AV-Comparatives On-Demand Comparative March 2012

So what is preventing the testing of Norton with or without their desire to participate?

 

AV-Comparatives tests only with full consent of the developer. If the developer no longer wishes for the product to be tested, then it will not be included in the testing.

 

I understand. But if they are performing independent tests why do they desire to have the consent of Norton to do the test? Why not just do it?

 

ESET meets that criteria and AppGuard minus detection do to program type, meets and exceeds all my criteria.Thanks

 

In the real world of daily computing,I think its safe to say none of us will ever see that many false positive in our lifetime.

However, under testing evironments the False positive numbers of some is absolutley insane.

 

Avira did a wonderful job. They to were once bitten by the false positive bug but has graciously mastered it.

 

Yes!!!!I have seen so many corporations where leaving avira just because of Fps
And Avira even won't accept that it was their product's fault, they keep telling developers that something would be wrong with their applications!!!
Too much ego...lol

 

I suppose it is to achieve standardization and agreement with the vendor in question about the testing practices so that there may be no trouble later (legal or otherwise). Also, maybe Austrian law requires it (I'm not sure).

 

AFAIK, AV-C charges a fee to vendors who want to be included in AV-C's tests. If AV-C included Norton "for free", the vendors who paid for inclusion might be unhappy. Rightfully so.

 

Several years ago Trend Micro bowed out of further testing.
I believe that was due to a dispute over test protocol.

I any event, their performance in the previous two or three tests had been lousy.

 

Exactly! There is a lot of effort in doing testing and people need to be paid.

If Norton doesn't want to pay or doesn't agree with the business transaction and protocol it is their call. There are consequences for them but I suspect they will continue on anyway.

I'm not going to use a product that doesn't get tested but many people don't care (not here at Wilders) and the product gets delivered in new machines maybe that way of marketing works better for them.

But this is just speculation. If my AV drops out of testing I will replace them.

 

I personally do not pay to much attention to AV testing results.
I feel that there are alot of factors to choosing an antivirus product.

Some of the products that score highly in these tests can be quite buggy and resource hungry. I feel that fast response to both malicious samples and fixing of false positives is important. I feel that installation size is important. Some vendors really need to work on there installation size.I feel that vendors should stop wasting there time on pointless features such as backup,tuneup,desktop gadget,toolbars etc.

 

could not have said it better Lodore, totally agree.

 

I agree.

I use the top 5-6 products as a shoping list then test them out on my setup in a trial period. IMHO there is no way I can duplicate the testing depth of AV comparatives.

If I run into bugs or issues then I move to the next product. I don't need backup other than the ability to back up AV settings. Tune up has zip to do with AV detection and removal.
You and I both use the same AV (at the moment) and I don't see much fluff there. I do have the HIPS off as it would be duplicated with my FW.
I'm mostly interested in blocking new unknown malware via RT features

 

spot on. Just speculation here, but that the average family's today purchasing Computer's that are loaded with bloatware from the OEM, that seems to be acceptable or just dont know better.The vendor's probably think that's what average pc users want or dont know the difference and what's a few more gadgets and things floating around the desk top and added tool bars.

 

Nice avatar....life is good!

 

Interesting, it's been a long time since Kaspersky hit the 99% mark, or am i mistaken?

 

They have really increased their signature protection over the last year; they are pumping them out like crazy all day long.

 

As well as Qihoo and Tencent.

 

The fact that the vendors are paying the testing lab a fee seems to make the validity of the tests questionalble. Also, since non-paying vendors are not included in the tests there is no way to compare vendors. After all the best software may be from a vendor that choose not to participate. All very sad

 

Seems like another example of "I'll give you a fee only if you give me the results I'm looking for."

Just doesn't seem to be a valid test model.

 

Comsumer Reports test all sorts of products without a fee or advertising.

 

This is why Arthur Anderson went out of business. They kept doing audits without finding anything wrong. After all, the happier the customer the more business for them.

 

I can see your point IF these payments for testing services were hidden and now suddenly revealed and if all the vendors did well. But that is not the case. The vendors are smart they know that they can't test as well themselves. Nore do they have to participate.

If you glance through the detailed reports some vendors did poorly on certain factors relative to other vendors. False positives are an example.

If you are aware of a better more valid testing service let us know.

CR tests many products from toasters to software. I don't believe we know how technically competent their reporters are compared to AV-c.

Noer do we know what their financial arrangements are with AV vendors are. They aren't running a charity.

If your favorite product did poorly or is not listed I can understand your concern. Mine is not number 1 or 2 but that doesn't concern me.