av-comparatives news

f-secure is bloat as well..
norton is definatly bloat.

and it still uses that crappy live update make it more strimlined

 

Despite improvements of Norton, the results are totally against what I perceive in the real life. I won't polemise it, but Norton's detection is so far away from 100% in the samples that I use here. About half are not detected… I don't understand about collection methods, but I understand that if you trust in Norton here your computer will be infested in one week. Maybe it's a particularitity of Brazil...

 

when i used to use norton i thought i was protected intill i noticed it couldnt stop a tojan. trhen i found tons of other malware on it. now ive got a program that protects but uses to much resourse so thats now gotta go

 

Just a short note: Thats the AV Comparatives thread and not the Who uses Norton and who had problems with Norton thread. I don't mind discussing this but please open another thread for this guys. Thanks for understanding.

 

everyone has their own definition of bloat, but for me bloat is a program using more process then necessary and bloat is a program being jack of all trades (and master of none).

 

Yeah IBK, I didn't say any of that stuff.

(Notice he's silent now? lol)

My opinion is just that yes, Norton is effective, but I think you can get something less resource intensive for cheaper, and also, it won't invade your computer as much.

Also, truly good products actually UNINSTALL when you click "Uninstall".

 

my definion of bloat is two many processes , to much memory.and genraly slows the computer down.

 

the comparative between F-Prot v3 and v4 will be released very probably tomorrow. the heuristics of the new fprot v4 is good

 

Bloat for me is a sluggish interface, making the computer/startup slow and in general, invading the computer too much ala Norton.

I'm a little less concerned with proccesses probably because sometimes high memory usage isnt noticed. For example, I don't notice it with Firefox browser, even though it's there.

CPU usage is important too.

 

Good news! I can't wait.

 

Bloat = Norton, TrendMicro, Panda...

F-Secure is very high to system, but is effective...

 

well different people have different view of same things,but norton doesn't use any serious mem here..

 

People tend to generalize too much. Bloat is not a term for high memory usage or system slowdown but for kitchensinkware or for packages that want to be all in one with bunch of unrelated, pretty much useless tools and addons. Thats bloat, not program that uses more memory and isn't exactly system friendly. For example antivirus with high memory usage is not bloated. But antivirus that has popup blocker, firewall, antispam, antiphising, god knows what kind of toolbars for everything, banner blocker, startup monitor, cookie cleaner, tweak tool for windows, defragmenter and yadidadida stuff, thats bloat. It's even worse if it looks like this and is not called like SystemWorks or Total System Control and Protection or Internet Security.

 

thats exactly what i mean by bloat..and if thats anything to go by than norton,as i said b4,isn't bloat

 

Well said. Bloat has been used too often as a catch-all term as you point out.

 

I don't know why you people are always coming down on Norton. It sounds like you're some type of anti-Norton cult.

In any case, I've been using Norton for years and it's kept my computer clean saving my hide a few times. Before Norton I used BitDefender and it didn't stop a virus that ended up destroying my computer!

As far as trojans are concerned, Norton isn't an anti-trojan and never claimed to be. Nevertheless, lately they added a massive amount of Trojan signatures
with the understanding that today people expect an anti-virus to protect from
everything including all types of malware.

 

I find it difficult to make a case that Norton is a poor AV. I won't argue that a person might not like it, but that does not make it a poor AV. I used it for about 5 years without any problem whatever. Frankly there is a lot of prejudice against Norton.

Subsequently I went to BD until it had compatibility problems. Now I use KAV6 and F-Secure AV. I wouldn't go back to Norton, or BD but Norton is not a bad AV.

As I look at the AV Comparatives results, I do not accept that Norton is going to let one get infected and other AVs do not under the same circumstances.

Best
Jerry

 

Norton is not a bad AV. Actually one of the best. The problem isnt with current Norton products, but their past history. This is what they are trying to live down and it will take time. The product may be great but if the reputation, or perception, is negative, what chance do you stand. Just like the new PC I bought last week, that had NIS 2006 already loaded. It is that kind of, shoving down my throat, take it or leave it, approach, that pisses me off. I think in about 2 years, we will view them in a different light.

 

Hey,

cool, now both is available from here again.

Seems like the webpage was updated..

F-Prot v4 aka v6 , seems good, especially the Heuristic.

I think the new heuristic show such "smart reports" like the Norman Sandbox (http://sandbox.norman.no ), in the upcoming F-Prot version.

I hope the new NOD32 version from Eset will include such improvements as well in v3..

best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

PS: Too bad, you cannot compare the online results with each other, because Andreas change the manner of these tests too often..
For example 9 and 11. In 9 the polymorphic virus detection rate is shown in per cent, but in 11 the polymorphic virus detection rate is shown in numbers..
You don't know how much polymorphic virusses are used for the test in 9.

 

The v3/v4 comparative HAS ARRIVED!

For all the front runners in the latest comparatives, I paraphrase Satchel Paige ---

 

Hmmm, well o.k. but I always looked at it as both, maybe I just proved you point.

 

Comparative review highlights the strength of NOD32 in corporate environment

ZDNet have just posted a review titled 'Comparing corporate AV solutions'

Makes a few good points. here.

Cheers
{If this post is better suited to another forum, please move it so I can learn for next time}

 

if you read the report, you can see it

 

Re: Comparative review highlights the strength of NOD32 in corporate environment

I'm looking for the article..did the link change? I find a sort of "introduction"...4 paragraphs...but there's not meat to it there...is there a link to an actual article comparing several corp products that I don't see on that page?

 

I find the Eset bulletin, which has to continue here, a tad strange. They only compare to software that has less good results. Why not say that Eset's NOD32 did worse than Avira, for instance?