AVG Free 2011 totally sucks!!

Love Matt's reviews on youtube.

This review about AVG says it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzNTaSA_Tw

They totally suck bad, very surprising considering how many people use it. I guess you get what you pay for... nothing.

The first threat he tests is a rootkit and it crashes his machine, making it completely unusable. "Fail big time"

At 16:26 he tests his second threat "~ Snipped as per TOS ~.. this AVG is sucking. I'm about ready to call this quits. This is terrible. Is this thing doing anything ?""

At 18:49 he says "thats enough AVG. AVG! AVG! totally fail.. it is pretty much a disaster"

This is the first time I have seen him get through just 2 threats and bail. AVG is totally suckage. No wonder there are so many AVG "customers" on the cleanup forums.

 

I dare you to say that to Avast, Comodo, Sandboxie or similar great free security programs.

 

all of them miss things. so what is the need of this thread? i do not see the point of this big failure as it though it faled the heart of a patient, anyway. I have Avast Internet Security installed and it missed 6 trojans and malware coming from a flash but i do not say it sucks. I wanted it to be removed but it did not. Avg found them and removed. Uninstalled it again and i am back to AIS. They are both great in my opinion

 

What does a Youtube video say about anything, really? Ten different links, and the outcome might have been totally different, too.

 

Oh for gods sake, Youtube strikes again, huh? Do we seriously have to keep going through this stuff? Alright, I'll get right to my criticizing:

Point 1. It says nothing about AVG. He tried two links out of 10, both failed, yes. Two...read that again...two. If one rootkit is "fail big time", then every single AV out there is in a lot of trouble with this guy, because they all miss things.

Point 2. He had to quit early. If anyone else decides to watch this and not just take the quotes posted here as as some final word on the matter, you'll see the ransomware popped up porn on the screen. Therefore, he had to quit so he could edit the "review" to be acceptable to Youtube policy.

For a while there, I thought I was watching another version of the Comodo video posted here recently. In neither video would the person talking get on with the show until it was half over. Why do people post these damned things? Anyway, as far as "They totally suck bad, very surprising considering how many people use it. I guess you get what you pay for... nothing."...it honestly sounds like you, number 1, have far too unrealistic expectations. Number 2, you don't know much about real testing (which is fine, it's not meant as a personal insult).

Please don't rely on Youtube for stuff like this, you'll be better off.

 

OMG,you are so straightforward. I like your reply.Honestly,I really hate those people who post all those useless av test videos.

 

All security products let some threats through we all know more and more malware is created. i do agree that avg isnt as good as other products. it does seem to miss more than other applications and uses alot of resources.

 

+1

All AV-s at the end offer the same basic protection.

Avg might be a bit more heavy than NOD32 or Avast!,but these two are not better comparing to AVG according to malware detections.

 

In my opinion ,you probably wrong.According to AV Comparatives,Avast!'s on demand detection is higher than AVG (August) and ESET's proactive/retrospective detection is higher than AVG in Virus Bulletin.Besides,AVG also got higher rate of FPs than those two vendors that you mentioned in the previous post that caused AVG itself failed to get Advance A+ for on demand test.

 

Indeed you guys are correct! All anti-malware programs will miss things. But some miss a whole lot more than others; they call these programs junk.

Although you are also correct in viewing a single video of a product with skepticism, note that there are a bunch of people who take the time to produce these videos. So over the course of, say 10 testers, if Product A catches all malware and Product B catches none, is this also without validity? Some other videos will test multiple products simultaneously against the same links. If Product A catches all, and Product B again catches none will you still say these tests have no purpose?

These videos introduce people to products they may or may not have known existed, showing how they work (or not work). This is called Education. It is a good thing.

 

That's why it's very important and are absolutely compulsory to have a second line of defense like DefenseWall or SandBoxie or the like...just in case real-time scanners failed to catch some intruders.

 

I remember that video. I didn't give it too much importance, after the moment Matt said it was a big failure. I didn't understand the comment, though. I expected more... like understanding every antimalware application will fail at some point.

I understand that, whenever the antimalware applications someone may use fails them, they consider them to be big failures. But, it happened with AVG, with those 10 URLs. The result could have been entirely different with different 10 URLs. And, if it passed all those 10 URLs, then it would be a great security application, and all of a sudden would start protecting people against everything? No, it would not. The same for every other antimalware application.

10 URLs mean 0%. Otherwise, think about this. Imagine Matt tested AVG against 1000 URLs, and from those 1000, it failed 10 URLs. Does this reveal that it sucks?

As someone else said, antimalware applications should be used within the context of a layered security, and not alone. If you feel the need to use them, that is.

 

The gay porn must've been quite a shock.

 

went downhill after 7, RIP!

 

Very much agreed, unfortunately.

 

YouTube tests are completely meaningless...

 

+1.

 

I get your point, I really do. However, it never ends up being 10 testers, just the same one or two, doing the same 10 link "test". If it were 10 individual testers, that would be a pretty good start in making these things relevant. And yes, if the same 10 link method of testing is used, then they indeed still have no purpose. Think about it, Cruelsister, if you see a test on a product that uses 10 links, 7 of which are dead and 3 that either get through or are blocked, can you really make a decent judgement call on the tested product?

These Youtube things either end up being video ads for Comodo (we know who that tester would be I believe), or the "10 linkers" (of which the same 1-2 people are always the testers). Neither are educating anybody. This is why I am against posting these things.

 

I agree that this videos can't really show how good/bad is product but let me tell you something, go and type Norton test, and tell me how much malware samples passes Norton, if you find any at all, and no its not conincidence! you will see maxium 5 pass from like 15 videos, similar results can be seen for Comodo and Kaspersky. Point being you can get general idead about product if you see few test from different uploaders about it.

 

+1

 

I propose a new rule. Just as A vs B posts are verboten so should be any mention of youtube testing.

 

Than I guess the MRG results are also out as they just test 1 sample.

 

It's the quality of the test and the expertise of the testers. There's a big difference, but then you already new that surely.

 

YouTube tests are probably not worse than a biased point of veiw from anyone that likes or dislikes a product. For example I think AVG sucks extremely without having seen the video. It cost me an entire day of downtime once on a production server because it stopped it from accessing the internet. After they fixed that and I put it back on it took less than a week before it caused another problem. Needless to say we did not renew. There may be people that love AVG, so my experince with is is only worth what it means to you.