F-prot 6 or Dr. web?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by BrainWarp, Mar 8, 2007.

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

    BrainWarp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Posts:
    287
    Which is the better. F-prot6 or Dr. web .I have used both in the past and like there low resourse usage.

    I will wait untill there vista version comes out before i purchase.But those of you that know these 2 programs which would you choose to protect your computer?

    I know you see these threads( which is best antivirus) alot,but i have not seen much info on f-prot's latest version yet.

    peace
     
  2. plantextract

    plantextract Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Posts:
    392
    just between those 2, f-prot.
     
  3. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i shouldnt need to tell you my answer or why :D
     
  4. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    F-Prot 6

    pros:
    *One low price for multiple computers (covers 1 home I believe).
    *Nice email support (I have received email responses in the past rather quickly).
    *Nice support forum, with quick replies.
    *Simple user interface.
    *Small updates.
    *Nice detection rates.(improved greatly over ver.3).
    *Fully computer scans are pretty quick (atl east on my computer)

    Cons:
    Not a lot options for configuration.


    Dr.Web

    Pros:
    *Fairly simple user interface.
    *A bit more room for tweaking than f-prot.
    *Presently a decent support forum.
    *Usually frequent small updates throughout the day.
    *Has kept my computer clean for a couple of years now.


    Cons:
    *Scans results in a few false positives from time to time.
    *A bit more pricey than F-prot and only covers one user.
    *For me, email support in the past has been a bit dodgy , may have changed now.
    *I felt that the new anti-spam module should have been offered free to all current users. Will they charge extra for other new modules when they are released (i.e. SpiderGate, etc.)?


    Now if I had to choose between the two, I may go with Dr.web. Only because I have used it longer (1.5yrs longer) and it has continued to keep my computer clean (not that f-prot hasn't). I guess as the old saying goes; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

    Now as a new user I may go with f-prot because of the nice support and you really can't beat the price. I suggest you try both see how they feel on your computer. Hell, event "trial" their support. Maybe, during your trials contact each companies support with general inquiries and see which is more responsive. I can't tell you how many times I have purchased a nice piece of software only to be left with crappy support.
     
  5. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    dr.web has the smallest and most frequent updates,

    support has been very quick and good, however... sometimes the russia-english translation seems a bit aggresive.

    plus, sure you say 1pc licence only, but isnt it a licence key-file and can easily be used on unlimited computers in your home right?

    if i have to, it wont bother me paying for another year, the 1 year extra plus 3 years spam for £16 aint too bad.

    but, then another worry comes.... what if dr.web bring other technologys that 'need another year buying', it could all turn out to be an expensive suite.
     
  6. Miyagi

    Miyagi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Posts:
    420
    Location:
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    I have used Dr.Web in the past and still have a valid license. I am using F-PROT and have 3 of my computers use the generous license. On all my machines, Dr.Web is lighter in terms of resource usage.

    If you look at the tests, you'll see who's performing. I like F-PROT better at this time. F-PROT forum has been a very supportive field. Inspector is a frequent visitor here and provides assurance and technical information about pretty much anything in the malware industry.

    It's just not the software itself that you should look at. :)
     
  7. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    Now, I'm not really sure about the license, under the buy option for Dr.Web it says 1 user\1 year license. Might be a good thing for him to ask their support about while he trials the software. ;)
     
  8. Lollan

    Lollan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Two words.

    Inspector Clouseau :)

    You really can't beat the price either, $29 for 5 systems is really cheap and the support is top notch.

    My vote goes to F-Prot.
     
  9. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    F-Prot
     
  10. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    id lean towards F-Prot.
     
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    no love for dr.web eh? .. oh, i dont care :D

    i hope those votes are not just because of the latest av-comparatives, it was a test on the new version of f-prot and dr.webs new version (12 months in the making) is 'on its way' still, so bit unfair to judge a 2006 version vs a 2007 ... if you know what i mean.

    i know dr.web offers a competative price, great support,a small program with n resource usage and small regular updates, so im a happy chappy and will continue to use the doctor, regardless of what IBK has to say :D

    and i know i continue to say it, but dr.web does not add malware samples for malware that cannot be executed (because, whats the point?), and i bet IBKs test includes some of those malwares.

    Dr.Web all the way :D

    --------
    however, f-prot is a good program too, with good support, so they get my thumbs up to, however, i prefer the doctor.
     
  12. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    Possibly, but I doubt it makes up more than a couple of % of the ~53,000 samples Dr Web missed.

    Dr Web is a good standard AV, but it's detection is something that could do with improvement IMHO, F-prot has been showing a steady improvement for some time now, but I don't see this from Dr Web.

    Hopefully version 5 will bring improvements in the detection without affecting Dr Web's ultra-light resource usage.

    Londonbeat
     
  13. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    possibly, i think its fact londonbeat.

    dr.web is the only AV i know that only adds samples that can be executed, and it makes sense, but tests will always include malware that cant be executed, and i dont think its an excuse.

    f-prots verson was a new one tested, and dr.webs wasnt, im sure dr.web would have scored similar to the old f-prot version, and when dr.web bring out their new engine and technologys, im sure it will score better and hopefully be similar to f-prots new version which was just tested.

    people can be soooo quick to look at these results and think, i wont use this, i wont use that etc etc
    but if you look at the details, its not all plain reading.
    i dont believe for 1 second that dr.web only detected 89%, my question to IBK (even in the current dr.web version) of that 11%, how many were non-executable, surely this is a question that cannot be done as it would take probably alot of time and effort to achieve the answer to this so it doesn't matter, was just throwing out there :) , but i still think a few percent of it would be non-executables.

    and if you keep that in mind, add drwebs new technologys which are 'coming soon....' detection would be even better, 12months development on a new engine, must be quite a bit better dont you think? and im told of other extras to the new version.

    i understand there will always be people to build their AV on tests alone, which will probably always be a bad thing for dr.web, but will 89% detection have such a good record with VB ?

    at the last test of av-test.org, drweb was about 92% (cant remember the actual score but its more reputable) but i still bet some were non-executables, it might not make a difference, but to dr.web it does, as i said...

    im sure people will rant at me, like they usually do for my comments, but its something to think about for sure, yeah?

    have fun :D
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007
  14. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    Never mind. I don't want to hijack this thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007
  15. PaulBB

    PaulBB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    708
    Get the green spider, catches everything :thumb:
     
  16. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    They're both great, light AV app.s, and I have to agree with most of the other members' posts here.
    F-Prot has a slight detection advantage.
    Dr Web's heuristics is a bit superior (but u may want to wait for next av-comparatives test to see if F-Prot's heuristics improves with Maximus?).
    IMHO it boils down to economics.
    If you've multiple 'puters in your household, go with F-Prot.
    If not, save a couple bucks and go with the Dr.
     
  17. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    I believe Eset also don't add signatures for non-executable (corrupted) malware.
     
  18. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    Same thing happens when I DL the test file w/ any other browser besides IE. Firefox lets me DL the eicar.com file but, when I try to access (in the directory I saved it to) it the RTM springs into action.
     
  19. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    F-Prot by a very, very wide margin.
     
  20. Malcontent

    Malcontent Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    451
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Another vote for Dr. Web. I agree with pretty much everything C.S.J said about Dr. Web. I also believe Dr. Web's detection is better then the AV tests say.

    I tried the new F-prot and it's a nice improvement. But I found the configuration limited (for my taste) and I could "feel" F-prot on my system. Don't get me wrong, F-prot is light on resources and systems. But when compared to Dr. Web on "my" system, I could "feel" F-prot. I can't even feel Dr. Web on my system at all. I got spoiled in that way. Dr. Web updates serveral times a day. Even on weekends and holidays, like Christmas day.

    As mentioned in this thread, Dr. Web doesn't include malware that can't be executed. I think this an imporatant part of Dr. Web's philosophy. To keep it's self lean and to only include malware that is truly a threat to the user.

    As C.S.J mentioned, Dr. Web is currently beta testing a new and improved AV engine. It's going to be in beta for at least another couple of months. I've been running the beta for a couple of months now and it's running smooth as silk.
    --------
    December 30, 2006

    Doctor Web, Ltd. announces the beta-release of a new generation of Dr.Web anti-virus scanning engine (beta-release number 4.33.44). Its key feature is a unique algorithm of virus detection based on a signature-independent malware detection method which complements the traditional signature-based method and the heuristic analyzer.

    The new technology has been developed for over 10 months for the purpose to significantly improve the quality of detection of unknown viruses. "Our analyzers and developers have no doubt achieved a substantially new level of anti-virus technology, - comments Boris Sharov, the CEO of Doctor Web, Ltd. We have long explored the possibility to implement our new detection methods to be able to detect unknown viruses to assure the highest protection level for our customers. Hopefully, it will be a good New year present for them."

    The beta version of Dr.Web anti-virus engine can be downloaded from the beta-testing section of the website of Dr.Web anti-virus.
     
  21. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Why? I find it really hard to put any stock in your opinion seeing as how you switch your AV of choice, and corresponding avatar, frequently. Still, I an curious?
     
  22. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    yep, I tried the beta for awhile and the only thing it found were FPs. But I agree hard work will only make them better. But F-Prot has improved alot, very fast. And comparing protection for 5 computers to charging for a antispam module, well, need I say more about the "future".
     
  23. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Well since I have had this nasty habit for over a year, what can I say. And I have also said on numerous occasions, that just because my avatar changes, does not mean my AV does, until now.:) But I respect your thoughts and concerns.
     
  24. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Don't get me wrong. I'm kind of like you, but have been so for many years. I might soon be hopping off the Dr Web bandwagon. I was disappointed with it's last av-comparatives test. My lisense is up in August so I might jump back to NOD32 then (hate ESET but love NOD32). But we'll see. Dr Web should be releasing v5 'soon.'
     
  25. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    sure, we are not happy about being charged for anti-spam, but its an extra feature and not an update to the AV, so you have to understand that, even though we dr.web users aint happy.

    but ...

    it aint all too bad, we get an extra year of dr.web, plus in my case 3 years of spam for just £16 / 22 euro, so not all bad.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.