PCMag.com Best Free Antivirus Software

http://www.lavasoft.com/products/ad_aware_free.php?t=features

 

I've tried Ad-Aware and while it provided excellent overall protection, it was as heavy as a ton of bricks and slowed my system down.

 

Did a full system scan and it took an hour and a half, really slow, as compared to MBAM taking about 22 minutes, and around the same or less for Avira. I can't say I see ANY impact on system performance. Seems really light here. But I suppose that depends on what else one is runnning, and how all things combine to drag on the system. I have a fresh install of Win 7 Ultimate x64 with just Ad-Aware as the only security app at the moment. Very light for me. I'll give it some more time and see if anything negative develops.

 

I just read all the AV reviews by PCMag and PCMag are very critical of ALL the AV's.

 

Well, guess I gotta pass on Ad-Aware. Just tried to do an update a couple of times and it failed. Unable to connect to the server it said. After it failed, it shut itself off also, so I had to restart it. Not good..... Oh well....

 

I've done that a long time ago for similar reasons.

It doesn't, nor did I say that. I just know that HIPS / Sandbox (policy restrictions) are more effective than blacklisting.

The data doesn't support your claim.

 

Version 1.46 but this

Malwarebytes updates itself to later versions dont it?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382605,00.asp
Mmmmmmm

 

Well i dont base my choice on a single review, I also try it myself, and between Comodo and Ad aware, i'll go to the 2nd one.

 

What about on-execution protection (such as behaviour blocking)? Comodo pop-ups seem to disprove that methodology.

 

Same problem here (2 different firewalls) + 3 BSODs during installation.Very problematic app.

 

The review for MBAM was done in May of 2010. At that time 1.46 probably was the latest version.

 

Not with all the av's

 

The ironry being he will use those very same test bed (samples) to test other products up to 12 months later and draws direct product comparison from the results derived.

This absolutely beggers belief from a testing/comparison standpoint for a professional

Neil should be ashamed for publishing such unreliable data.

 

I agree it's confusing that the article includes reviews that were done at very different times. I believe the reviews in this "reprint" are not meant to be compared. It looks like Neil just wrote an introductory cover - maybe they were having a slow news week? The intent should be stated upfront though.

 

By comparing test results from his old tests against those of new tests, he sure doesn't make it easy on himself to get that point across.