AV Comparatives has released the newest report.

Are you aware of anyone who performs tests that you would find acceptable?
Regards,
Jerry

 

Hi Firefighter,
Somehow I have missed your posts, and wondered if you were still around. I have at times referred to your tests that were run with and without AT applications. Those were some of the most meaningful tests that I read.

Regards,
Jerry

 

And some of us especially on this site take the opposite view. It's a philosophical choice you can make that's all

 

Ok, I'll bite. What rethinking do they need to do?

 

Oh wow Firefighter , that name brings back memories of the first regular AV-Test i used to read on this board

 

Almost did exactly that but certain interactions with the majority PC world don't go as smoothly as I would like yet.

 

unless ur trying to find products for people who dont know how to use a PC all that well, i dont see what problems FP's pose to a regular member of this forum who u wuld think culd tell what an FP is and culd use that extra bit of detection more...

 

Kinda late aren't you, I expected them to be on par with Avira with their latest version 5 release, its not bad showing but still, the potential they have is far more now with their new version than they ever did with the older one.

 

I will take FPs with high detection rate anyday, would rather be warned and stay on my toes, false alarm notwithstanding than get infected.

 

I'll take lower FPs, thank you.

 

The showing of Avast was excellent unless I'm looking at the wrong test. Only two percentage points behind Avira over all, and better results in two catagories. And how can you be late to an ongoing thread?

 

Regular members know of spell check and the AV companies produce their products for the people you describe not just for us.

 

You posted late, thats what I meant and no, the showing is not conducive to the potential and promise of Avast 5, there are informal tests done by others revealing Avast doing not so well against Avira, it still remains my second choice and recommendation as it always has been but I feel we are yet to see its full potential.

 

You just didn't like the fact that you got called out on your rethink statement. The thread isn't even a month old and the discussion is ongoing, and based on the test in the thread title, Avast did well. Other tests are really for other threads and one Av or another is always doing poorly in somebody's test compared to some other Av. Avast seems to be improving in AV-Comparatives tests anyway.

 

No rethinking here, Avast didn't live up to its promise, plain and simple, does that make it bad AV, not really but it just didn't live up to its potential and yes, your response to my post is quite late, the tests were done a while back and the topic has changed to FP, not how Avast performed.

 

Your right about the fact that the topic has changed to FP's as thread topics tend to do but that's about all.

 

Would you like to know who did great in this round? All in the Advance+.

 

Are you talking about the latest test, I have already seen it.

 

I find this type of test useful in some ways. The only problem with them that I really see is that some people will use them as their only metric to decide what is best or what to buy.

I think I can readily show that the naysayers are simply wrong.

Let's say that I own an AV software package or security suite including AV, or one of these is supplied by my employer (in which case I don't usually have a choice about using it or not.) We're not going to discuss which of the brands I should own, or why I chose what I own. We'll just accept this part as a given.

So now I want to beef up my security with another on-demand scanner. I think we can all agree that it is a wise move to at least occasionally scan with another product.

So which one do I choose, and how might I go about deciding? I think that looking at this kind of test is a perfectly valid way of picking a supplementary on-demand scanner. (If there are better ways I would like to know of them...)

This kind of test is therefore useful and some people should just stop bellyaching about them.

I do actually think this type of test is useful for more than just this use, and the above was just an example I happened to pick because it was easy to explain.

Like many other things, these are tools to be used. We should limit our criticisms to flaws in the test methodology (if we find some), and not criticize the usefulness of the tests based just on our specific needs. Our needs are not always other's needs.

 

i do