pc magazine gives Avira Security Suite 9 a Thumbs Down Review

Greetings! It appears P.C. Mag didn't think much of Avira Security Suite 9! Anybody read the review,and if so what are your impressions of the review. Sincerely...Securon

 

Here's the link for anyone interested. I haven't read it yet, but I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine.

 

hmm what did you expect?

haha.. have you ever read something so funny

Well I'm not shocked a bit. Indeed, I think the same of that magazine as I do of its editor

 

.
Unfortunately you may be right, but I've always found Neil's reviews thorough and evenhanded. On rare occasions I don't completely agree with his conclusions, but I always appreciate his in-depth testing. Sometimes I think people claim "bias" when they can't find any substantial basis to refute his findings. By the way, I have not carefully read this review of Avira Security Suite 9 and can't comment (yet).

OK, I've read the review and I can't find fault with his methodology. There is also the fact that he communicated directly with Avira when he had questions and noted problems. It's hard to understand how some are already simply dismissing the review. I'd like to see the objectors comment in detail about what they feel is inaccurate.

 

I think he writes in the magazine for an everyday "couldn't care less" user, who just wants protection without pop ups. And I mean those pop ups can be easily configured to work things out automatically :|

But the bug is a serious issue.

 

+1

 

Seconded.

In cases where I have used the product in question before, I often find that the comments in his reviews are in line with my personal experiences - although I don't always agree with the final score he dishes out, which are mostly from the "average user"'s point of view.

 

I don't agree with his review, or score, and I think Avira is a top product.

But his review is well written, and he's talking if you were a total 'novice' user, how your experiences might be. These ratings won't apply if you're a reader here, as your 'technical' ability is much higher.

Also keep in mind, other products, such as McAfee got two and a half stars, and a-squared received two stars. So he is critical and believes in a high 'everyday user' standard.

 

Advert plug-in this month for Avira Software, next time another software company bid for being ontop of the Advert chart.. We're all here better judge to believe what the mag reports anymore.. I tested everything out there and what I use is listed under my sig...

 

.
I'm not understanding this. Can you explain what you mean?

 

Finally, Avira is crud, now we can all rest in peace and continue using our crud.

 

I don't know about that Eset got a pretty good review and I haven't seen adds from them.http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343639,00.asp

 

Neil Rubenking is the guy who gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editor's award at the time as the best suite. Do I have to add anything? I have to give him credit that he is commenting on the "Avira's suite" which I think like all suites have too many things to offer and in the end, some aspects can be less successful than others.

He is conveniently avoiding Avira's best capability and first law of any antivirus application: if it is detected and denied access, you won't have to clean anything. He goes on forever about cleaning infected machines, spam, parental control, etc.

 

I said I anticipate a lot of comments about how biased Neil Rubenking is and how PC Mag only publishes good reviews for companies that advertise in their magazine, but I didn't mean to imply that I felt that way myself. On the contrary, NR usually does a superb job with his reviews... and who really keeps track of who the advertisers are? Not me.

 

Cons

Malware protection is intrusive, complex. Serious bug in on-demand malware scan. WebGuard failed to block phishing sites. Spam filter slows e-mail downloading to an unacceptable extent. Rudimentary backup and parental control.

Nothing further needed from Mr. Rubenking.

 

I don't think he is avoiding it. He writes:

 

please forgive PC Mag. author....it's FP

 

i fail to understand if pcmag's review are so worse than why are their review's being posted here?
only to criticize? its been happening for years now and i think the mod's should do something about it...
Pcmag is not my magazine so i don't care if they are being blasted review after review....
But my point is what is the fun? just ignore them...

 

Good point, but I am really happy to see Avira being declared poor, that way us poor Avira users can rest in peace using our poor bad AV.

 

ya rite.....he hehe
i am using it myself................poor us....

 

I have read the review, I think the reviewer has some points.

Back in Avira 8 the default option of the free version was Ignore, you could not change it (had to buy the paid version). My wife once downloaded a file with a virus, Avira 8 popped up, but left it untouched. Off course you can blame the user, fo rnot reading the presented info, but Avast default action is to delete for instance.

I have corresponded with Avira on it and theire reply was that when using Avira in its default mode (check at read and writes) Avira could also find a critical executable which was infected, using the default delete could make the system malfunction (e.g. hang on next re-boot).

When running unattended scans, they advised to use 'complete' reporting option, so you can hand pick them later with an attended/interactive scan afterwards.

Since I use Avira to check at write only, I switched back to Avast. Since V9 (with the powerfull heuristics), I am using V9 again. The free version does not have greyed out automatic options, so I thought it used the setting of the scan (not through when reading the review).

So for me the review has value (not agereing with all opinions and keeping the free version on the PC), but the reviewer has a point that most 'innoceny/ un savvy/unexperienced' users asume that their 'expert'AV is configured out of the box with the best settings.


Regards Kees

 

Virus Bulletin have failed Avira for ONE FP. The results show FAIL at the same level as AVs who missed more than 100 signatures. Same story with AV Comparatives who gave Eset Advanced +, and Avira Advanced, even though Avira detected 2.1% more than Eset (out of 1.3 Million samples= 25,931 detections). The difference in FPs between Avira (24) and Eset(13) was 11 FPs!

These aren't opinions, nuances, small laboratories differences, we are speaking the language of numbers, and the results speak for themselves.

 

PC Magazine is the same joke that also said Firefox is dead



Just another joke to laugh at from PC Make-crap-up-zine.

 

Yep, and this is rarely explained in ads, on forum "recommendations". Even AV-Comparatives hardly makes much effort - not compared to how much it means for stars and glory. FPs should be punished and complained about but so should lower detection rate. If program handles FP badly it might be ok to take out a star, but when nothing is comprimised there is no need for FP scare.

Well evaluaitons is also about price, I think Avira should be 50$ for 3 licenses, tops. Norton for example comes with the 1 user - 3 pcs - can change expenses somewhat. Avira is a no nonsense product, price should follow/reflect.

 

This kind of thread will always bring out the fanboys and haters in equal measure

Having just read the entire article (and not just the summary page like a few posters), I believe Neil J. Rubenking scored Avira fairly based on his experience with Avira's product.

Further, I didn't read any bias in this report. The issues encountered in regards to virus and root kit removal are serious and were acknowledged by Avira as bugs and will be fixed.

Just for perspective, I looked up his review on what I am using currently, KIS 2009. and I'd agree with the overall score and some of the cons listed.

Cheers.