AntiVir and Nod32 have improved a little, but the only big surprise is Norton. I've never seen it score that high before, or beat Mcafee. So I'll have to consider that result an outlier until other groups release some recent comparatives. Hey RejZoR, do you know if the latest Symantec Corp has the same on-access problems (with spyware) as Norton Home?

 

I haven't had the chance to test Corporate version,but i belive it doesn't have such problems. But i can't say for sure because i haven't tested it.

 

The steady improved showing for AntiVir (H+BEDV) is interesting and seems likely to continue given that the number of records at the time of testing was 97,143 and is presently over 145,000.

 

@Rejzor: about ArcaVir: yes, maybe in 2006.
@bs259: Panda is good, you can buy it.
@Culvin: virus records does not say much. AV companies have even bigger databases than I have.

 

They have to be so many samples but not so many different infection names as in VB there are about 20k samples but only about 1.6k different virus names in their macro, standard and polymorphic tests.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Good result for my AntiVir compared to the other freebies, sometimes I think the lack of enthusiasm for it is because its website or GUI isnt as fancy as AVAST or AVG but facts and figures are more important than bells and whistles.

 

But on the other hand,lack of incrimental updates and even auto-updater is a very bad thing that deflects many users from using AntiVir...

 

My AntiVir auto updates daily thanks to the scheduler and with ADSL it only takes a matter of seconds. Ive used AntiVir for long time with no infection so no need to renew my KAV license.

 

IBK,

thanks for your work

Sad to see that avast! got worse in detection, but it seems that they will improve the detection of their product.

The work of AntiVir team is being very good and the program are growing in this area.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let me get this straight.... You guys are putting down avast! for coming in behind Antivir 0.2 OF A PERCENT!?! I mean come on!!! Who really cares about a number that trivial!! I'm so outraged I forgot what else I was gonna say.

 

I hoped that with the 3 levels peoples would understand that little differences in percentages does not make a big difference. Avast, HBEDV, Sophos and TrendMicro got all the standard level, in my eyes they are on the same good level.

 

Be careful of the AV you bash today, it may wind up being tommorow Number !!

 

Straight on, see NAV.

 

LOL! Hear that, all you Norton bashers? BTW, after this most recent comparative I decided to download Norton2005; I was amazed. This runs much faster and smoother than 2004, I wish I had downloaded this earlier. This new found speed, along with the climb of NAV to number two in the last comparative, might just make this the keeper that I’ve been looking for on my system, I'm not going to say for sure because twice recently with KAV and McAfee I thought that I had found what I was looking for, only to be disappointed, but this does look very promising.

Acadia

 

I'm gonna wait for 2006 when they'll merge On-Demand and On-Access detections (also spyware and riskware). But NAV2005 was a good start after terrible NAV2004.

 

Oh wow...has Symantec support improved any?

 

Interesting, RejZor, what do you mean by merging the two?

Acadia

 

WOW that was an eye openner.
I used to be solid NOd32 user and believer but that really changed my mind.
My NOD32 is epiring in two months and I don't think I will renew it (even though I been a user for 3 years).
They have a very slow emergency response time and too much faith in their AH detection.
I can not believe that I might switch to Norton I mean WOW. I never thought that Norton would be a #2 AV right behind KAV!!!

Did you test NOd32 with AH on?

Also how would Symantec Corp 9 perform? Would it be on par with Norton 2005?

How is the system performance of Norton 2005 when compared to NOD32 or KAV?

Thanks

 

yes.

Symc Corp9 and NAV2005 have the same detection rates.

try it yourself on your system. i would say nod32, kav and then norton.

 

Norton is still a big download, 25mb, compared to NOD and the others, on the other hand, AVK, which is highly praised in this forum, is a 50mb download. I was also surprised at how much more the NAV2005 scans for over the NAV2004, more options. With the exception of a brief usage of KAV and McAfee, I have only ever used NAV2004 on my system so I was not aware of how much it was slowing me down. Once I installed NAV2005, ZOOM, I finally realized that both NAV2004 and McAfee had been having an impact on my system. I don't know if NAV2005 is as light as NOD, I think that would probably be taking it a bit TOO far.

Acadia

 

I was a solid Norton user ever since 2001. I was introduced to NOD32 last fall and wouldn't switch now if somebody paid me. Every year Norton gets bigger and bigger and slower, plus the addition of the "online subscription" requirement. I won't go back. Also, the fact that you have to re-download the entire definition file each time, unlike most AV's that just append the new defs with the old ones. It takes forever to download the latest updates, even on a t-1 line.

Recently a co-worker recieved an email from his NOD32 setup on a clients machine notifying him of a new virus found through heuristics. He did a scan of the virus found with Norton Corporate edition (latest definitions) and It did not find a thing.

I have had quite a bit of experience where NOD32 has caught (whether through heuristics or defs) virus/trojans/malware that Norton & McAfee has let pass by as "OK".

 

Indeed, in the one earlier report done at AV-Comparative, was it number 3 or 4??, where heuristics was taken into account, I believe NOD finished number one.

Acadia

 

What do you guys say about BitDefender heuristics?