Free Anti-Virus Software Showdown: The Best of 2012

You sir just lost all credibility right there.

 

I don't care about my credibility here or anywhere on web. But I care to see some simple tests made by simple users just like us on YouTube or in any other place and NOT by all the random ''INSTITUTES'' and ''LABS'' that grown like mushrooms after the rain.

Wake-up people, all of them are independent and according to some description all of them has huge server facilities - paid by who?

If anyone remembers the registry cleaning scams schemes and their description because it sounds just like that - a bad registry cleaning software advertising: ''Free registry cleaner for Windows from OUR INDEPENDENT LABS''.

Don't get me wrong, I don't say that all those LABS and INSTITUTES are scams; simple I don't care about their test and I don't believe them.

 

Youtube tests are useless.

 

Apparently some people would rather believe completely unregulated, often amateur YouTube tests than independent organizations that at least follow rigorous standards set by AMTSO.

...I guess it's just like some people who'd rather save money and order illegal, unregulated capsules of Viagra from My Canadian Pharmacy scams...(and they're really receiving pills filled with horse manure in the mail from Ukraine.)

Stop talking about YouTesters...they suck and they don't exist.

 

It's as important as the colour of the GUI

 

AV-Comparatives can do their 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' with the help of the University of Innsbruck (as specified in the AV-C PDF).
Hardly a suspicious institute.

 

They may suck but they do exist.

 

Awesome statement right there folks!

 

Don't get me anywrong but i think avira and avast
go head to head in detection Rates

avira has a very strong heuristic but the problem with avira they don't know how
to create a GUI and ease the use of it

 

this test sucks about as bad as youtube wannabes. Honestly, I like all of them other than PCTools and Comodo. I love Avast but I have been trying out Unthreat for a little while now and I really like it too. All are capable enough. Tests fail to reproduce each users ignorance or lack of common sense and complacency. Thus, I try to ignore them because I get frustrated when reading them.

 

You are aware that UNThreat has been bought out by rougueware authors? https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=312853&page=7

 

This test holds no credibility.

They bent the rules for MSE, but none of the others.

 

About PC Tools...
Whatever real-time protection PC Tools offered was unable to stop our testers from running infected programs.
Worse, PC Tools is next to useless when installed on a computer that's already infected. The program is unable to repair key areas of the system, like the registry and the hosts file.

Norton what have u done!!

One user Saying....
MSE + Built-in Firewall + Modern Browser + Competent User > Any other tool or combination of tools out there. So darn simple
LOL.LOL!!!
I bet they'd be happy reading this review rather going on AV-TEST and other tests!!

 

It's interesting...

Awhile back I would have disagreed with you there but my views have been evolving on the issue of "MSE just another AV choice v. optional part of Windows".

I have found through my own personal experience on the MS Answers forum (and having talked with many of the key people there,) that the real answer is that while MSE is made by MS and therefore may in the long-run have some minor advantage in terms of OS integration, it is still nonetheless playing by the same rules (like Patch Protection) any other 3rd party AV or program does...

With that in mind, I have come to the conclusion that if a tester leaves Windows security components on when testing MSE under the argument that "it's all Microsoft security technology designed to work together," the test MAY be invalid. The exception here is of course if the tester is disabling equivalent components from ALL vendors' solutions. So essentially, it's either a 0 or a 1; you either turn Windows security components off for ALL, or leave them on for ALL.

The reality is, as much as I want to love MSE, it needs to be able to do good on its own. Using the rationale that "MSE is designed to work with SmartScreen" is not valid, because EVERY 3rd party AV that I'm aware of works fine with security mechanisms already built-in to Windows. It's not as if other AVs require you to turn SmartScreen off...they don't!

Plus, you have to remember that Windows is the OS. It should have its own built-in protection mechanisms...and by god it does. In my personal opinion with some common sense, an open mind, and just a bit of time Windows built-in security blows Mac OS X away easily. However, MSE is separate and is a standalone anti-malware application, and therefore must be evaluated just like all of the other products in its class.

 

The only test i worry about is the tests on my own machine.
And avast is the tops in my opinion.it has stopped everything i have thrown at it although im not as reckless as some users and visit shady websites.
just my little thoughts on this.

 

Couldn't be bothered about the results, since you get what you pay for. But one sentence did stand out

"Looking forward, it's quite possible that Windows 8 may render non-Microsoft free antivirus programs obsolete. The promised improved version of MSE and Internet Explorer's SmartScreen built into the future version of Windows will provide a comprehensive and adaptive shield against online threats, according to Microsoft."

I wonder how the "free" guys are going to react to this ? Maybe they will start paying users to install their product

 

Nah that's probably what Symantec and McAfee will continue doing... paying millions to hardware vendors and retailers to uninstall MSE and install their paid stuff.

Free vendors will probably just wait a few weeks or months until users get infected with Windows 8 + MSE so users switch to a more robust solution.

 

Have to agree that there was a too much information missing to take that article seriously. I had been watching Panda's results from credible testing organisations for years before I jumped on board - I'll trust them and my own experiences over an amateurish article.

I don't know why you would install an antivirus on an infected computer, nor why people treat the manual scan speed as the most important factor in performance.

re: comments about YouTube - I wouldn't discount YouTube videos entirely. They are useful to show how a program runs, and demonstrate that any AV or anti-malware program can miss something. At least with a Youtube Video one could have had a better idea of how the test was run than this tomsguide.com article, and vendors can actually see which URLs were accessed!