About the tests in commercial magazines!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Firefighter, Jan 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Oct 28, 2002
    Has anyone ever thaught about the results, what were found in so many net based publicasions? I had read the test in PC World.(com), I don't remember was it the magazine or only website, done in 2002-3-20, where were 7 leading AV-progs tested.

    There were several aspects, that were ranked. I simplified the test so, that the best got 10 points, the second got 6, the third got 4, and fourth 3 and the all behind that got 2, 1, and 0 points in every aspect. I called it the Formula-1 scanning test.

    The results in my counting were as below!

    McAfee 6.02 91
    KAV 4.0 Personal Pro 88
    Norton 2002 65
    Pc-Cillin 60
    Norman virus control 5.25 49
    Panda Antivirus Platinum 6.25 45
    eTrust EZ 5.4 42

    Can everyone guess, which was the winner according to that magazine?

    A little hint, money talks!

  2. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Jul 1, 2001
    The Netherlands
    Those tests are rubbish, unreliable and fooling the public. read 10 pc magazines, and notice 8 several outcomes. Testing requires skills and efforts - one cannot expect these from magazines.


  3. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Feb 13, 2002
    New York
    Advertisement plays the main role in these tests... No product quality!

  4. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Jul 28, 2002
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    When I have looked for test results on av program the only place I go is VirusBulletinAwards.I don't trust magazines cuz I think it is all about advertising and money.
  5. :D
    I stopped reading those polls when I got klez and Norton AV never detected it, prompting me to get educated and technically smart...

    A friend of mine who used to be a programmer, IT specialist, etc, told me he stopped using Norton AV in the mid nineties.. He never liked it, he uses Etrust, combined with MailWasher..

    Most professionals I know think those magazines are rubbish, except those, like the IT at my office, who try to appease the general public. She installs McAfee in our computers at the office.,

    NOT MY COMPUTER, mind you! She tried to make it mandatory that everyone using their personal computers (laptops) use either Norton or McAfee. I fought her every step of the way, and I, along with 5 others, use NOD32. One wouldn't spend money, so I gotbthem using Avast Home Edition.

    But those magazines are rubbish. I spent a good 5 hours test driving McAfee Internet Security, and I did not like the way it worked on the computer it was installed in..

    Virus Bulletin, Wilders, and YOUR personal choice are the best indicators!
  6. rodzilla

    rodzilla Registered Member

    Jun 15, 2002
    For anyone interested in my take (dating back more than ten years, with some updates up to 2001, but badly needs updating in 2003) on magazine antivirus product tests, http://www.nod32.com.au/nod32/awards/snakeoil.htm might be a good read. (It shows my take on a lot of other sneaky tricks used by antivirus marketroids too.)

    Jan Wikstrom, the Technical Editor of Australian PC User and former Technical Editor of PC World, is arguably the world's #1 commercial journalist writing about antivirus software. Unlike most computer journalists, Jan is a competent technical man who just happens to write for computer magazines. Even so, he's not so big in the head that he thinks he knows everything ... he still does his antivirus testing in conjunction with Virus Bulletin.

    Since I last updated "Snake Oil", when NOD32 was awarded "Best Buy" in May 2001, Jan has awarded NOD32 "Best Antivirus of 2001", "Best Buy of 2002", and "Best Antivirus of 2002".

    The important point here is that NOD32 has NEVER been advertised in Australian PC User! We have not paid Australian PC User one cent ... yet NOD32 won their "Best Antivirus of The Year" two years in a row! Jan Wikstrom's recommendation (to me) is just about the best the world has to offer ... and there is no suspicion that NOD32 won the awards on a "good editorial in exchange for advertising dollars" deal.
  7. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Oct 28, 2002
  8. controler

    controler Guest

    Anybody that uses Mcafee products IS an idiot. period.............

    Now, I would like to see the test results for in and outbound
    e-mail scanning only please?

    We all can agree , the number one spread of nasties is e-mail.
    next would be web page script. correct? So I guess the next best thing to post would be script blocking abilities.
  9. muf

    muf Guest

    Tbh, Its best not to take ANY review too seriously. Use them as a guideline just to let you know which AV's are out there. Then download say 6 or so of them and try each one for a week. Then decide which one you liked. Its up to the individual how they rate them. From which is the fastest, to the frequency of updates, to the ease of use and so on(even the prettiest - yes some ppl do go for that!).

    I've noticed that over the last 6 months ppl do seem to like NAV, but i think that a lot of NAV's users have been aquired because they are the 'BIG' name. Take a walk in pcworld and look at the anti-virus section and its a sea of yellow norton boxes. Nothing else gets a look in apart from a minor showing by Mcafee. And on the subject of McAfee, well my opinion is they opt for McAfee cos its a big name. Other ppl like NOD32 cos its 'geeky'. Then there's KAV, RAV, GAV and others besides but at the end of the day its what YOU like, not what someone else says is good. By all means use the advice as a gauge, but just don't think because lots of ppl say its good then expect you'll also like it when you take the plunge and buy it yourself.

    I tried McAfee, it was ok but thats all. I tried NOD32 which was fast but i just didn't like the interface. I tried NAV but wasn't impressed by its trojan ability(yes i know its not meant to be big on trojans but some AV's do offer a high level of trojan defence). I'm currently using KAV4 and i like it. Yes it is a resource hog, but i can live with that. I tried it for a week and liked it, so i bought it. Others have tried it and didn't like it. Fine. Its all about what suites you, the end-user.

    Try before you buy, it's pretty much as simple as that!

  10. Madsen DK

    Madsen DK Registered Member

    Nov 23, 2002
    Hi Controler.
    I have Mcafee on our other pc ( the family one) , but uses Nod on my own.
    Glad im only half an idiot then :D :D
    It actually runs wery well, but i understand your statement, cos many have huge problems with Mcafee amo.
    Regards Ole ;)
  11. :D

    I agree..

    It cost me a lot of money to switch around between different AV's... Finally I picked NOD32. Detection is good, and the other important issuw here I've noticed is that I basically have been virus free ever since I installed NOD32...


    It had the best detection and the smallest footprint, and it's the fastest!

    However, I was not too keen on the email scanner.. ON THE OTHER HAND, I NEVER HAD A VIRUL INFECTION SINCE !!!

    Very important to consider!

    I have had growing learning pains in terms of anti trojans and firewalls..

    Although I liked ZAPRO, I just replaced it with Kerio. ZAPRO (although better than before), was still freezing up my computer.

    TDS and Wormguard were also slowing my system down.. Well, I may reinstal them when the new versions come out, but I just bought BOClean.. The support and email info from Nancy is UNBELIEVABLE.

    Plus, I get lifetime updates!

    To each his own.. I liked TDS, the system resources were killing me, and Wormguard was also taking it's toll... I replaced it with Script Sentry...

    It all comes down to a matter of preferences...
  12. muf

    muf Guest

    Sorry, i didn't mean to infer that everyone that uses NOD32 are 'geeks'. Do accept my apologies if thats how it came across. What i meant was some ppl like it because the interface looks like its designed for advanced users. NOD32 is fast, i mean unbelievably fast! But i just didn't like the interface. I also read that NOD32 can delete your whole inbox when deleting an infected e-mail which basically was the final nail in NOD32's assessment coffin as far as i was concerned. I'll try it again one day in the future. Just because i don't like it now doesn't mean i won't like it when it gets a makeover at some future date.

    Anyway, like i said its personal preference and if you like it then good on ya. Hope it serves you well.

  13. Man, don't worry about the "Geek" thing..
    I was just joking around....
    Doesn't hurt to have a sense of humor..

    I have gotten a couple of people to buy NOD32 ... NONE of them have had an infection since they got it, and most of them are email viruses...

    I think Mele20's situation was a little "extraordinary" and doesn't normally apply to the genreal populace..

    A couple of weeks ago, I said to myself, "the hell with Virus Bulletin, I'm going to try and test all the av's out there, and see which one I LIKE!!
    The IMON was crashing my Outlook Express (The NOD BETA, now remember, it's the beta I had the problem with...)

    Well, I tested them all, and the only other AV I found I liked was Avast! But I prefer NOD more at this point.. It has the VB history, and I never had a problem with support..


    Mele20's situation shouldn't scare you away.. Besides, to be honest with you, I'm so used to the NOD interface I can't believe I used to use "Kindergarten Norton's"..

    You, see, that's my opinion (LOL)...

    But, seriously now, I couldn't find another AV as light on resources, and speed...

    I'm sure I won't have anything to worry about when the new NOD comes out.

    I never felt this strongly about software before.. But, that's because the other one that failed me in the past, really caused me months of aggravation...
  14. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Oct 28, 2002
    To everyone from Firefighter!

    Once again a new av-test in the biggest tecnical magazine in Finland, TM.

    Norton 8.9/10; Panda 8.8/10 and that was the Editors Choice, F-Secure was third and there were Norman and some other quite famous programs too in that test.

    I may be a sort of Don Quijote, when I don't believe those tests yet! :eek:

    In several independent noncommercial av-tests for example F-Secure was better than Norton in the most categories, archives scanning, in the Zoo scanning and it is much better against Trojans plus it is good in the Wild scanner too. So why they are trying to deny the real facts?

    Or is it so that only thing that counts is install it and forget? ;)

    "The truth is out there but it hurts!"

    Best Regards,
  15. Smokey

    Smokey Registered Member

    Apr 1, 2002
    Annie's Pub
    Hi controler!

    Thanks for the compliments I'm an idiot! ;)

    I don't trust any test in any magazine, I only trust personal experience.

    Have tried almost every anti-virus product, and EVERY single product has his positive AND negative side, again, this concerns EVERY product, has nothing to do with advertsiment, price, name or whatelse, there is simply NO PERFECT ANTIVIRUSPRODUCT ON THE MARKET!

    Now I'm trying/using McAfee VirusScan 7.0 without the firewall option, and I must say, till yet McAfee didn't disappoint me, only negative I can say about McAfee is the frequency of the virus-signatures updates but other products come with other negative sides.

    I have also tried so called "well-respected" antivirus-programs (NOD, KAV, RAV, Symantec etc. etc.) which are so often in this forum praised into heaven, but there is no antivirus-heaven.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.