Avira

Alright that's it, you deserve an arrow on your pie.

What JoeBlack40 said was this performance test isn't the same with detection rate test. Detection rate test does indeed require advanced tools and methods, in which common users like us can't perform. But judging performance is easy, install it in your PC and feel if it lags your computer too much or not. Benchmarking is useless if the results only differ for a few miliseconds/whatever measurement unit it is supposed to be called. Some people say Avira is faster than other AVs while some other people say the otherwise. Not to mention that not everyone has the same machine specs, that really matters, very much.

 

@ GrafZeppelin,

Please have a look, especially in sections: "Test Methods" (page 4) & "Side notes and comments" (page 5).

 

That makes two arrows.

I have seen and read that test like zillions of times. Not everyone has an Intel Core i5 CPU, not everyone does defragging, not everyone uses the default settings, not everyone installs the same programs on their computers, etc etc. I can grumble on and on but I think you got my point already.

AMIGA500 and JoeBlack40 said Avira is faster, to me it is not. Yay for real-life situation.

P.S. : You can't do anything with an old Pentium processor @ 200MHz with 100mb RAM these days. Even my netbook has a lot more than that. 10 years old hardware is supposed to be canned.

 

Elementary my dear GrafZeppelin....
There is no reason to repeat the self explanatory.....

The tests are not comparing apples and oranges.

 

I failed to interpret this part.

Of course it's not comparing apples and oranges. I was just pointing out that those test results will be the same or totally the exact opposite or somewhere between them on the users' PCs. AV Comparative says Avira is heavier than some other AVs, I say half yes and half not, based on my own experience. Subjective things are subjective, there's no way you can make a definitive law of what's this and/or what's that on everything. Even if those tests provide some good infos, that doesn't mean they're applicable to everyone.

 

AV Comparative not says.
AV Comparative measures with instruments and presents the results.

Exactly. Based on your own experience, not on your own measurements.
That's a subjective thing.

Measurements are not subjective things.
One meter will always remain one meter, doesn't matter if I insist that is not a meter but one millimeter.

 

As i see it right now,you didn't understand what i meant.If your links were pointed out at detection rates,maybe i would give a damn,just maybe.But as long as they are strictly related to PERFORMANCE....i really don't care.Hope you understand now finally my point of view.

 

Thank you,not even i could have explained better.

 

Testing dozens of products on the same PC/configuration can give you the right picture about Performance behavior.

That is why I think AVC did a good job.

 

I have a problem with that.
How do we know what machine and which configurations were used.?
Simple answer is we dont know because it is not declared.

Personal experience of a product is far more conclusive than a bunch of tests.
Thanks.

 

+1.

 

Please read the report - it is declared several times (and has also other information which may further educate you).

 

Your experience is subjective while the test is objective (different parameters are measured and you get real numbers/values).

 

AV - Comparatives said the PC configuration, simply read at page 4 of the report.
Is a i5 3330 cpu with 4gb ram (problably only intel onboard graphic), tested on Seven 64bit
In 2013 this is an average pc

 

You have a problem for sure.

Simple answer is read first, talk later....

This =

 

Okay so this test is only relevant to users of the aforementioned configuration.
Well i dont use an i5 i have an i3 laptop.

"in 2013 this is an average pc"
Really?
Im assuming that figure has been ascertained by sales figures.?

What about the i7 machines.?

There is a multitude of differing configurations in the world plus customized machines also and i doubt an accurate average or estimation can ever be ascertained.

If you want a truthful picture of system impact on differing machines then perhaps listening to actual users on web forums may be of some use as these are experiences from actual people.

Thanks.

 

Talking about experiences, I was a long-time Avira user but found avast to be better product in every aspect.

 

Yes but that is just a subjective viewpoint.lol

 

Of course.
Isn't that what you are talking about?

 

Yes it is.
I think input from actual users is more important than these tests.
Sadly i seem to be the only one who thinks this.

Thanks.

 

You didn't pay attention to the best part. 7anon, I am disappointed.

BTW, AMIGA500 and JoeBlack40 are using Avira Free, while AV Comparative tested the Premium version and AV-Test.org tested the Internet Security Suite.

 

That's exactly how I always configure my relatives and friends computers

 

Every hour is a bit overboard.

 

Yeah, I agree.. and it just puts more load on their servers, which they don't need.

 

Does anyone have a download URL for Avira 9 Pro (or Premium or whatever it used to be called)? I've got a bunch of old Avira 9 Personal versions I've held onto, but not the Pro version.