Detection rate or features

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Durad, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    What do you think that is more important for computer security (antivirus):

    • Detection rate
      or
    • Features

    o_Oo_O
     
  2. disinter1

    disinter1 Guest

    I would have to say detection rate, but features are nice too!:D But without detection rates, features are kinda worthless in a way.
     
  3. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Id go for high detection rates but I wouldnt ignore features either.
     
  4. glentrino2duo

    glentrino2duo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Posts:
    310
    I'd go for features.
     
  5. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    definately the detection rate.
     
  6. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    605
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    of course detection rate :D
     
  7. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Depends on what kind of features you have and the experience of the user. For example, if an AV has only average detection rate, but comes with all sorts of process monitor, registry analyzer, hidden objects detector, etc. then in case of an undetected infection, an experienced user can go ahead and search and take care of the malware him(her)self. :)

    But for the bigger majority of users, who are either not experienced enough or do not have the time for doing complex stuff, an AV with a high detection rate will matter a lot.

    Eventually, a good mix of the two creates a great product. Personally, I'd rather go with a higher importance towards detection rate and value for money. :)
     
  8. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    I agree. ;)
     
  9. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,780
    I'd have to say that detection rate is primary, after all, that's what you have the AV for in the first place right? However, features are nice too. But a mediocre AV (detection-wise) with many nice wonderful features is going to be pretty much useless...
     
  10. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    well detection rate is important.
    but i only want secuirty related features.
    like i dont need a file shreader or history eraser.
    so i wanted it to be able to secure my computer with no bloated pointless features.
    lodore
     
  11. Jadda

    Jadda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Posts:
    422
    Detection rate of course :p
     
  12. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    Detection rate is more important, then the features are worth having. But AV with tons of features and a poor detection rate is not worth much, you can do alot....very poorly.
     
  13. Miyagi

    Miyagi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Posts:
    420
    Location:
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Let me add the art of car explanation by IC... Detection being the gas and the features being the AC and the nice digital audio system.

    As long as the car moves from point A to point B with a decent speed (rate of adding new samples) and getting to point B (having a decent detection), I don't care so much as to the features. You don't need AC here in Hawaii and the digital audio is not necessary as you have enough action outside your window. :)

    What's more important is the seat belt or your self decision.
     
  14. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    We all know that both features are welcome.

    Some of AV vendors are implementing HIPS related features.

    But I think that features such as HTTP scanning module, messenger scanning module, ability to unpack high number of packers, kernel level operation, pop/imap scanning are useless if software does not detect malware.

    This mean that detection rate is something with higher priority than adding more features.
     
  15. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    False positives. Thats why I go with Norton.
     
  16. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    Detection rate first definitely.
     
  17. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    :D :D :D





    Definently detection as long as removel is just as good,features are nice but not as important.
     
  18. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    If the detection is really good then why is removal so important? You don't have any nasties to remove!
     
  19. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,780
    Oh, I thought they were talking about removal of Norton! LOL.... :D
     
  20. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    That's because Zombini brought up FP's as the most important thing and said that's why he uses Norton and that is how Norton got into this thread which started out as what is more important from an AV - detection rate or features? The thread originally had nothing to do per sé with Norton or any other specific AV.
     
  21. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    Zombini was making a joke,It seems Zombini has a sense of humor See Here :rolleyes:

    Just if it detects something already on my pc I want to remove it. Avast did this that others failed to do. :D
     
  22. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    For removal effectiveness, see http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/18.
     
  23. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    It's an old test but yet again Kaspersky is at the top
     
  24. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    I go for features. It's the easiest to determine.
     
  25. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    Ah yes another test. :gack:
    I don't put to much stock is such tests.
    But this one used ten differant pieces of malware. :rolleyes:
    Thanks for the link but the proof is in the pudding.
    (Dam,I must be getting old can't believe I said proof is in the pudding) :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.