G-Data = Norton/McAfee stuck in the dark age forever

Though heavier than most, G-Data was rated as an excellent product for years. But fast forward to 2013, when they decided to replace the Avast engine with their own along with some other modifications for the 2014 version, it's entered a Big Two-esque dark age it won't ever even recover unless they resort to quick fixes like bring back Avast. Here's why:


1. It was designed to be lighter and faster than ever, but many users complained about slowdowns, even long-time satisfied ones.

2. Like the old big two would usually do, it was rushed and released too early. On top of that, the bugs and issues remained for a long time even after they were known to everyone.

3. As you know, Norton and McAfee used to do a lot of these, which G-Data will definitely follow with many others.

4. In the old AVC tests, the big two scored great in file detection tests (just like GD14 did in this September). McAfee even did decent in retrospective/heuristics tests, but if they could detect that well, why would people bash not only their resource usage/slowness but also claim they couldn't find anything? As for GD14, if the signatures are still that great, why did it only manage to directly block 90.8% in September and not much better even in August? Even though I consider it a good result due to very low (Aug) and zero (Sep) miss rate, the fact that even the bare-bones Microsoft solution blocked more points to at least one of these:

a. they couldn't integrate the full BD database for some reason, in which case they've cheated in the last file detection test, and the sigs aren't that good in the first place.

b. they couldn't integrate its full heuristics for some reason, which still suggests the detection in real life isn't what it used to be anymore.

c. they actually have them both, but only the on-demand scan can use them all, not the webguard. IMO it kinda explains why GD14's real world block rate got significantly worse and worse in general - one of the most common complaints were about slowdowns when browsing, which the devs presumably couldn't find a way other than constantly dumbing down the web protection to fix.

d. it can always use the licensed BD engine without problems, but doesn't have good proactive tech other than the BB, which TBF can't be that bad when there's a long yellow bar. OTOH many others' proactive stuff can handily block malware even before the BB has to be called into action, or even some BBs don't ask questions.


Also, I'm definitely not making up that there's a GD user on Rokop who had problems with the news app in W8 when the webguard was on, which he loves to read from. He reported the issue to the devs, then they sent him a DLL, telling him to replace it with the identically named existing one. But it had to be done again and again after each program update since they weren't smart enough to write future updates that include the same DLL. Then came another build update, the problem reared its ugly head again, a new DLL, rinse and repeat. And although the latest build seems to work well according to the user comments there, they can't even look after their build update servers anymore so not everyone is lucky enough to get it. Even those who are might be the victims of "4c" I've mentioned. Not to mention it's still yet to support 8.1, unlike other vendors who actually know what they're doing. Not that a 8.1 compatible update will help much, mind you, if you're most probably not gonna have it on your computer.

Now, I'm not saying that a subpar year is the end of the world for an AV vendor. Kaspersky (2010) and judging by the latest test results if the 2014 version is stable enough, apparently Avira (2010 - late 2013?) have recovered from their slumps, but those two have always had the ability and competence to make a very good AV once they'd get a kick in the ass. Even Norton and McAfee are decent products these days.

On the other hand, G-Data can't seem to do anything right since they ditched Avast. Not that they used to do much even before that - what with barely developing anything on their own, inability to do research (just look at how few entries are on their blogs even though their home country is far from the safest if we go by malware prevalence maps). They used to have decent QC, but it seemed they always owed it to their non-BD partner considering how even it's gone now.

Ineptitude is forever and theirs has finally been exposed for all to see so stick in a fork in it, it's done unless they have their both hands held again.

 

Outside In,

Wow... sounds like you had a really bad experience with G-Data.

At a minimum, G-Data did well in a slew of tests recently -- very impressive results.

It does sound like they need to work out many issues.

Norton/Symantec has certainly not been in the 'dark ages' forever. Until relatively recently, they were a top AV in many tests -- and they seemed to be more reliable (better engineered) than most.

But yes, McAfee (and I was long ago a McAfee user) has been lame for a long long time.

Hopefully G-Dud will get back in the saddle and produce a better product.


-ftp

 

Giving me a taste of my own medicine lol...

No, thank God I've never used it, and never will. I just tend to obsessively google some of the stuff I come across that I don't know about, even sometimes ending up knowing more of it than I do about the things I've always thought I knew well. First a thingummy topping the test charts all the time got my attention, but then I concluded that the work put into it was always overrated, so they were getting all the acclaim for doing nothing themselves. Likewise, I felt sympathetic towards Avira because it seemed they never got enough credit for doing something well, with their failings blown out of proportion.

Detection test, sure. Though didn't Microsoft admit to cheating in them not long ago? Of course doing well without cheating is possible, but on the GD blog there was nothing but awards and whitepapers for them to advertise with; they don't seem to have anything else to advertise so I got the impression that they're obsessed with them/depend a lot on them. And when they can't get them legitimately anymore, guess what will they do? It seems uncannily in character to me, especially considering they've already slapped the award the 2013 version won in this year's Stiftung Warentest test on the 2014 one!

As for the real world test, I'd call the result itself good for the reasons I've already posted in its thread's OP. But it just casts more doubt on the legitimacy of the result it got in the first test than there already is.

Yup.

It's now a good product which makes up for the lack of detection with excellent protection, stability and low resource usage, no doubt. Sorry, I didn't mean it's still 'stuck', but that it would have been no different from GD14 if it were. Pity they tried to withdraw from AVC, because it could have at least flaunted its protection.

Decent test results now after a dip, but according to reviews still has issues.

You know, I love it when I'm proven wrong about something/someone I hate, no matter how far they/it are/is from redeemable.

 

Interesting, highly critical of a product you've never used.

 

I just wrote something I would probably still have if I used it.

 

Sure, you can write anything. The caveat is you are relying on the opinions of others to formulate your critique without the added benefit of having tried the product to either prove, or disprove, its merits, or lack of.

 

You don't have to try everything out to tell the good from the bad. When there's a lot of intelligent, articulate criticism by most users but biased gushing with !!1!!11s abound by a few, what will you believe more? By that logic, why give a damn about any test at all since they're irrelevant anyway?

And why should I be called a sheep when I already have that unpopular opinion?

 

I read hundreds of negative opinions of a "X" product but it works perfectly fine for me... Conclusion: you don't know up to when you actually try it.
Not the way around, this is especially true for security tools.

GDATA is a perfectly fine and recommendable product. All products have bugs. No offense intended but, this looks to me borderline to trolling.

Close and out.

 

I'd try it and judge for myself because the experience of a million other users may not be what I experience. If I came to the same conclusion of a thousand others, at least then I could speak to whatever issue(s) with credibility based on actual experience/1st hand knowledge. I am not defending G-Data here: just making an observation.

 

Good Afternoon! InsideOut...I had an ongoing Love Hate...relationship with G-Data based on various criteria...over the past three years. I like many members at Wilders are afflicted with the same sense of what you might classify as morbid curiosity...but to fuel this curiosity one has to Experience the mechanics of actually using the app on one's own system. My main problems were based on their lack of an actual presence here in North America...that has since been rectified with a Head Office presence in Atlanta Georgia. Their communication and Customer Service Focus has Greatly Improved as a Result. The product demands at least four gigs of ram...and a Core 5 or 7 Intel or Amd Processor...due to the fact of having two engines...the Bitdefender engine alone chews up a lot of a ram and processing power. Anyhow to conclude, I agree wholeheartedly with aztony how can you possibly Critique and Ridicule...if you haven't Walked The Walk...to credibly Talk The Talk. Get back to us when you've done so. Sincerely...Securon

 

the problem with gdata was (in my opinion) the bad choise with the engine's....

here in my country, we have a proverb:

" if you have a team that wins, don't change it"

And that fits with the gdata situation, right now....

 

My humble opinion is that you should try it at least once, and I think this latest v2014 is exactly the best starting point to begin with (v2012 and older were way "heavier" than newer 2013 & 2014), despite of what you might be reading on Rokop forums. There is a ton of variables that can make an AV program perfectly runnable on everyone's computer and you won't know until you try it.

In my experience (with the latest 2014 version) GDAV won't necessarily get updated to the latest "build" once it's installed and manually updated, I mean, some people will get the latest v.24.0.2.3 while others just previous v.24.0.1.5. It seems their servers and/or your geographical location are to blame

 

I never said it has always been a bad product, just that they have always been a bad vendor that can only make good products when they get handed a lot from others (pick two among BD, Kaspersky and Avast). Reminds me of Manch€$t€r City.

BD + Kaspersky : great coverage but was too heavy.

Avast + Kaspersky : pretty light for a dual engine for that time but got surpassed by Eset and later, the emerging Avira.

BD + Avast turned out to be an all around good combination though, but the 'bad choices' aren't that much worse than the supposedly "good" ones anymore, because most engines now get similar results in terms of sigs, heuristics and performance unlike they used to. These days capable vendors can cram more power into their own engine without significantly slowing the AV down (lots of examples), or at least complement the licensed stuff with (an) auxillary engine(s) of their own, which they can modify as they like (Emsi, F-Secure and maybe Qihoo). GD have recently tried to do the latter, which has much more potential than just inevitably having loads of overlaps, but they just don't have what it takes to make the best of it despite the right idea.

Wouldn't put it past them to get them hacked. People love to bash especially Avira for their alleged incompetence, but at least they know when they are and quickly sort it out.

PS. actually the latest build is v.24.0.3.2.

PPS. I predict it will block less than 80% in the October real world test.

PPPS. but I have a mild grudging respect for them for at least trying to give up some of their second biggest crutch.

 

I use GDATA 2014, I did not like the loss of the Avast! engine at first, but have grown accustom to it. Behavioral heuristics are much better in 2014 and makes up for the loss of the Avast! engine. I have not had any problems. Only thing its bad with is adware.

 

It may have detected "everything" in the real world test, but its admittedly great BB (which works after the fact) only masks the fact that the actual protection now has more holes than a stale Swiss cheese. No offense to the latter. Come on, only 90.8%? Also, love the double standards on this forum (sorry, it's not addressed at you) - for example, Avira is 'awful' for not protecting well, which isn't even true anymore one iota (just for the paid version but soon the cloud will also get added to the freebie), yet G-Dud gets away with doing far, far worse at protection than Avira could ever have, with everything suggesting that they aren't bright enough to recover. Logic be damned, right? They can screw up all they want, people will either make excuses or stay silent anyway.

Bitdefender should really stop being enablers for every R&D-deficient pseudo-IT security company (which applies to every cheap mediocre clone maker but not Emsi, F-Secure or Qihoo). Particularly G-Dud as they've already bullshat their way to more unwarranted acclaim than any others combined.

 

don't you just love these guys?Know everything about everything without trying almost anything!seemed to have moved from the pub to sitting in front of a laptop!I bet most of the opinions you are relying on are formed from others opinions,talk about sheep!

 

couldn't agree more...

 

I can't get my head around why somebody would even bother passing comment or opinions on a product they have never used or have any intention of ever using,I suppose it gives somebody of the same mindset one more opinion to use when also passing comment on something they have never used!!

 

How can I be one when I've already RISKED being called one? If you actually bothered to read, you'd see that a lot of people disagreed with me. Why would I expect otherwise? Also, I have quite a few other unpopular opinions:

- I don't like most clones.

- Official performance tests are next to useless.

- Avira (don't want to bring it up again) are actually a very capable vendor. I've always believed they can achieve whatever they wanted if/when they put their mind into it.

- Bitdefender are enablers.

- I like old school phones.

- AV-Test isn't very reliable.

- Detection is still important, and AVC detection tests would have been fine if no cheating was involved, but I don't suspect for one second that any vendor with good R&D are cheating if they're doing well at them.

...

Talk about stupid.

 

I do agree with your last remark,yes you are stupid,is that another name for a troll?

 

I don't get why this guy is so against GDATA, I use the product and it works fine for me. I also want to note static detection is not what it used to be, personal malware is on the rise that your AV company will so rarely have a signature for if at all. I take this into consideration when the loss of the avast! signatures means a stronger design to catch unknown malware.

 

because he has an opinion gleaned from other online opinions and feels it his duty to share it with us,don't you know anything??

 

You are sounding like the troll here.

 

so you think a guy passing an opinion,quite a derisory opinion on a product he has no real knowledge of or any experience of isn't done to try to wind up users of said product?,I am just responding to comments on what I originally posted,he has even tried top legitimise his original post in some way,it happens all the time,this place was noted for the unwarranted attack on certain products,especially Kaspersky,just to wind up the "fanboys"and that is why some policies were changed here
If you were relying on somebody doing something for you,a job or operation,would you prefer someone with experience in that field or somebody who thought they could learn and know all they needed to know off Google?