http://www.kaspersky.com/viruswatch?hour_offset=-2

Not true, KAV detect more viruses like NOD32 with AH and latest siganture update.

 

Nice plug -- & from an "objective AV tester" to boot.

 

http://www.kaspersky.com/viruswatch <---- This is the real adress


http://www.kaspersky.com/viruswatch?hour_offset=-2 <----Will show inacurate times for when the Kaspersky Lab find the malware if you don't live in the GMT +2 timezone.

 

Personally, I chose NOD32 for it's proactive approach and high quality coding, but that was my choice. Whether or not someone else's AV may or may not recieve an update a few minuites before mine does not concern me. Why do people get so heated up over this? Your AV wins today, mine wins tomorrow, they both lose the next. The fact of the matter is that both NOD32 and KAV users rarely end up infected, in the end, that's what counts.

If, however, something has already infected my machine, whether my AV picks it up in 1 hour or 3 is immaterial.. the machine is already infected. You all can split hairs over hours, and I'll sit happy with my generic non-signature based protection, thanks.

The link, however, is a good one, competing AVs aside. Nice to get a peek at what's going around in realtime.. thanks for posting it

 

You need to remember that when Nod32 finds a virus with heuretics it won't always be able to remove it becuase there is no "instructions" on what it is and how it can be removed. Signaturebased systems like KAV has these "instructions" on how to remove the threats it finds.

 

Yes, thank goodness for generic non-signature based protection.. I would first have to force my AV to allow it to run, but then I would undoubtedly need to click "allow" on probably 10 different alerts to allow each step of the infection. After spending several minuites clicking "Allow", True Image would take a whole 5 mins to restore the system to pristine condition, with no question of whether there are any leftovers as there would be with signature based detections.

 

But which one is safer as system - the one who miss 5% or one who miss 15%?

If you find one fragment of time when that who miss 15% detect something which is not detected by other who miss 5%, than you can conclude that the first one is better.

But, in the same manner long time ago was concluded that Earth is flat

 

I think that you just have to choose between them:

KAV: the best detection rate on-demand, slow on-demand scanner, some instability problems, updates every hour...

NOD32: the best heuristics, fast on-access and on-demand scanner, stable...

P.S.: These is my experience with these programs...

 

Again, I was NOT refering to KAV. KAV beats NOD32 in see February and August tests. I was still talking about the retrospective test-set, where NOD32 detects with 3 month old updates more than 'some' antiviruses with updates of today (!). I thought this was clear as the results speak themself.