Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by profhsg, May 26, 2006.
Thanks. Are you using it actually? I'd like to hear experiences from current users
Well I was talking about sponsors,not people.People want good trustworthy results whereas what sponsors want is rather debatable.
As long as the AT company(Trojan hunter if I recall correctly) you made clear that it was because of a low detection rate but they answered that your methodology was not correct.Also they stated that the way the software operated was optimized for detecting actual threats and not archives of malware.
You are right about the last one though.People should only take into consideration the numbers and not the rating which may be misleading.
By the way.I am not implying that you are not trustworthy or getting paid or anything similar.But nowadays none can be sure about other people especially when money are involved.Morals as long as most people are concerned come second compared to cash.I hope that your views are not biased but I can only hope that your ethics are such that will not allow anything to interfere with the truth.Hope is not a proof though.
No not using it, but I did trial it. Too heavy on my machine!
Lots of recent threads here if you carry out a search; for example here.
i think you are right, at last i think this sometimes when i read some magazines or websites... (e.g. some marketing peoples of course would like to see their product score good, some journalists want to write some shocking article to sell more copies of their magazine, etc. and pure technical peoples of av companies are those that are ineterested in real results, no matter how they score).
thats why real independent tests are needed, preferably from _more_ than 1, 2 or maybe 3 different independent testers, of which results can be compared etc. (e.g. you will notice that there is not big difference in results delivered from 2 testing sites, which imo shows that they are both really independent - because one of them is my site , - getting similar results even if using different test-sets and methods.
Do you mean that the current version of Avira has generic unpacking, sandboxing and variant detection?
Regarding the tests...seems NOD is getting weaker... They've scored much more in the last proactive tests....but it's good to see it has few FPs.
Thanks for the link, I found particularly useful https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=649951&postcount=5
so I think I'll give a try on AVK
How new versions of av products will score will be seen in future tests.
About NOD and others: please note that the test-sets varies in each tests, such small differences in percentages in the various retrospective tests are meaningless. thats why the ranges are kept quite large.
Yes people would like results from the greatest possible number of really independent sites.
Of course sites that are trully independent dont need to claim so.
Besides independent and non biased can only be those people that have no need for cash.
If I offered to some independent site 50.000$ would it still remain independent for long?
Thank you for your work, and I respect your reports and look forward to the next.
CA's EZ-Trust is not mentioned, by their request?
Linked your 'Home Page' on the AntiVir Forum.
AVIRA recommends "Medium" Hueristic setting but on their 'beta' Hueristic testing they wanted "High".
I have used "High" on both the AntiVir Guard (active scan) and Demand Scan, yet to see the first False Positive (or any positive)
(AV Version 6 had flagged that PandaScan file and on my Win98 Backup system, AntiVir did quarantine two ancient Outlook98 install CAB's.)
I used to be a AntivirusKit 2006 user (although I bought a one year license in March 2006, I only used it for about two months), it somehow caused me to lose the internet connection whenever there was a signature update (my setting was hourly upgrade). This occured after the version was upgraded to V16.0.7 and by the way I had the HTTP Scanner enabled. To save me from further headache, I have since joined the NOD32 community.
Also the company has not done enough in supporting the english speaking users. I did not get a reply for most of my email messages.
Other than these two issues, I think it is a decent software and it doesn't slow down the machine (with dual engine - Kaspersky and Bitdefender enabled).
I wasn't going to comment in this thread again but i find the 'silence' from Norton users in this forum to these latest tests rather well 'amusing', 'disturbing', i don't know how to word it.I mean, Norton's performance was 'poor' to say the least and confirms again that it's not performing very well right now in tests or the 'real enviroment'.And these latest tests show again the importance of quick updating of definition databases which is an area where Symantec fails the grade.I think finding a seat on the 'Norton Bandwagon' wouldn't be a problem right now but the way this AV is performing, who would want to.
I’m a Norton user and I’m not sure what you want me to say. I have used it on one of my machines for sometime now and it has done its job. Most of the users here don’t even use Norton, which is a very small portion of internet users. So you can’t really use the silence here as a measure of anything. Seriously, how many Norton user post here 3 or 4 maybe?
Generally, alot of things don't improve, change until the pressure is there from consumers like yourself to improve.And let's face it, Symantec has a quite a smug attitude and don't seem to be in any hurry to stop Norton's decline.And it's performance is declining.A few years ago, i would say it was the best AV out there.I don't even know if i would call it top 5 anymore.We all have to remember that it's just a piece of software so critisizing it where it is due won't hurt it's feelings.I just feel that in situations like this, being silent isn't the way to go.If most of you feel i'm wrong, than i do apologize.
No need to apologize for anything. You are free to say what you want abut Norton. I’m just pointing out that there aren’t a lot of Norton users here and that measuring their silence doesn’t really mean anything. Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they are tired of anti-Norton comments in general… Who knows? Personally I think it’s both. If it works for them why do they have to prove anything? Let’s face it; Norton debates don’t go anywhere anyways. The just make more work for the moderators.
Nothing to apologize for, everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Norton is Norton....I can remember having version 5.0 installed on an old Pentium 100 mhz laptop I had with 40 MB's of memory (running Windows 95) and it felt pretty heavy, almost bringing it to a crawl. The time it took to boot up was even worse.
From the standpoint of system performance and resource usage, I have seen no difference from old to new and nothing to "decline" from
See my previous post
Here are a couple of images to mull over.
Here is the current DSLR poll
Personally, this is a bit odd but it's not over yet.
There was a poll here some time ago which gave results
KAV & NOD32 equal first
NAV after that.(well down on numbers)
There are p-lenty of NAV users here.
It is indeed a very good AV program. I had a one-year license that I purchased in June of 2005. When the 2006 release came out, I inquired about downloading it since my license still had several months remaining. No response after numerous e-mails.
Worst software support I have ever seen in 20 years of computing!
You could not have used Boomerang Software's eXtendia AVK
Right you are, they were absolutely pathetic. I believe that their idea of customer support is "the customer must support themselves."