PCWorld Anti-Spyware review

PCWorld's latest issue reviews six anti-spyware apps. See the online version here... http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136205/article.html They awarded Spyware Doctor the top spot even though from what I saw AVG looked equal or superior on most criteria they used. Unfortunately, they didn't see fit to include Superantispyware in the reviewed apps. The ones they did include were...Spyware Doctor, Spysweeper, AVG Antispyware, Windows Defender, Spybot Search and Destroy, and Ad-Aware 2007.

 

PCWorld only reviews programs that either are available in your local computer store or have been around since the dawn of the PC era. The reviewer probably never bothers to look at the smorgasboard offerings that are prevalent today because the programs are "too new" or "don't have a long earned reputation" among PC users. I noticed that they even included Windows Defender which I consider a bit archaic.

 

Well, they definitely aren't doing their subscribers any favors by skipping software like Superantispyware and A-Squared in my opinion. Do you think they skipped them to make sure the software they wanted to be on top could be on top

How reliable are their reviews? How pure are their motives? PC Tools and Webroot are advertisers in their publication after all. Hopefully they don't allow that to sway their verdicts.

 

AV-test.org was the lab that actually reviewed the products in this particular PC World review. While they may be a credible testing lab when it comes to AV software, I find their AS reviews a little hard to swallow. The PCTools member on this forum was quick to promote this favorable review when most of us were criticizing SD for false positives, mediocre detection rates, and major bloat. We already new SS's detection rates were declining over the past year, and any regular on this forum is well aware that AAW, SB, and WD have lackluster detection rates. Sometimes I wonder if malware-test is actually performing the reviews.

 

Sooner or later a question has to be asked as to what the real purpose or benefit of reviews, tests, comparatives and awards is. The methods, samples and integrity of tester/reviewers are increasingly becoming suspect. I will not argue with anyone who thinks some of the recent results are short-sighted or bogus.

On the flip-side what do we want or expect, my ‘best or favourite product’ to get all the awards and accolades all the time? There is no product that will work perfect in ALL systems. By now many of us will know that despite both Spyware Doctor and Spy Sweeper been heavily awarded they have not satisfied or impressed some who bought them because of the same awards and favourable reviews.

I MHO it seems the perpetual awards for some products is creating an ‘under-dog’ feeling for some other wise revolutionary, innovative and well supported products that cannot remain in the shadows as the ‘new-kid-in-the-block’ forever. Products like SAS come to mind but I think users on Wilders know better than to be angry and end up posting misleading or untrue info about other products even if they do not deserve the awards in our opinion.

 

A Spyware Doctor comment...

At varying times, mostly within the last year or so, I have test drove most of the apps they looked at. I looked at ease of use, how well they ran and the resources they took (I did not test their malware capabilities per se.) I liked Spyware Doctor quite a bit but it was a BIG resource hog. It typically used 200 MB of RAM. This is something I saw no mention of in the test...

 

Hmmm.. I will have to think about this statement.

Wow, that would freeze up my Pentium II system instantly.

 

yeah, the SD on guard still isnt really for people to use effectively. it still should be in beta imo.

 

As with most reviews the collected samples are grossly inept at representing a true first choice for the final analysis... Far too many "Good" Product missing to be of any use in making the "Best and Most Educated" decision. It certainly seems biased in my opinion...

 

Exactly, as I have said many times.... and might I suggest you watch for Ronjor links to security news articles for additional security news. All it requires is that you hang around here some.

No subscription fee is required!

EDIT: I quickly read through the article. None of the test subjects impressed me.

 

FACT- Spyware Doctor tested out as *best choice* among the small group of AS apps that were tested. I have no doubt that other, untested AS apps might be equal or better but - SD flat-out WON this particular scrimmage, so that's the name of that tune, wot!

Be that as it may, who gives a rip? IMO, stand-alone anti-spyware programs are a waste of time & money -- the whole bloody lot of them. To wit: I do not need any specialized anti-spyware app because the antivirus+HIPS combination that I use gives me all the protection I need -- across a majorly broad spectrum of nasty schtuff.

 

===========================================================================================
just the ones in the mag & on the DVD

 

Endorse that

 

Exactly. You could run a horserace on a muddy track and the winner of that race is the "best horse" for that type of track. Anti-spyware programs would be waste of time and money for certain people. Many non-technical inclined PC users don't want to be inundated with obscure registry and BHO update warnings and just want a program to protect their online identity and prevent being bombarded with online ads. I have several family members who have never taken a Computer Science or PC related course before. All they care about is that they don't get annoying popups, major slowdowns, and to have any personal information leaked out to someone else. Most PC users want security to be an "invisible" and transparent process. When you hurl warning messages and BSOD screens to them that require a reply, they don't have a clue to how to respond. Asking them to read a manual that explains it all is like going in one ear and out the next.