F-prot 6 or Dr. web?

well I like you to. And agree that Eset could have polished their customer service skills. But I honestly feel they are doing that as we speak. So I would not hesitate to consider them again and give them another chance. I use to feel the same way about Dr. Web unti this antispam crap. To increase your customer base, you offer deals like F-Prot is doing, and/or offer a great product like Nod32. This is especially important for the up and coming vendors.

 

Well that's a strong statement that I must respectfully challenge (too many "very"s).
(A "moderate margin" or even "considerate margin" would have been adjectives which I would have overlooked.)
If one is to put any credence into Virus Bulletin's ratings, you'll notice that their tests of Jun 06, Aug 06, Oct 06, Dec 06, Feb 07 rated:
Dr Web: Pass, Fail, Pass, No Entry, No Entry
F-Prot: Fail, No Entry, Fail, No Entry, No Entry

To be redundant:
Both are fine AVs, I don't think you can go wrong with either.
Let economics dictate your decision.

cheers

 

I agree, but was basing my decision on the latest 2007 results to the last ones of 2006.

 

I believe that's why they call it a beta. It's my experience that Dr. Web's software is very stable. It's rock solid. Even the beta's are stable. This is not including false positives (every AV has them). I'm talking about not crashing or conflicting with other software. I think alot of Dr. Web users are a little frustrated waiting for the next major release because Dr. Web likes to beta test their software extensively. To me, I don't mind because I know when the next major update is released, it's most likely going to be very stable.

Another thing about Dr. Web is, it update flawlessly. No problems at all. Not one. The updates are never larger then 15k. Dr. Web updates several times a day, through out the day.

 

yep f-prots VB scores aint as good as dr.webs, and apparently that is soooooo easy to pass, so 'some say'

i wont go as far as trjam, but i think dr.web is marginly better than f-prot.

trjam: very, very wide margin? you really believe this...... *laughs*

 

I choose DrWeb because the tray icon looks nicer.

 

I cant, nor am I trying to argue these points. And I agree with what you are saying about each person should try all and make their own choice.

BTY, Nod has updated 3 times today for me.

 

Personally, they should change their tray icon to match CSJs avatar.

 

funny,

but lets not go down this road,

icon vs icon
or maybe... avatar vs avatar *lol*

 

I recommend F-Prot. Dr.Web is definitely good enough, but its not really better than what the tests say. I have seen it miss a bit in recent days, though I'll admit most of them were not common, ITW malware. But they were 100% executable, and Dr.Web lied through its teeth about the non-executable malware crap. IBK's sample set contains very few corrupted samples, to the extent that if they were all removed, the detection rate differences would be 1 to 1.5% at the maximum.

Dr.Web version 5 has been in the making since 2002. And I'm still waiting....

As for F-Prot, they took a long time, but they delivered. Simply saying that testing a 2007 F-Prot version and comparing to an old Dr.Web is a poor excuse as only the latest available versions are tested. If Dr.Web couldn't release its new version by then, its their fault.

In personal experience, I recommend F-Prot due to the great licensing policy and good detection rates. Dr.Web also does a good job mostly; but I can see that this product has somewhat stagnated in its development.

 

Maybe it's in the process of being acquired.

 

I like both of them ,but it looks like i may lean toword f-prot.Anyone know when f-prot will be vista ready?My wifes laptop has vista.

 

If you have developed a security strategy which doesn´t rely on blacklist scanners, both will serve you well. However, I will give the edge to F-Prot.

 

I am glad that this discussion is not a war like Eset and Kaspersky. Rather, I am happy that each of you support the many different AV's out there. Remember, we all need each others support. Use what you like and give credit to the hard-working AV experts. They are the true shield in the malware world!! All the frequent members are

C.S.J. - I commend you for your great loyalism despite the ratings. We need more people like you. No offense to Trjam

 

I believe detection rate and heuristics are better with Dr Web. But I found the GUI of Dr Web really annoying. Fo that I liked Fprot better.

 

From the F-Prot forum, they are working on it becoming Vista compatible, I'm waiting for it too, that was the last AV I used when I had Windows XP.

 

Hey thats unfair. I have now had Nod on for over 49 hours, and for me, thats an eternity. And buying a family pak license today. So there iss hopefully my proof that old dogs can be taught new tricks.

 

I guess I didn't remove my post quick enough. Yeah, I found the same thing. F-Prot detects the eicar file when I tried it with IE 7. But I use Firefox as my default, so for now, although I like it, I'll pass on F-Prot.

 

Read this!

 

sure i could be wrong, but even if only a few percent were non-executables, and dr.web only detected half of that, it would still add about 2% to dr.webs score, which is good enough for me on IBK's test.

dr.web gets about 92% on av-test.org which is also good enough for me, beating panda on that test and thats a big company too, and dr.web has a great record with VB which f-prot do not, so even though some can look at these results and say no to dr.web, i prefer to keep the faith, i aint a safe surfer and never been infected on dr.web, and it offers zero system performance too.

im happy

like f-prot, dr.web are close to a vista version, so everyone is happy

 

Really?





Anyway, I never said that Dr.Web was not good enough, I just said that it really isn't a lot better than what the tests say. I am personally unhappy with their VMS service, and this is why I rank Dr.Web somewhat low. In personal experience, having evaluated many AVs, my experience was consistent with what AV-comparatives shows in terms of detection rates. There were a few surprises occasionally, but mostly its consistent. And that includes Dr.Web not detecting as much as some of the others, but still, I think Dr.Web is more than good enough to protect users from the latest malware.

 

yeah, i meant it has no effect on system performance, no drag on browsing, a fast bootup and no stupid pop ups, it just does its job in the tray

-----------
edit:

think i will upgrade my dr.web today, even though i cant yet use it on vista.

i think £16 for 3 years spam and 1 year antivirus aint too bad, even though we all wanted the spam for free.

 

C.S.J
Why to buy if you're so disappointed?Can't understand
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=956193&postcount=46
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=959187&postcount=65

 

He's deeply in love with the spider.

The antispam is not worth it though.

 

im not dissappointed with the product, just their marketing.

i feel all exisiting licence holders should of got the spam for free, but either way, im not too fussed by it now.

i understand why they are charging for the spam, just like avira charging when they added a firewall, its a new feature thats not part of the av, sure we want it for free, but it doesnt tend to be like that.

but in my situation, £16 for 3yr spam and 1yr antivirus, if you think of it at just £5 per year spam, and only a £1 for the year antivirus, its not too bad of a price for exisiting users, and it is worth the upgrade i feel.

i just hope, no other features will come out though that i have to further pay for, thats my only worry and probably one that others fear with their AV, when nod bring a firewall, they will charge etc.---------

*HEHE*

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5093/untitledtk3.jpg

sure the image needs to be bigger, but my avatar does look good on it *lol*

me, just messing around..... bored.