New Editors Choice AV at PC MAG

Its the free Ad-Aware 10.5+. He says version 10 was a "thorough rewrite" of the program and that this one earned the Editor's Choice over many other well-known AV's.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418686,00.asp

 

Lol, serious? That's a cheap review I just read there.

 

There's an old saying: "You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig."

Comments aside, I will try out version 10.5 but knowing what the earlier version was like, I am not expecting much of a change.

SourMilk out

 

83% and 10+ rating your kidding me right

 

You forgot your FPs, sir.

Where's Fabian Wosar-san? He got to read this nonsense, especially about the EAM part.

 

Business as usual, PcMag

 

I have already said, PCMAG will do anything for money.

 

They should change the chart colors . . . im gonna go blind.

 

I wonder if it will be tested on AV-C? That will give me confidence. I am going to have to see that before I will accept that it is as good as Avast Free.
Jerry

 

Well, it uses VIPRE so it can't be too bad, but I doubt it's that good just yet.

 

Eh, its a Free antivirus so doubtful any money changed hands. Also if you look at Neil's article "Best of 2013 AV's", I think he does a thorough job testing. Besides his own tests he at times refers to AV-Test and AVComp to influence his decisions.

 

Dunno about other tests, never been bothered to read them anyway. But this one "test" is flawed in every possible level. Why would you want to install an AV in an already infected system? The AV is supposed to protect the PC, so no surprise if the installation wasn't smooth due to severe damages. What were the malware samples had been used in this test? No explanation? Was the reviewer even sure if they were all real malware? What about FPs?

Being a freeware doesn't mean the developer couldn't/wouldn't pay. Though we don't know if there was any influencing in that test, it's still full of bias.

 

I agree. Some people are so paranoid.

 

He probably installs the AV's into infected systems to see if they can clean/repair the infections up! That's a big function right? Still that's only 1 of the tests he ran. Don't see how it's "full of bias" either, but oh well.

 

No. An AV should do the protection. If the system is already damaged one should've restored their image. Preferably from safe-mode.

AV tests are always full of bias. Only different in tolerance level. This one by PC Mag is a bad example. If you have sceptic.exe installed, you'll see it.

 

Right, because so many "normal" computer users have backup images to restore.

 

i wonder why people keep posting reviews/tests from PCmag...

We all know that they are biased...

 

Yare yare da ze...

If a system is already infected, no matter how much AVs/scanners you throw at it, there's a chance that some malware remnants still left behind somewhere in the folders. Indeed, not everyone had a backup of their image, though it'd be lovely if they had one. But that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that the test is flawed because AVs' playfield is in the protection, and a damaged system could interfere programs installation, be it security products or not. HMP's Force Breach Mode and MBAM's Chameleon weren't made for nothing.

Therefore, AVs shouldn't be tested in a way by installing them in a damaged OS. Take a look at AV Comparative and AV-Test.org. They're testing the protection of each products and the malware samples are assured to be real, not just some random cracks and keygens you've downloaded from warez websites.

If you pay attention to the EAM part, you'll see why I said it's biased.

 

Ad-Aware and VIPRE did a pretty good job in the latest AV-Test.

 

How many of you trashing it have actually tried the latest version?

 

You people don't realize they have pay-for software too. Good free version is an even better pay-for in many peoples eyes.

 

I don't want to register a "free" version, otherwise I would give it a try.

 

According to this article in PC Mag (April 25, 2013), there is a 3 way tie:

"Three products share the Editors' Choice honor for best overall antivirus: Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2013, Norton AntiVirus (2013), and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus 2013."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372364,00.asp

 

Last time I used it.... "PC: never again you hear me? ME: Yes fine never again don't worry".
So this must be a damn good rewrite I figure

 

Are those PCMag tests made in Win7/8 and 32 or 64-bit?