On-Demand Comparative August 2011

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Hawk82, Sep 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    panda fanboy this week are you?I was only being a gentleman and agreeing with him
     
  2. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    Ireland
  3. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Wonder why there's a difference of 1.5 between the results for PCAV & PIS. Surely repair should work the same in both products.
     
  4. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Shame on Symantec! :p
     
  5. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    Excessive number of False positives are present even in RealWorld for Symantec.
     
  6. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    never ever had any problems with FPs with NIS 2011,and in ALL previous tests they are amongst the best or even the very best on that score,am wondering if its not the definitions but the way the detection engine has been tweaked in 2012,but then again this test is using an "old"(if that is correct term for a new product?!)version of 2012
     
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Posts:
    65
    Just curious pbust. Why did PIS score better than PCAV? Although one is paid, and one is free, shouldn't the removal capabilities be the same for all Panda products?
     
  8. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I was wondering about that as well.
     
  9. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    I queried this in post #103 too.
     
  10. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Yes you did. That's what I get for going to the end of the thread.
     
  11. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,103
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    i really like panda is and would run it if somehow they could get it a bit lighter. it just always makes things crawl for me during scans and updates. i know some will not agree but thats okay i have a 2600k oc'ed to 5g with 8mb ram etc on this system and i can still feel it..
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Z have you tried Panda Cloud. To me it is as light as the rest.
     
  13. pbust

    pbust AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Posts:
    1,173
    Location:
    Spain
    There's quite a bit of differences technically. None of them are on purpose (to for ex limit the capabilities of a free AV vs a paid AV).

    To start off the agent architecture is completely new in Cloud Antivirus. This means that for example disinfection drivers are different too. Detection wise it's easier to be on par (even though the cloud-scanning backends are different also), but with disinfection there's still some work to be done to bring them both on par. For example with Cloud Antivirus we followed a different path for certain types of packed files which is treated differently in Panda IS.
     
  14. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks for the explanation. It'll be good to see both products at the same level with disinfection as well as detection.
     
  15. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    You should ask why they have asked to be left out of the retrospective tests.

    The retrospective tests are regarded as one of the best indicators for how an antivirus will perform against zero-day threats.

    Hint: Avast performed second last (beat even by K7!) in the November 2010 retrospective tests.
     
  16. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    862
    I feel vindicated moving to Panda Cloud Antivirus this year! I've been watching its performance over the years and started feeling that it's matured enough to use.

    My main reason was that the pure file detections were pretty good and the program was fairly light. I didn't need a whole security suite, and my setup doesn't rely on the performance of the antivirus.

    Originally there were a lot of false positives, mainly for security products I use - but now it is quite low. The computer is also very responsive, which was one of my requirements.

    I've no idea how good it is at detected exploits and process injections and the like, but with series of sandboxes with appropriate restrictions then the risk of systemic infection is low anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.