New PC World Chart

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eBBox, Dec 4, 2007.

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

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  2. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Pretty expected results , by the way ;)
     
  3. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    this test of pcworld is based on results from av-test.org.
     
  4. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Decent article. No AV test is perfect because in the percentage missed you don't know if the samples are prevalent or rare, other than wildlist, which is a small set of prevalent malware.
     
  5. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Very expected results. 5 US companies in the top 8. WOW US companies are doing well here :p
     
  6. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Of course they do - when leaving out the european companies :p .oO(Eset, F-Secure, Bullguard, Norman...) :D :cool:
     
  7. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    I was just joking. These results can't be taken seriously
     
  8. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Detection comparison.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Some more dertection/ removal parameters.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    False positives and some other parameters.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    So biased. ca lacks sufficient protection and yet it stil gets 72% overall...
     
  12. dNor

    dNor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Posts:
    212
    Location:
    Irvine, CA, USA
    Interesting. I don't take tests to heart very much as I choose what's best for me and for what situation from a variety of things, with test results having a lower impact. It's still nice to see BitDefender do well in them though.

    I'd have figured Kaspersky would "score" a little higher though.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  13. Brent Hutto

    Brent Hutto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Posts:
    72
    Location:
    South Carolina
    When the article says
    does "infection remover" refer to installing the program on a system that already contains malware? In other words, is it their conclusion that BitDefender is as good as any of this set of products at keeping new infections out but is not the one you'd choose first for installing to clean up a system that's been unprotected for a while? Of course there's also the false positive thing, too.
     
  14. dNor

    dNor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Posts:
    212
    Location:
    Irvine, CA, USA
    It cleaned 4 out of 5 infections but didn't affect the registry. If your theoretical computer has registry issues, it won't help, but will most likely clean most of the infections. Total Security has a registry cleaner but the IS doesn't.
     
  15. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Its funny how people dont "trust" the results if your horse doesn't win. I believe last year Kaspersky came in first and on one was complaining.

    It just goes to show that you should take other people's "recommendations" with a grain of salt, test all products and see what works for you.
     
  16. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I'm not complaining :D
     
  17. mrfargoreed

    mrfargoreed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Posts:
    356
    I'll still stick with Avira for now. No need to panic. In a few days/weeks/months there will be another set of tests and people will want whatever is top of the list. I'm very happy with Avira. Back to sleep until the next test results.
     
  18. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    didnt i mention in the other thread, that IBK should show the fp rate in percentages? :D

    it clearly shows that even Avira, doesnt really have an FP problem, as i dont think ANY AV does.

    and... lol, i aint no Avira fanboy.


    also, there is no way that mcafee would be 3rd and CA would NEVER enter ANY top 8 lists.
     
  19. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    giving a percentage for FPs is IMO meaningless/deceptive/misleading.
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    not if its done for each AV, easy comparison then :)
     
  21. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Not so if they also give a no./ total sample size etc( IMO).
     
  22. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    assume they used 20k files. how were those 20k files selected? why where they selected at all? what are those 20k files? 19900 text files and 100 programs? it tells you absolutly nothing. did all vendors get those false alarms immediatly after the test or stay they in the test-set and will be counted again next time? on what files did the FP occur and what kind of FP was it? which settings?
     
  23. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    AV-C's test methods are OT. Besides, its methods seem to be entrenched. Bunkered-down.

    Meanwhile, back at the thread -- PW's test results are very easy to interpret. Nothing seems hidden by av-test.org/PCW's discussions. Much more informative than other tests I have seen. PCW's clear analyses make it easy to consider those test data that are most important to you as an individual.
     
  24. Lucy

    Lucy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    France
    You didn't take it into account in your own test, did you?
     
  25. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    have you read the report?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.