Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by RaLX, Apr 3, 2003.
I think that's a good review.
Added URL tags
I think its still rubbish!
At least they didnt invent some 'virus expert' who tested them all under 'laboratory' conditions
I must admit although I'm not their biggest fan I found the reviews at least factual and balanced.
Before I clicked on the link, I knew their choice was going to be NAV or McAfee. It is easy to have a product to place ahead of others when you use unimportant criteria like scanning outgoing email and working on PDAs. Oh, and don't forget NAV has a pretty face.
Nothing seems to change in the magazine articles. I have no use for such. At least this one didn't have some bozo testing with suedo viruses, as stated already.
Fair enough to post it and let everyone make up their own minds.
....and its yellow.
Well, at least NOD32 was mentioned favorably a few times
I put it because the comments on the review looks based on true facts and in every moment they clarify the reasons to all the points, I think that virus detection in fact is the most important thing but as an example NOD1 to me looks like a very ugly and confusing AV contrary to NOD2 that looks so very good and powerful, big and Important change if you want to be a Better Product. So there are other points to take in count like this review did IMO.
Moreover I think that Norton in detection rate is a real fighter just like NOD and both comes average in trojan detection.
I'm glad to see PC Mag.com picking NAV. Isn't there NAV ads in PC Mag? I'm not sure if there is any McAfee I don't read the mag or mess with the web site after they went to making people subcribe to get free tools. lol But than again I only used 1 of their tools anyway.
Yes it is important to scan incomming mail duh?
Now I know you didn't just fall of da old turnip truck
yes NAV blocks script also.
Norton has been around longer than any other AV PERIOD.....
NAV is the best AV as far as I am concerned.
I still think you need to try the tests yourself and be da judge.
Hey Controller, I use McAfee. It don't have an email scanner for OE just for Outlook. But it does have a HaWK script stopped and HAWK Email Protection. But everyone has their own choice in AV's. NAV has it's good sides and bad sides. Other AV's haves their good sides and bad sides.
I agree with Technodrome: the review is indeed rubbish!
Just to throw in my 5 cents worth, I thought the test was a fine example of "fair and balanced reporting"... The only gripe I have is why weren't Kaspersky and some others included...?
Eset should be happy that;
1. PC Mag included them. I don't mean this in a negative way. The new version is probably worthy of their consideration... I think NOD32 is starting to make waves to the mainstream...
2. They were rated highly! No, they didn't win, but, honestly, I agree with almost everything they said on NOD32. NOD32 does not have malicious script protection, Their web sites do not have much info in terms of virus info. They did say, a couple of times, that the program has a steller detection rate. IT IS HARD FOR NEWBIES TO FIGURE THIS PROGRAM OUT. I never would have been able to use it 6 - 7 years ago. Hell, I was using AOL then!!!
Be honest, it can be a hard program to use... I sincerely see PCMAG's point... They also mentioned the program is fast.. Basically, nothing but nice things from PCMAG for ESET...
They are amateurs…big time!
They said "McAfee's poor showing at AV-Test.org could be a result of its not using a lot of heuristics to catch zoo viruses." Hahhaha, they got no clue…. At least I’d pay more attention to test sites. Money speaks here…As always!
They don't know what they are talking about. You got results available from av-test.org and decided it for yourself.
To Technodrome from Firefighter!
As I remember right the best heuristics in the Heureka 2 test were DrWeb and F-Secure. After those two was McAfee. So for Symantec it is best to wait what ever!
I don't understand Symantec's payed tests, because Norton is not so bad detector at all, why still manipulate people all the time?
"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"
In regard to that test, yes! IMHO, best heuristics engines are:
NOD32, Command AV/F-prot,DrWeb,KAV and McAfee( no particular order)!
Norton is good,but there are better solutions. Symantec guys want you to think that they are THE BEST. Thats y they are all over the net (Magazines).
The truth's only another kind of lie!
The PC Magazine reports of NOD32 missing 1 x VB100 test, and NAV missing 0 x VB100 test. It is a fact NOD32 missed on the Linux VB100 test, but this is a test for which NAV did not submit. So, clearly NOD32 is penaltied un-fairly. I am surprised to see Eset's Rodzilla has not commented about this discrepancy.
In generality, it was reasonably fair test to all, but no surprise that NAV wins ahead of NOD32 by slight manipulation of the facts, after all, it is a ZD publication.
Spiros - Nicosia - Cyprus
I disagree with the "unfair" comment.
If Eset didn't want to be tested on the Linux platform, they shouldn't have submitted their AV. I'm not speaking for Eset, but I would think that they have "broad enough shoulders" to take their licks when they get 'em without whining about what's "unfair". They certainly have plenty of skins on the wall.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here but wanted to make some comments:
1. For those who say that these tests are all about money does that mean if Avast or Eset starting advertising heavily that they would all the sudden be #1?
2. For those that say money tarnishes the independence of these tests and results what about Rod saying that Eset sponsored a Virus Bulletin conference one year? Wouldn't that tarnish those results?
3. For the people who proclaim that Virus Bulletin is the best testing organization, the last time Norton didn't win a VB 100% award was 9/99. The last time Eset didn't win a VB 100% award was 4/2002. Now many of the Nod believers dismiss that because it was Linux so the last time Eset failed a Windows based test was 11/2000.
Yes you can argue that Nod has more awards than Norton but isn't the great thing about software and people is that they can change and get better? So based on this Nod has failed more recently than Norton.
My two cents for what it's worth.
Hyndai (car maker) is heavily advertising thier cars. Does it mean that Hyndai is the best cars? I don't thinks so...
This means nothing. Indepedent test(tests) is the only thing that counts. NOD32 is the best ITW virus detector. PERIOD.
They've sponsored event not Magazine. Do you see ESET's ad banner at virusbtn.com ?
Mcafee sponsored this event as well. Check out McAfee's VB passes. Tell us what do you see?
Not ordinary people, BUT AV experts world wide.
Read archived issues from VB Magazine, you may find the number of viruses Norton missed durinig this period. Read and see different picture!
Hi Technodrome, I find McAfee a good being a good AV. It might not be the best at detecting trojans like KAV but it's not bad. Now if some company buys ad spot in mags, does that mean that that mag is going to think it's the best? If that's the case than there should be a lot of mags say Dell and Compaqs are the best computers out there. (Dell is a great computer, just trying to make a point)
Maybe I need to advertise in a magazine to become the best of something. J/K lol.
Okay if advertising means nothing then why all the conspiracy theories about the only reason Norton winning these magazine reviews is based on the amount of advertising spent with the magazine?
Hardly anyone here thinks PCMag or Cnet is independent (regardless of their technical ability or inability to perform these tests) because of advertising by McAfee and Symantec.
Money is money is money.
As far as I know unless you buy a subscription you can't read the in-depth reviews. So for the average person they would go by the award given because that information is freely available.
But it sounds like you're saying that the giving of the award isn't what's important. It sounds like you're saying you need to study the details of each test.
So is it the award that's important or the details? 100% detection of all ITW viruses with no false positives is what's needed for the award. What else is there? (I'm not talking about speed, resources used, usability, etc. - only for VB tests)
If it's the award, and Virus Bulletin is the premiere testing organization, and if their integrity and independence can't be questioned, and if in the end what matters is the giving of the award then Norton is every bit as good as NOD and better since 9/99.
My two cents!
And regarding the legitimacy of this test, NOD32 touts the good things that are said in the review on their web site.
So maybe I'm a little jaded here but either the PCMag tests are legitimate or not. If they are great. If they aren't great.
But don't curse the test, the methodologies employed, the testers, the owners of the magazine who paid for the test but still use the results or comments that benefit you.
I have to agree!
To msingle from Optik:
As I said, read and see!
Separate names with a comma.