Doctor Web releases single-user Dr.Web solutions supporting 64-bit versions of Window

ROFL.... Windows 98 must be king where you come from.

 

You seem to lack imagination as you constantly repeat the same mantra.

 

It gets repeated when it's true. Again if you want to settle for a subpar GUI that's fine. But denying it's behind the times, is just amusing. Kind of like putting a new engine in a Pinto. It may run awesome but it looks like total *(@#. And you then expect people to buy it.

 

i do agree with you fajo to a point. i would not care if the design was older or not very nice to look at. all i want is for everything to be in the main window. a tab for each module maybe or something like that. i just hate having to open all of them up when i want to see more than one at a time. i would not care if it was to flashy or win 7 like. heck just give me a white box without anything but check boxes etc.. i just want it to be in one central area. i really do like dr web and i would be using it now if in interface was a bit better

 

Ha-ha-ha. Why don't you bind you life with stand up comedy acting. Sarcasm.
Don't know how to speak with you when you repeat meaningless claims and jokes.

Respect you opinion, it is in development as I know.

 

i wuldnt really consider meaningless claims, they are pretty serious and true and if Dr.Web wants to stay in the game, they should pay attention to them a little more.

 

Fianlly, thank for the post SerM.

 

I can't believe you're not using this AV just because of its UI

 

sorry i just hate having to always go through all the windows. i just find it annoying, and i own paid subs to many other av's i dont have to do this with, i have nis2010, avira, ess, panda etc lic's all are good and have better ui's than dr web. i used to use dr web and i like it a lot and still do i cant wait for the new setup it will prob be on my system after that granted they keep up with good detection etc...

 

i think its 'hats off' to Drweb, as 2 threads running, and this one is 2 pages long aswell have brought nothing but comments about an interface-only.

it amazes me sometimes, that some people wont even use a product if its interface hasnt got flashing lights on. he he

 

Sigh. The sad thing is this is what people think. Everything needs flashy lights, tho from my point of view it don't but they do need a modern interface that is more suited to AV's of the day. Flashy lights or not.

 

your wrong im afraid,

if someone didnt want that, what would they use then?

Not everyone is the same

 

well i dont see much else going for Dr.web atm, they did bad in all tests, so they pulled themselves out of those tests and ever since nothing has shown them being even near the top, AND on top of that they have a GUI thats all over the place and ancient looking. i dont see what motiviation someone wuld have to use it over the competition other than because they feel bad for the company and want to support it.

 

Let's continue the GUI discussion here https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=260886&page=4

 

yes, but in such tests - results did not match the current real-world tests, to me this shows how 'flawed?' and unrealistic they used to be.

AV's known to be awesome, are actually rather rubbish in the real world tests.

maybe Drweb will now re-enter the tests, if they are now happy with them?

 

This statement is not true. Yes the top 5 rearranged a little bit but the ones that were on top before still are in the top 5.

Last test Web was in with AV Corp it scored at the bottom with Norman AV. Unless the Tech has changed drastically sense they were last tested, I don't see how the results would be all that different.

Now this is not a stab at Dr.Web. But the overall testing has not changed that much it still relys on detection of the virus. The difference is it relied on other components of the AV's like Firewall, Hips, Behavior blocker and what not.

 

yep, all the top performing AV's in the normal tests were still in the top in the real world tests, so ur kinda wrong, they just moved around slightly as Fajo said but all wer still in their rightful area on the ranking. and if the same holds true (which it most likely wuld since Dr.Web doesnt have any proactive measures such as a BB or HIPS IIRC) then the results will still be about the same...

 

sorry, but i disagree.

when Panda used to enter such tests, they were too-slated, and their arguments were the same has Drwebs i believe.

http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/12/av-testorg_releases_real-world.php

and Panda used to score lower than Drweb if memory serves me correctly,

now, in real-world test, i see Panda beating such 99.77899% AV's such as Avira & Gdata.

real-world testing is totally different to the tests that they used to do.

 

I'm sorry you really need to read up on how the tests were done. The only thing that changed in the testing is they executed the file instead of just scanning it for a virus. Other then that it's still based of detection. It just included other things like Hips,Behavior blocker, ect.

None to my current knowledge that Dr. Web uses. So again it would of really been no different for them.

 

really?

"Each day for 60 days, researchers released 10 fresh threats on the test systems and analyzed each product's ability to detect the threat and to fully block its installation."

sounds very different to me, in how they are collecting their samples for the test, and then how they test a product against it.

sure... all may not be blocked, but if the main threat is still blocked, its documented in the results. (and of course, as you rightly mentioned, HIPS/behavior based parts of certain products are also used aswell)

to me, although not perfect, this test is highly different to past ones.

 

Finally the cogwheels are in motion! Personally I don't give a dime about the interface as long as it is clean and does not hurt the eye. Dr.Web has been stable and gives enough protection for a user like me.

I am glad finally they made the scanning faster and 64bit OS is supported now.

Is there any drawback? e.g. Virus activity monitor (spider netting?) was disabled in XP where it worked fine in 98/ME.

 

Again still based off DETECTION. The ONLY difference is it was executed instead of a "Mass" farm of virus's scanned with on demand. The only ones that really had a difference in the detection part is when Hips, Behavior blocker or ect come into play. Please don't make me repeat this again.

Also sense you are quoting Av-Test test. You might want to check out AV Corp as they have also done this kind of test along with Dennis-Labs sponsored by Norton.

Sense Dr.Web does not participate in independent 3rd party tests. Lets get off this topic and BACK on the right topic of this thread, If you want to discus this more a topic should be made for such.

 

please, don't feed the troll! that's boring too much. please stay on the topic, dont allow a gas-bag lead a disscussion away.

 

er... How about answering my query?