I have seen the light (and it is green)

i know, was simply saying what 4.44 offers and why i dont understand why they aint using it.

the results for drweb, although good....... should and would be better with 4.44, ive tried to email them with no luck, so maybe someone else should try.

 

You should be comfortable with only 1 test: how does Dr.Web (or any other AV) protects "your real world". This is the only thing that matters.

To a lot of people AV comparatives seem to be the prima inter pares (if these are the words I'm looking for ) in AV testing. Read some posts in this thread: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=199292&highlight=Dr.Web from people "in the field" who have a different opinion about AV comparatives (if the thread is too long for you start somewhere with post nr. 124).

In the opening of this thread I gave two links to test sites that show different results for Dr.Web then AVC.

 

They should be using 4.44 indeed.

 

Thanks for the interesting and long read. The large disparity in some of the different tests certainly makes one question the methodologies. That is why it is good to get opinions from folks here at Wilders who have actually used the software on a daily basis.

I also agree that what works in each users real world is what counts. The problem is that most people are ill prepared to find out they made the wrong choice. Unlike those who frequent Wilders and other security forums, they don't have images and/or snapshots to fall back on if their PC gets completely screwed up. So, the masses will continue to rely on published test reports or simply buy from the big names they have heard for years. Testing standards are obviously sorely needed.

KIS, plus other things has kept me malware free for years. Unfortunately that has come with a performance price that I find increasingly bothersome. That is why I originally switched to Avira PE Premium. Still a highly rated AV from every source that I can find but with much better performance on my PC's. Now that I have installed Dr. Web, it is obvious that I cannot tolerate the performance hit from KIS. So, I guess I just have to make a choice and make sure I have numerous images and snapshots to get me out of trouble, if needed. I did try NOD32 V3 but I got infected fairly quickly and ShadowProtect fixed the problem in about 20 minutes.

 

I attempted to try out the demo twice.

1st- Install did not install all the components, only the spider mail tray icon appeared after a reboot. Any attempt to uninstall triggered an install. what the hell that is about, Im not sure. Had to use System Restore to get it off the pc.

2nd- After the System Restore got me back to no AV again. I installed a 2nd time and the whole AV installed, but during install a scan started. When the scan finished, no close, next or any button of the kind, Had to hit the X in the top corner to close it out and then rebooted. After a reboot, it disabled my fingerprint logon scanner, crashing both modules of it. After I manually logged in with my password, Vista loaded up as usual. Dr. Web tray icon is there, but a hover does not trigger any title. Left click, right click, nothing happens.

Uninstall worked this time. Needs more work.

 

If you had another Antivirus on your computer, did you made sure it was uninstalled completely?

 

well, yes.

it does a scan during installation, when its finished, close the scan and you will be able to click the next part. (you dont have to wait for this scan to finish, just click close after its done its pre-scan)

 

Yes Chris, you are correct and I failed to point this out.

 

I'll email them. I will tell them who I really am and maybe they will change to 4.44.

 

I sold out.

Actually I bought out. The Web is nice.

 

Congrats- you chose wisely. I think as I have mentioned elsewhere, that detection is about as good as Avira, but clean-up (if you ever need it) is much better. Also, it runs just a bit lighter on my machines than Avira.

 

Let's see how many hours it'll last on your comp, Jeff.
Shall we say 12...maybe 16


Cheers

 

well, I am not going to hype, or act as I did with Avira. Just decided to make a change, and the reality is, it is only a security product. It isnt like I bought a new house. They are both good, as just about all. So yeah the avatar may have changed, but I did to some, on all of this stuff.

 

I totally deserve that and my actions are stupid. Lets see if old habits can be broken.

 

Yep. I'll now ask this: Is Dr Web 4.44 ready for Vista Business 32 bit? If I can get a confirmation that another has it installed and works, I'll try it again. The inactive tray icon puzzles me beyond belief.

 

I gave a 3rd try and its installed and working good so far. First thoughts are its a tad heavier on my system than Avira. I'll give it a whirl for a week or two and see how it goes.

 

have you even tried Support?

The Vista version works on all Vista Versions,

and working very well here, from day 1, with no problems



FYI - Absolutely no way heavier than Avira, Drweb is the lightest available.

 

sorry, but Dr Web is just some cheap ass software. They can keep my money for all I care. Way to many false positives. There is no way someone can say this is better then Eset or Avira. Sorry Chris, I have all the respect in the world for you, but now I really know why they dropped out of AV Comparitives.

 

Sorry to hear that you dislike the doctor that much. I have absolutely nothing to put on it, that's just my opinion.
Well...it was almost six hours it lasted on your comp, Jeff


Cheers

 

no, you dont.

have you asked your friends at avira if they analyze the samples they get from av-comparatives, or do they simply just add them?

you already know the answer.

but then again, it was expected that you would change your AV already, im guessing a new one tomorrow, then another on tuesday etc.

zero loyalty, and probably why your opinions will get dismissed, as your view will change everyday.

but for general curiosity, what are these false positives?

 

Folks,

Time to tone down the personally directed rhetoric and perhaps perform something of a reality check.

First of all, it is difficult to develop an informed opinion on any product in a short amount of time. You'll be able to quickly discern some operational characteristics and whether it tends to follow a usage scheme that either makes sense or is one to which you are already accustomed, but beyond saying "not for me", I really don't feel that the analysis is generally applicable to other users or potential users. Heck, I tend not to comment on anything that I haven't used extensively for a few days, and it's much more typically a few weeks. I simply don't feel equipped to discuss the matter prior to that point in time.

Second, the various test protocols around capture some partial dimension of performance. Unfortunately, the details of those dimensions, objectively speaking, remain somewhat obscure with respect to actual field use performance. Further, we can see where intercomparison of controlled tests (say http://www.av-comparatives.org) with rather uncontrolled ones (for example http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/) can lead to rather different views of field use effectiveness. I have no idea whether these evaluations are simply equivalent snapshots of very partial aggregates of overall performance attributes or if one is more reflective of the specific traits that I'd like to possess in a product.

Finally, while false positives are a genuine issue, context is important. Many of the false positives that I've seen on my own machines look perfectly appropriate to me. They generally involve applications that employ functionality which could be readily employed for malicious purposes in a piece of malware (e.g. low level direct disc access, network monitoring, etc.). Yes, they are false positives, but I understand the origin of the alert and that can be part and parcel with proactive notification strategy pursued by the vendor.

As for "which is better"...., we're not playing that game folks unless it's backed up with some detailed analysis.

Blue

 

Had a few false positives since the day I started using Dr.Web(last september), submitted the files and all have been fixed in 24h. I like aggressive heuristics because I'm capable of "analyzing" the files myself if they are malware or not. That aggressiveness can save my day sometime. I have the magnifying glass and dr.web is just doing some occasional suggestions.

 

This is not very serious trjam. How long you had it install by the way?

 

i think he has just done a full system scan, thats all.

it was only a matter of hours before he posted back, he could have found it all the same way by using Cure It. (without purchase)

maybe he is just having a bad day

 

you said it yourself trjam. Who am I to disagree ?