My own little Eset and Kaspersky comparative

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by stride000, Dec 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stride000

    stride000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Posts:
    23
    Hi all and happy holidays!

    As I had dinners in the family in the last few days, I noticed that my 18 y/o cousin's computer was acting a bit slow and weird so I decided to check for viruses.

    Zone alarm was already installed on the machine but I don't think it was running properly, not the program's fault but probably more the user's so I switched from it to KIS 7 and had it deep scan the machine which took something like 6-7 hours. When it was done, it had found 11 different viruses and trojans, disinfected some and deleted the others.

    Then I switched to ESET smart security and ran a deep scan again. It took less than 3 hours and it found 6 other viruses and cleaned or deleted them.

    Now I didn't write down the name of every one of the viruses but from what I was able to analyze just by quick reading the logs is that KIS apparently missed the infections within Java.

    Now this is not a professional test in any way, just my little experience over the weekend but as it was an uncontrolled live environment I thought it was a very good indicator for my personal use of the two security suites.

    So conclusion for what I experienced doing this is:

    ESET: Much quicker scan speed, less resource taxing on the machine and better virus detection.
     
  2. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    Wrong. All you did was scan with Eset after Kaspersky had done its job; you didn't try it in reverse order to see what would've happened.

    Your conclusion is conjecture at best, and anything but a logical one.
     
  3. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    The one problem with this type of evaluation - and it goes both ways in a "scan with A, then with B" is that there is often no clear indication whether the products were run under similar settings, if the identified files were actual malware vs. nonfunctional remains, or if the set of files identified in the initial scan would also be identified in the second scan.

    Both products, and a host of others, are perfectly competent products. They possess somewhat different strengths and weaknesses, but the vast majority of users will neither require the full power of the strengths, nor be pragmatically exposed by the specific weaknesses.

    Finally, we don't do the A vs. B quick comparison (see here), and the Other AV forum is the best location for discussion of alternate products.

    Thread moved and closed.

    Blue
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.