AV-Test.org march test results

Yes, of course. Believing Andreas Marx is gullible, but not when we swallow the words of C.S.J for granted.

As always, you resort to turning these issues personal in attempt to deflect the obvious. I'm pointing out the simple fact that you seem to be doing the very same thing you accuse Marx of. If you want to blast him for posting unevidenced, baseless data, the very least you can do is not turn around and do the very same all in the same post. Tough luck that you can't accept it, I guess.

 

yes, i do the same as him.

i have an opinion on products and post it.

but i dont charge for it

--------------
thats going a little far, even for you solcroft.

if you believe the results posted, thats fine..... but dont expect everyone to share the same view

i really thought you, especially you... would share a similar view, looking at the results yourself.

anyway, to put this little conversation with you to an end, my words are spoken and so are yours, now lets wait and see what everyone thinks.

 

I don't think so. I just have problems with baseless crap and hypocrisy, AND all in one post. I think many will agree.

Why not take your own advice?

DrWeb and Frisk have shown no compunction against withdrawing from tests that they don't like, but they seem to endorse Andreas Marx, at any rate. And seeing as how simply asking for what is it that you actually base your, erm, opinions on always results in these evasive, roundabout replies (dodge, dodge, dodge), I think this will be my last post on this matter.

 

The evidence against the landing on the moon is so weak that it's nothing more than a laughable conspiracy theory.

 

What "high prices" are you talking about, exactly?

 

Probably the ones his opinions told him about.

 

we did land on the moon , I saw it on TV so it has to be true! ;-)
FWIW the results are suspect IMHO, some make sense others do not, it's simple math that some just don't add up so I suspect that alot of conclusions are of the person writing the report.

 

I didn't pay for the results

Btw: I just compared the on-demand results av-test/av-comparatives. Even though the testsets are different and they probably used different programs from the same vendor, the results are very much the same. 7 out of 16 differ less than 1 percent.

I guess they both do a good job.

 

That is true. What makes sense or not, however, is mostly based on other reports, or whatever limited experiences we have. And they may very well be completely incorrect in the context of the sample set used by Marx. Some things I have quirks with, and are grossly incorrect in my experience:

- avast!, Trend Micro ranking higher than Sophos and Ikarus (these two are VERY fearsome single-engine scanners) for on-demand detection
- BitDefender having higher heuristics than Avira. BD has very good proactive detection (generic unpacking, behavior emulation, the works) but not enough to beat Avira's packer-happy "heuristics"

but that's about it. The remaining products I either have little experience with, or are within acceptable error limits depending on the sample size.

 

Of course there are always people that would like to change the way the tests were done.

But i think that av-comparatives, virusbtn and av-test.org together can give you a very good impression on how AV's performs.

If a product performs bad in all tests or is in the top5, it certainly gives you an idea.

Further more, all test are clear on how they have tested.
If these 3 tests were not done, it was even more difficult to get an idea on how a AV performs year by year.

Yes, i am very happy about these tests, but perhaps i have all reason to be

 

tests are a lot like accounting. In accounting you can make numbers say anything IMO. Same with test results, you can manipulate them in a manner that proves ones theory or beliefs...

 

I think CSJ means the prices involved for publishing the results on a magazine. Given that magazines can indeed pay AV-test to perform specialized tests, I guess CSJ assumed Chip paid Marx for these results.

And BTW, regarding "strange" rankings of some products, it might just have something to do with settings. Sometimes BitDefender also does packer detection though, but I doubt it caused high scores this time.

 

Yes, we all know that Marx specifically doctored and tailored his results to favor avast!, Trend and BD. Must have taken quite some effort, since the rest of his statistics look quite ok to me.

 

Is this a sarcastic comment? I really cannot see Marx doctoring the results. It might just be a settings thing as this has happened before with AV-test.........

 

Thanks for the heads up, Valentin

I always enjoy reading test results from av-test.org... and the top ranked avk

 

thanks for the info =)
does anyone know which product version were used by AntVir ?

 

True true!

The moon is just around the corner, so there's nothing to be amazed of

 

I'm going with C.S.J. on this one by not believing the results.

Microsoft > Kaspersky on detection and cleanup?

Since when?

 

Congrats to eTrust for not coming in last this time.

 

With the money that MS has to throw at Devs and Analyst, I could see it happening. who knows who they have on their payroll.

 

i think it is Microworld escan not Etrust antivirus from CA.

 

No, I was referring to eTrust / VET (CA) which has a history of pulling up the rear in AV-test.org roundups.

 

That makes three of us. I have never trusted av-test's results. Microsoft has never been better than Kaspersky. Perhaps one day, but no way it is better right now.

 

I as well with C.S.J opinion on the test results.we all have are opinions some stronger then others and thats cool.I personally do not put much faith in testing procedures and probably never will.there is my opinion

 

One should bear in mind the history of the test author at this site when deciding if his tests are trustworthy or not.