Av-Comparatives: Retrospective/Proactive Comparative May 2010

Lol . That is why I do not use it . Forcing you to pay for a donation . Is that not an oxymoron ?

Thank you IBK !!!

 

They are not forcing the donation in practice, you dont pay more to that compared to another antivirus solutions ( the price is "normal") ... So its Avira that giveaways money to Auerbach Foundation.
Dont worry.

 

Hats off to Panda

 

Microsoft has done a great job of providing a free AV that can run with the "Big Dogs."

I am not sure if there is a down side to MSE, and I suspect its use will increase. MSE with something like MBAM and OA firewall would be about as safe as most people now using or need.

Regards,
Jerry

 

If they want to give away money, then allow the option of adding or deleting the donation from the shopping cart.

I dont care that they are not charging that much for the software. But I will not be forced to pay for some charity which I dont want.

Who do they think they are ?

 

My understanding is that the VAT is a sales tax. Some think the US may have to go that route.
Normally we do not pay sales tax when we purchase over the interned from a company who is not located within the state where we are. It may not alway be so.

I do not know what the Auerbach Foundation is.

In any case one decides how much he is willing to pay for merchandise. In my own view Avira is fairly priced, and I would not hesitate to pay for it. However, with so many good free ones, especially MSE, it is not illogical to not pay for any, but use the free ones.

Regards,
Jerry

 

My system is secured by Avast! WoW!

 

Avast is removed, MSE is ON , almost none FP's and great detection, plus it's free and very light, I like it

 

looking at the results again im VERY dissapointed in how avast peformed. they were getting really good and showing great results and progress and wow .. what happened. i mean they barely edged out norman which sorry to say is sad since norman is nearly almost always last. just dissapointed i guess..i do have to say in daily use i see avast catch so much stuff more then i ever saw when i had nortons. and nortons as much as i like it was way more sensitive with more fp's that drove me nuts. but then even symantec didnt do so well in this test

 

Totally agree. That is why to me, high FPs are as dangerous as malware to people who dont know how to decide thier validity. I have seen computer users hose their entire operating system by deleting FPs that were detected with a scan. Sorry, but to me it isnt one way or the other. A good product, especially a paid product, better be able to do both.

 

100% agree about fp's i know so many people that killed their os install by saying okay to delete a fp and then wondered what happened.. i have had to fix so many of these... thats why i personally dont like a hips based program for the average user. my mom etc just could not deal with all the kaspersky pop ups and if im not around to help.. i switched her to norton and it still asks for a few things but so far she has been okay

 

Would it be fine to run MSE alongside Avira or NOD32 ?

 

i would not do that if using in real time myself, but if used as a stand alone imo it should be okay. av's dont like to run along side each other with both running at the same time

 

no. Run one of the three, any one of them, and you will be fine.

 

BD always had good detection rates but only the performance on a long run was the problem.

Infact congrats to all the AV with Adv+ and to those with Adv only better luck next time

 

Alright, ill give MSE a try after the Avira trial runs out.

Although I am not a big fan of free stuff. I tend to purchase my stuff.

 

Overkill

 

As if avast needed another reason for removal - yuck

 

Give avast a chance it will definitely bounce back just like kaspersky did in recent tests

 

Agree. FPs are important to me as I don't have the knowledge to always decide. Then I have to do a lot of research, and I don't want to do that. Too many FP means "to the ditch."

Regards,
Jerry

 

I know this is about AV-Comparatives, but im going to go off topic just a little bit. It seems as if each AV product has a different percentage/rating about every time a test is conducted, which leads me to conclude that an antivirus is not the solution. The solution is being well informed or educated on how to browse and use the computer without infection. A simple way would be to use a safe browser that doesn't allow scripts, or a sandbox type of application like sandboxie or something entirely different such as defensewall. If you encounter a file that does not have a good reputation, or is not well known, simply do your research on google or your preferred search engine to determine if it is legitimate.

In conclusion, simply make sure the file (usually ".exe" files) have a good reputation, or came from a legitimate site that is popular and widely used. If you use p2p applications, don't try to download music with the extension of .exe with a size of under 1mb

 

OMG, gonna check right now, Posting reactions soon

 

Panda nice score but a bit too much FP's xD
G-DATA did NICE and Trustport!
Kaspersky is back on track or they've always been good? And Microsoft Essentials wow!

 

No one seems to be paying attention that avast! 5 was in early version back then (AVC was testing using "outdated" versions to simulate practive detection). Today, avast! 5 is using behavior analysis even for on-demand scans. Heuristics were also greatly improved and enhanced.
It's funny how ppl start to switch AV's like crazy after such tests without even knowing how it was tested or what the results actually mean...

 

It was clearly mentioned that the report shows how good the proactive detection capabilities of the scanners were in detecting new threats. Users should not be afraid if products have, in a retrospective test, low percentages. If the anti-virus software is always kept up-to-date, it will be able to detect more samples.

So why keep on changing?

BTW its is true that "Change is Constant"