F-secure

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by kloshar, Jun 25, 2004.

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

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    I don't read much about F-secure on this forum. Why? Doesn't people use it? Is it so good that it doesn't need any comments? Tell me your opinion about it, please.
     
  2. Madsen DK

    Madsen DK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Posts:
    324
    Location:
    Denmark
    Yes its a really good AV, no doubt about that.
    Perhaps the price puts many people off. Its not the cheapest AV around.
     
  3. liang_mike

    liang_mike Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Canada
    I absolutely like my F-Secure Client Security.

    F-Secure has top detection rate on viruses and trojans, but it is a little bit slower compared to some of the other AntiVirus products (what do you expect from a product with 3 engines). I guess this is why some people don't like it. However, it doesn't bother me because what is good about speed when you are not fully protected. ;)
     
  4. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    But if single and double engine products perform as well or better for less money... how in the land of sanity and logic does that make F-Secure a worthwhile alternative?
     
  5. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    Tell me an example for the antivirus which is cheaper and better, please.
     
  6. liang_mike

    liang_mike Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Canada
    Assume when you said "perform", you meant detection rate. Personally, I don't believe there is one scanning engine that can do it all, so I guess the logic is Bayesian theory.

    Just my two cents :D
     
  7. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    KAV. I don't see F-Secure finding any more virii than it. LOL primary engine is based on KAV anyway, Nor do I see the xtra 2 engines providing any additional lift, just adding extra overhead.

    AVK and mks_vir are a couple others.

    F-Secure AV is $56.90, KAV 5.0 is $49.95 and AVK is ~$30.

    Charging more makes sense if the app provides a definitive benefit over the alternatives. Based on my testing, it doesn't.
     
  8. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    If it is same engine, why should be there differences?

    Please, don't make me laught. This little fishs of AVK ...


    And you get more than both together.
     
  9. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    If F-Secure provides no additional lift to KAV, why go to any added expense of buying 2 additional engines and inflict those useless CPU cycles on your system?

    Again in the land of sanity and logic, why spend the extra money? Explain to me how are you getting more for your money? Has anyone shown that those 2 extra engines add any value? In my testing it hasn't, nor in anyone else's in the forum.

    Regardless what you have read, AVK has done a solid job detecting baddies in my tests. Yes the company and product support leaves a lot to be desired, but it still has 1 less engine, costs much less than F-Secure with less system overhead.

    Show me something that proves your point. I'm more than willing to investigate things if I've done something wrong in my tests, but based on the consistency of results with my tests, Kobra and Firefighter's results, they all seem to indicate that the extra overhead and expense cannot be justified. I for one refuse to buy into the "more is better" perception if all the data contradicts that view.

    I'm not saying this is a bad AV, my point is simply that if there are AVs that find more or the same number of baddies with less system overhead and expense, what is the justification for buying F-Secure?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2004
  10. liang_mike

    liang_mike Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Canada
    Again, a least for me, it is the question of probability. Why pay for insurance? Why are fire alarms required in every building? Based on Bayesian theory and a paranoid personality :p , I just feel safer with F-Secure.


    Have I conducted anti-virus tests? Nope. As I said, my choice is based on the well-known theory. Like most tests, mathematical theories might not reflect real life. However, whether to rely on tests or mathematical theories is a choice one has to make.

    You might think it is silly to believe something so abstract as Bayesian theory, but I guess we just have different preferences.


    Even if I am wrong about 3-engines, at least F-Secure still offers good detection rate ;)

    I am not too sure how accurate this test is, but it does offer interesting results: http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=62&mnu=62
     
  11. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    LOL I'm sorry but quoting Bayesian theory as justification for using F-Secure without any investigation into the effectiveness of the 2 additional engines involved is just plain funny.

    But as you and I have both agreed, it isn't a bad AV, just is more expensive, has greater resource requirements and is not more effective/better at finding baddies as the leading single engine products.
     
  12. liang_mike

    liang_mike Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Canada
    Guess I do sound like a nerd sometimes. :D
     
  13. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.