Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by skp14, May 10, 2013.
No info as I'm aware of. Dare to guess it's Windows 8 64-bit though.
needed a laugh today, boy they sure are tough testers though (just kidding)
I may be mistaken, but here in Wilders I find majority of forum members accept AV-C tests to be beyond question. After what AV-C has done with Norton recently I am starting to lose my faith in them (of course AV-C need not care for one single person's opinion).
This is not to justify the apparently strange AV test results published in PC Mag with alarming frequency. But I suspect that EVERYBODY play games. Can't grudge them though. Ultimately money is what matters.
couldn't agree more.
And unless people have proof to backup their paid review accusations or biased reporting for PCMag tests, i am going to take it as one of the many tests that get done including Av-test or Av-c . And many a times such tests get panned by people simply because they don't want their favorite product getting panned by the reviewer...
For years, we had people criticizing norton in similar vein without actually using it, but well things changed gradually
And as for testing it on already infested system, it is i think one of the toughest thing a AV could go through as it's already on the backfoot to begin with and hence the 83% rating may not be as bad as it looks.
As for Ad-aware well, had tried the version 10 when it was released and uninstalled coz it forced me to trial their IS suite.
Maybe will have to give it a spin in the coming days
It s better to give the new version of Ad-Aware a try instead of critisizing PCMAG....
the latest vb100 showed Lavasoft has improved a lot
The Pro version uses several engines, the free version only Lavasoft. You can't compare them.
This is a joke right?
When the product has been on the AV comparatives charts in the top 5 for 2 or 3 years subjected to neutral lab tests let me know.
Otherwise the article is just good for wallpaper.
What evidence do you have that AVC is that much more reliable that PC World?
What evidence do you have that it isn't?
WTF? That's doesn't answer anything. I'm trying to figure out where the guy is coming from, and why he feels one source is the bible while the other is a joke.
because PC World = Mad Magazine
Why do you feel that way?
There is nothing wrong in PCMAG tests or others tests... just pre-condition or ignorance by readers.
LOL That's what I've been trying to figure out. Trying to see if anyone can back it up. Have not seen anything of substance yet.
But the test is broken. D=
If my main goal is to disinfect an infected system then it's better to call MBAM, HMP, EEK, SAS, and other tools which fall into the same category. And take a look at how they cornered EAM there.
That was just one part of the review. I don't think it hurts anything showing how well an AV cleans a system. Especially since a lot of average users probably buy an AV to try to clean an infection system.
Since I'm an Emsisoft fanboy, I do mind with what the reviewer said about EAM. I just don't believe it.
In that case, I'll change their mindsets.
In the past that was the main function of an AV, to clean an infected system. there were no realtime protection shields no hips no other gizmos. you had a virus, you installed f-prot or thunderbyte antivirus and it cleaned the system.(MS-DOS years )
So don't tell me that an antivirus is designed only to prevent infections, maybe the weak av's only do that. look at kaspersky/dr.web for example it has a stealth install option just for that case of an infected system and a recovery boot disc just to boot in linux and clean the system.
p.s. of course the ideal thing to do is to have a backup image but not all users have that.
Very well said and I agree. If one looks at the cleaning/repair stats of many of the major player AVs, you will see a noticable downward trend. The one I find most pronounced is Symantec. That was one area they excelled in and now they are so-so. Obviously the money is being spent on realtime functions.
Bottom line is most PCs have some type of malware regardless of how clean people think their systems are.
You're not speaking about my system that's for sure
Based on what stats? I can only find stats showing the opposite and stats showing little difference (regarding Symantec).
Well said and i agree to a point.
Of course things have slightly become more evolved since the days of MS-DOS.
In the days of MS-DOS your method of simply installing an av would be fine,but in todays world malware has drastically increased and so real-time protection takes precedence as the chances of infection are far greater than the days of MS-DOS.
thanks fec2.... I didnt know that
but that was not my point
I didnt want to say Ad-Aware is best ..... I wanted to say we can try the new version instead of just questionning PCMag.
Some people insist on their belieffs:
Norton...old versionsiece of crap
2013iece of crap
PCMag...mad magazine, their charts(no matter when and what about): unrelieble
We all know Avast v6 results were not that good....but it s changed
Eset did not act well in v5(av-test last year) but now it has come back
Norton had been resource eater but it s very light now
please,friends,dont judge JUST on the past,things may change
Mine either.. lol..
Separate names with a comma.