CSO article / AV Test

Spoken like a true preacher

How many Avira copies did you sell this week?

 

Anyone that changes there AV based on this test needs to have there head examined. This test is a total joke from the test bed to the implementation of it.

 

Since I use free, I don't have to sell unlike the NOD you have to peddle. I am sure with all the drubbing it has taken in tests, convincing someone to go for an inferior product and that too after a substantial payment in this day of gloomy economy must be an uphill task. Feel sad for you, must be hard knocking on people's doors and getting shooed away.

 

Its not about bigger or smaller, its about consistency, if one AV manages to stay among top three over a time period goes to show the quality of work being done by their team. You don't need pesky HIPS if you are running LUA+system wide DEP with a quality AV. I see all these layering as a joke, it just brings Windows to a crawl and creates further trouble down the road.

 

I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that Eset has taken a drubbing in tests. To be sure others have tested better in some tests and not as good in others. Your choice of Av is a fine one. Other than that I fully agree with the rest of your statement regarding excessive layering.

 

That was only a retort for the particular post, I would still prefer Eset over many other AVs but then when there is a free and viable solution on offer, why even bother to go for the paid one.

 

At first we do. But over time we tend to shed them like new members at a nudist colony.

 

Yep.....then we like to bitch, moan and fret over our Windows going slow and crashing.

 

Oh my god.

I dont know what to say. Im speechless.

 

The point is many fail to see the reason why all of a sudden one or other programs stop working, they blame the program but not the layers they have piled up. Someone here commented that he would never layer is PC to make a quad core run like a 486, his words are worth in gold.

As regards OS, I enjoy best of both. I have XPx64 loaded on one of my PCs as its used for video chat by my wife to talk to her folks back home, my own personal PC is all Ubuntu. I have no regrets in using either, I rate the 2003 based XPx64 as Windows best effort till date. Rock hard stability and excellent GUI response, with all the updates it has matured like a fine scotch should.

 

Once again the nerds with their heads up there own arses brigade are out in force. The average man or woman in the street when hit by a virus on their home pc dose not care a great deal if the files are damaged files, non-malicious files, keygens/cracks and similar crap, nor what methods were used to test their particular antivirus. They simply want to know, 'will the anti-virus on my machine clean the crap off so, I can get back on MSN or Ebay? On every pc I have been given to clean, Avg has performed poorly, last week on an infected pc with 7 trojans, Avg free found 1. Clamwin, which I would not use as my frontline anti-virus, found 3, and Antivir free found all 7. Even Avg 7.5 found more. So I, for one support the CSO article and his tests.

 

I'm not playing with baby today, sorry.

I agree, but the point is that, corrupted files cannot infect you, neither can non-malicious file, keygens/cracks (otherwise it would be classed as malware) or other crap.

 

Yes, I read that Avira also detects Non-CD/DVD-Patches as malware

I think this test is rubbish

 

This time Stefan sounds like one of the Dr.Web fanboys.

 

If I was a developer I would be pissed also to publish something as junked as this test is a embarrassment, even if you scored well on it.

For the Record ALOT of AV's do this. Along with keygens and cracks some of it is becuse how the program works some of it is from fitting in the Unwanted program / Harmful program category. Pretty much anything that changes a program for how it was "Supposed to work" to how it dose now.

 

Nah! you are playing with something else for sure, make sure you got plenty of KY jelly and a copy of NOD CD in front of you.

 

I find it hilarious you seem to think bashing NOD32 in some way, or using it against me is actually going to hurt me? Are you actually trying to attack me personally, by using software I use? Um, how long have you spent in the real world? It's a piece of software not a member of my family.

Let me teach you something, us normal people (non-fanboys) couldn't really care what you bash, we just laugh at the fact people like you are one of the first to retaliate against anyone bashing a product you use, like it's some kind of personal attack? No, I can't understand why, nor do I pretend to understand the empty mind.

 

You bought it up with your cheap failed jibe at my selling Avira, face the game now or don't come to the ring next time. The fact that you are defending your choice and attacking Avira and its user confirms your fanboi status beyond any reasonable doubt. You care and care a lot and shine the light through your ears and you will find out who has an empty mind. Now better rush to the pharma for some of that KY before it runs out. I hear Pathmark pharma is having a big sale on it.

 

Let's just move back to the Original topic and save the rest for PM's. We are hear to bash crap tests not one and other lets get back to it.

 

Damn those are crap test results.

 

Damn Avira.......

 

According to this test Eset detected 65%, Norton 56%, Kaspersky 56%, AVG 3%... Come on, the whole thing is a joke, once again a good example of how the internet can be misleading with mendacious reports.

 

As much as I dislike Symantec for many reasons, it has always had great detection percentages even in its worst versions (2004-2005), Eset is one of the best (my second favorite AV), and Kaspersky too has a long tradition of top detection. Something went wrong, especially for AVG, 3%? If I were AVG I'd sue the guy and the magazine for damages.

 

I'm sorry but this test is a joke and nothing more. Tests like AV corp that use millions of samples and show detection rates of all 4 of those above the 95 percentile. Just proves how poorly this test really was.

 

I think this thread should be closed now