New PC World Chart

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140127/article.html

What do you think? I miss ESS, AVG & F-Secure

To IBK (& Other AV Experts), do you know how they test and if its valid - if you know what I mean ?

 

Pretty expected results , by the way

 

this test of pcworld is based on results from av-test.org.

 

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.

 

Very expected results. 5 US companies in the top 8. WOW US companies are doing well here

 

Of course they do - when leaving out the european companies .oO(Eset, F-Secure, Bullguard, Norman...)

 

I was just joking. These results can't be taken seriously

 

Detection comparison.

 

Some more dertection/ removal parameters.

 

False positives and some other parameters.

 

So biased. ca lacks sufficient protection and yet it stil gets 72% overall...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'm not complaining

 

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.

 

didnt i mention in the other thread, that IBK should show the fp rate in percentages?

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.

 

giving a percentage for FPs is IMO meaningless/deceptive/misleading.

 

not if its done for each AV, easy comparison then

 

Not so if they also give a no./ total sample size etc( IMO).

 

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?

 

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.

 

You didn't take it into account in your own test, did you?

 

have you read the report?