AV-Comparatives release new performance test.

Yeah, and they are free to do referrer checks if they wish to enforce their stupid "policy". Otherwise, I really don't care whether this wish to be linked or not.

 

These types of threads are usually started much sooner, and have more posts.

... People lost interest?

 

Shrug; perhaps... I for one would like to see some browsing speed testing as mentioned by someone else before, but... all I've seen so far have been pretty much broken tests (e.g. what PCMag does). To test this reliably and prevent the results from being affected by remote server bandwidth/performance issues, ISP connectivity issues etc., you'd pretty much have to set up a bunch of local webservers with various content (simple webpages, multimedia stuff, some ASP/PHP, Java stuff, pages with lots of pictures etc.) and then measure how long it takes to load with and without AV's HTTP scanning in place. Also perhaps P2P stuff like BT, but there's just a bunch of AVs that have P2P content checking (like Avast).

 

I am surprised over Symantec actually! I have avoided Norton the latest years (I know, the 2007 and 2008 is light), but I did not see that good performance coming. Time to test it again I guess.

 

yes the new 2009 is blazing fast compared to even the last few years.. its night and day

 

It's a respect thing. If you you respect him you'll respect his *wishes.*

 

I respect him but his wishes are not my commands!

 

I find his numbers for Kaspersky boot a bit strange. I've been using KAV for some time now and my computer boots just fine, not any slower.

 

Read the report...
Page 4, 3rd paragraph
Bottom of page 10

(sorry, don’t know if we can quote it or not).

Also, this is only on 1 setup, it may run slow on 1 computer, fast on another... which is why as we all know, the recommendation is always to try the products out first and not totally rely on other reviews/tests/opinions

 

On a different website where I've made a thread on free security software, I have placed some links to PDF reports.
A fellow forum user reminded me of the 'no AV-Comparatives link posting rule/wish/command' so I contacted Andreas Clementi and asked if he minds posting PDF links. His answer;

~Private communication removed per the TOS for using these forums. - Ron~

So, as long as no one posts links to the 'Online results' with just the scores but instead to the PDF links (and also urges the reader to fully read the test report in order to understand the scores) and you also post a link to his home page, you're good.
Cheers.

 

yes baserk he gave me the same response today i was just about to pm you over there lol..

 

RAM is a really bad measurement of AV performance. Hell, if you're checking your RAM still in this day and age of RAM as cheap as milk then you need to upgrade.

No, where AV performance should be monitored is in how fast it can process files, because it's HERE that it's going to cause you problems. If your hard drive can work at 68MB/s but the AV can only process 34MB/s then your AV is going to impact the performance of your drive. This is why test 1 is the most interesting.

The huge difference in performance between Avira at max and Avira! at defaults means that either their high level heuristics are a performance crippler (actually it's probably the process of applying those heuristics to all those additional files), or their file extension list makes one hell of a huge difference. Either way, when you look at these performance rankings combined with the last On-Demand test (98% Vs. 99% for default and high) I'd say it's not worth upping your Avira settings. This suggests also that Avira is either very ineffecient or the last 3% of viruses are very demanding, as a scanner like NOD32 scans all files, yet even when using all its heuristics (96% last on-demand test) it absolutely thrashes Avira in performance.

I want to see a web browser test though.

 

You missed the option to scan archives in realtime.