PCMag Review of Avira Premium Security Suite 8

They must count the cookies in SD case.1year ago when i last used SD all my host file entries about 300 entries added by Rogue Remover immunizer,ware considered threats,trojans my PC went mad lol.And if it's symantec norton then yea ,another bad joke.

 

You are totally right it must be something wrong with this guys at PC Magazine but the matter of the suites firewall seems to be true anyway they bannished the suite totally

 

Anyone who takes PC Mag seriously deserves Symantec.

 

avira is FAST
avira is great in VIRUS DETECTION

BUT AVIRA IS NOT SO GOOD IN SPYWARE DETECTION.

THAT'S A FACT

 

And your support for your statement is?

Av-test.org results should Avira is quite good with spyware.

http://www.virusbtn.com/Session-93fbd9ee5443bc2a12996a81e59de246/news/2008/03_13a.xml

 

This is pure undistilled BS PCMag did not give Symantec any awards during the years they had a crappy product - 2004 through 2006. Everything went to Zone, SpySweeper etc. This has nothing to do with advertisiting. Its all about building the best product that works for many millions of users, not about building the best security product that is unusable.

 

amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If that was true, you are saying that Spyware Doctor has a better malware detection than AVs like Kaspersky or Avira? That would only be possible if half of the samples were tracking cookies.

 

A lot of heated discussion here.

Fact - Avira has a great engine and possibly the best heuristics, so it can detect a lot more. Its also very light.

Fact - Symantec ALSO has great detection and since 2007, Norton products are light, fast and most importantly, very user friendly.

Lets face it, the normal user (who does'n even know such names as Eset, Kaspersky) even exist will go for the big name vendors (McAfee, Norton etc). Among these, Norton is by far the best solution for them. Maybe they will do a web search, ask their geek friends etc and then can start looking at others.

 

bull-o-meter 110% ... Sorry, but the only light and fast Symantec version is the current 2009 beta. And don't get me started w/ 2007, I've spent days and days cleaning up this pre-installed trial NIS/NAV 2007 junk from tons of computers.

What Really Slows Windows Down

 

What these mag reviews should say more of is that a suite isnt always the best to use. Like with the Avira Suite, I didnt install the firewall. Same when I had BitDefender. Zone Alarm, didnt install the anti-virus when I had that. Outpost, dont have the anti-virus, 50/50 on the spyware part. (still havent found anything I like to replace Spyware Doctor going on 2 years now.) I have yet to see a Suite thats better than seperate firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware installs.

And I installed the Avira Suite last night. Heavier footprint than Nod32.... I see imma have to test Avira & Nod32 on my other PC. But its gonna between them 2. Does anyone know if just the Avira anti-virus use less memory than the Suite b4 I start testing?

 

It stands to reason that the Av would use less memory than the suite if I understand your question correctly.

 

I have READ that Symantec/Norton is relatively light, and depending on the product, very comprehensive with good technical support. A popular choice for the masses, although it's expensive ! Anyway, you could do worse !

I'm not sure about the difference between Norton/Symantec.

I understand that Norton was bought by Symantec.

But what's the difference ?

(people have been pointing out 'the difference' between Norton and Symantec.)

I've seen Norton packages in ordinary shops, and the word 'Symantec' was also on those boxes. I haven't seen a 'Symantec' box without the word 'Norton'.

Is there a distiction by country, or is the 'real Norton' just enterprise software ?

 

If I'm right I believe Norton is used for the Gen Pop. or Avg computer user. and Symantec is Corp.

 

Also, that the Avira suite would use more memory than NOD32 (just the AV, not Smart Security with the firewall etc)

 

I am using the suite with all components I'm siting at 18 megs. (with the GUI Open)

the AV component. it self is normally siting around 5-8 megs.

 

Sounds reasonable. Sometimes people make too much of memory usage, when most boxes these days have 1-4GB RAM.

 

Agreed. but you have to ask your self, if one VERY good AV can do the job with its memory footprint this low. wtf is up with the rest of them that need 100+ megs to do a crapper job. not to mention when they start scanning

good scan speeds. awesome detection. very light resources.

 

I usually look at the Virtual Memory size. Thats where some system slowdown problems come in when that gets higher than normal. Even tho the PC will auto adjust it to keep things running smooth, I dont normally like it to happen. Comparing Avira vs. Nod32 Nod is in the 30-35MB, Avira is 130MB+ total processes. If wanna play any PC games I may have to shut down some regular processes with Avira running. And if it does its job, I will stick with it.

 

i read pcmag review on avira. its a fair review. and avira deserve the editors rating, the only good with avira is the detection on virus, but spyware and others? well just fair. and detection does not cleaning, its realtime guard can't even clean the infection it caught., avg is better than avira.

 

As for the spyware part, I am not sure. Based on AV-test.org report I think they are doing quite well.

I went over from NAV to KIS in the past, as NAV/NIS took a lot of sources away and other programs outperformed Symantec in various tests.

But based on the AV-test results they are back again.. ?


brgds
=

 

Norton's been doing well, especially with the latest 2009 beta.

 

I'm a Hardcore gamer never had any FPS drops or problems with avira in the background no difference in load times and no Mouse or Vid lag of any sort. the games I play run from 450meg to 1gig in the memory also.

 

Just a thought.

While I don't necessarily agree with the results, being completely closed-minded to the possibility that <insert security tool here> didn't do well on a particular test - that its impossible for the tool to do badly - Is no better than those that pick their tool because it was pre-loaded on their machine.

Just use it as another piece of information. It could be (and probably is) totally wrong. There are far too many tests from well-known testers (including recent results) where Avira is ranked as top notch - This review doesn't jive with that. But dismissing it just because it didn't give the result you wanted is just as wrong, IMHO.

 

Rubenking has a history of posting skewed reviews.