PC World AV Chart

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130869/article.html & http://www.pcworld.com/product/test...29899&prodid=29900&prodid=29901&prodid=29902#

Finally a reliable magazine test to follow. Any comments?

 

Not reliable

 

it is reliable. the test was done by av-test.org

 

Thanks IBK for confirming that.

Good result by BitDefender, but that system slowdown is eye-opening!!

 

Sounds good to me

 

Use the 9.5 version if you are bothered by the system slowdown. This is version 10's "fatal flaw".

As for the results, they are reliable enough as already confirmed by IBK, and I will admit I find AVG Professional's detection rates very surprising, because I did not expect it to score as high as it did. If it scored almost the same as Avast in this tests, that means AVG Anti-Malware will obviously protect a lot better. And so few FPs as well

 

O really? AV-test? Lol i didn't pay attention and just assumed it was a stupid magazine. I feel so embarassed now.

 

Why would Av-test only test 8 products though?

 

thats usually the magazine which says they want to have results of those specific products.

 

Yeah, missing some but better than nothing Funny with a "system drag" test

 

Avast shows pretty well, and to be expected.
Jerry

 

told you norton 2007 is good

very impressed with its proactive detection, only 2% behind kaspersky WOWW!!! and with same detection % and EVEN same system slowdown as kaspersky, (to all you norton haters and hog/heavy comments)

was my trusty drweb not tested on this?

 

I dont trust to av-test.org

Last time guy tested very large number of samples collected for 1 year. When we did calcucaltion it comes up that its several different malware every 10 minutes.

Its impossible that somebody collect and organize that high number of samples. (and they are not AV vendor)

Detection rate results: KAV=Norton=BitDefender


When I see tests where Norton and BitDefender are equal or better than KAV (detection rate) I know its false. (unless tester used 10 samples for testing)

 

av-test is currently the best testers on OUT THERE, sorry IBK.

also... impressed with pandas system performance, only 4% weee

-------
all i can think of, is 10-12 hours for new malware from norton compared to kaspersky 0-2 is the reason for it not being #1 or tied.

norton also had less system impact from browsing, surprised.

 

I wonder if the proactive detection of Norton has anything to do with SONAR?

 

np, i know that they have more resources and possibilities than we have. Like i stated, av-test is the biggest av test centre in the world.

 

Me 2! I really would like a test with and without SONAR turned on- IBK ?
I miss dr Web, McAfee & Norman

 

this is a really good test, all nicely layed out with lots and lots of info.

gutted my drweb is NOT on there, would have been nice for another comparison

for ages ive been praising the new versions of both panda and norton, this only shows how much they have improved

 

Thanks for letting us know
I'm shocked by the proactive results of NOD 32. Do you know anything about the test bed?

 

There is generally no reliable magazine. It all depends on where they get the test result. In other words, the reliability of magazine has to be valued per test result.

A magazine may use AV-test's test result in one review. Then it may use another organization's test result for another reivew. It may do some in-house tests and use it in a review too. That's why it all depends.

There is a good article about an overview on which testing sites can be trusted and which can not (written by av-comparatives or IBK).
Must read!

 

nod is dissappointing,

it only got #4 because of its heuristics, seriously... without them, they would struggle.

---------
weeeee my new 50' hd tele came today, o0(now, where is my ps3 eh?)

 

its based on samples additions from the wildlist afaik. thats why the results are so high.

 

Another point of interest - they didn't test McAfee. Despite its declining detection rate I am surprised that PC World would skip one of the "Big 2", which most mainstream consumers are exposed to.

How the mighty have fallen.

 

I must agree. NOD seems to be going downhill instead of improving. Not sure why, but the results speak for themselves.
I was a little surprised that BD did so well.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Yep good result for Norton. What I don't like is that it takes them too long to add signatures after an outbreak, which this article confirmed.

Combined with the fact it is still not that light I still wouldn't use it. But they are improving, no doubt about that.