How close are these two in protection?

seeing all the threads on the benefits of behavior blockers made me curious how close a squared anti-malware and ThreatFire Pro are as far as real time protection. despite the feature differences between the two and a squared also using signatures and heuristics. are they still pretty much equal, or is one slightly better at this point? both are fine software programs and run well which makes it harder to decide which one to use.

 

Wordward,

My recommendation is to step back and globally assess what you wish to accomplish.

In isolation, the relative performance of either package is irrelevant. How they integrate with and complement your particular situation is all that matters.

Blue

PS - To all, you know the drill - see here, it applies to this thread as well.

 

I personally do not understand that whole non-comparing rule (yes I read that link above)... seems Wilders is all about comparing security software.

Anyways, Wordward - keep in mind that ThreatFire Pro includes PC Tools antivirus and incorporates it in a way that works closely with the behavior blocker in it (when comparing these for yourself).

You should look into something such as TotalUninstall, FD-ISR or the like to make sure traces of software you trial are not left over to build up over time.

 

"both are fine software programs and run well which makes it harder to decide which one to use". there this should keep the thread open. i simply like what both programs have to offer, but am just unclear as to which would be the best to use with my set up. AVG and OA Free version, that's all. i read what the experts here have to say about the security products and want to know which is better at ANY Given Point. for now it could be TF, but next month it could be a squared. both are stable and do what they claim i guess, but that's my point. do they? i enjoy reading which software runs well and does it job, and this is the only place i know to do this. and thank you AJohn.

 

This is off-topic, but here goes.

Product comparison are certainly a part of what this site is about, as long as some thought is put into the posting.

However, we've had our fill of endless threads which start with the open ended question: "A vs. B - which is best?"

Why? It seems that all too many times the most comprehensive response is "I think A is best, obviously" What the heck does anyone learn from that kind of response? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Add a few contrarian opinions (say as developed as "Is not!" or "No way! A sucks!!"), and you have a thread that spins arounds, creates a lot of commotion, adds nothing in the way of developed analytic thought, and ends up polarizing the entire community.

This type of thread activity has always been here (and elsewhere), but those threads were always a low level and negligible noise in the background. For some reason of late, their number and intensity put them in the foreground and they have simply pushed out any effort to have a discussion with any level of developed analytic thought and exchange.

Well..., guess what, we're done with that crap. That's it in a nutshell. That's also why I responded to this thread with a PS and not a closure. It's possible to have a thought provoking discussion along the lines desired by Wordward, but not if the discussion gets hijacked with a series of one liners and quick, but intellectually empty rejoinders around a favorite product.

Blue

 

Thank you for that post BlueZannetti. it was fair and on the mark, and shows me there is a happy medium for comparison discussions. so in comparison. which of the two also has the least impact on ones PC as far as any noticeable system slowdowns, or any browser activities?

 

Well said Blue.

 

The problem with behavior blockers is that, being a new technology, the vendors who do embrace it so far advertise their products with snazzy buzzwords that really do little to enlighten the customer. There isn't really any easy way to compare their effectiveness without testing them against actual malware, but in my experience, ThreatFire and Micropoint seem to be leading the pack so far.

That said, just about any behavior blocker product will provide a significant increase in security when used alongside a traditional signature scanner.

 

Mostly in the antivirus forums I think. That category is well defined enough (everyone knows what an antivirus is) that there are many clueless people popping in and then launching a salvo with "is x better or Y?"

In *this* forum, we get fewer such threads , possibly because many people don't know what is comparable.

Well except some threads about antispyware X versus antispyware Y.... But the answer here is usually, "they both suck.. get sandbox, hips etc" lol.

Seems to me that the question is not the problem, it's the answer. But yeah, I hate posters who just toss one-liners is x better or y.

I also think the products discussed here do benefit from X vs Y threads a lot more than antiviruses, because the software are all new as opposed to established antiviruses, and newbies benefit from reading comparisons particularly when what is compared is quite different. (e.g. A sandbox versus behavior blocker).

Even among very similar products , there are quite a few differences in features unlike say antivirus (where a lot of differneces are hidden under the hood), so a comparison can at least be based on functional differences.

I haven't noticed this happening here as much as in the antivirus forums.. Not that we don't have the usual fanboys and haters of certain products her as well...

 

After trying both, features aside TF may be the better of the two at 0 day detection. however not sure if TF slows down the system a slight bit more than a squared though. anyone notice any lag in opening programs or slowdowns while surfing with the latest release of TF?