Panda Panned by CNET

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Frank the Perv, Oct 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Panda is an AV that has tried gimmicks and other things to try and grab more market share. Maybe they should just genuinely improve their product.

    Excerpts of review from CNET:

    All that follows is from the CNET website:

    http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-se...2008/4505-3667_7-32651608.html?tag=prod.txt.1
    --------

    Panda has always made second rate products.

    Maybe someday they will get past buzzwords and gimmicks and make top tier software.

    -FTP
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2007
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    total rubbish!

    do any of those reasons state anything factual about the antivirus itself?

    simple answer, NO!

    so, if any AV is not tested... it is poor?
    again... more rubbish.

    and they also talk about a 2006 version being tested at checkvir, this review is total bollocks!

    they failed to mention that panda 2007 managed to get a pretty steady 90% at av-test, and this was BEFORE the 'megadetection' was added.
     
  3. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  4. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    lol thats what i posted just in my edit..... FREAKIN ME OUT!
     
  5. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    based on the review, i conclude that the cnet review is complete bullshit, so couldn't care less about their recommendation.

    how much money was exchanged for these words to be said? :shifty:

    edit: Panda actually scored a better removal in the latest removal test, than most AV's available, also poor that cnet failed to notice this.

    ----------
    lets test norton 2006 (heck... lets look at the results for 2003 instead) and put it in a review for norton 2008, sounds accurate to me.
     
  6. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
  8. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I tend to agree with Cnet's view concerning Panda's exclusion from *major* test sites. Such exclusion does not necessarily mean that Panda is bad, but it does mean that there are superb AVs which HAVE been tested by the major testers.

    Better a known quantity than a pig in a poke -- er... a dark horse ... er... a mystery bear. Well, whatever. :blink:
     
  9. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    av-test still tests panda, i find it hard to believe that cnet missed this.

    sounds like some child has wrote the review, obviously couldnt find such info just by google, maybe they only tried "Im feeling lucky"
     
  10. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Panda is subpar, and always has been.

    Even in a historical sense, can anybody show me where they were ever at the top end of rankings/ratings?

    Did Panda not withdraw itself from some of IBK's tests as it was afraid of the results? (correct me here if I'm wrong IBK)

    Last time I was at the National Zoo in Washington DC, the stench of the Panda poo was pretty disgusting. The stench of the BSOD on my computer when I trialed Panda was much the same.

    Yuck.
     
  11. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    to protect panda i will not tell the various reasons why we excluded them. but panda will be regularly tested again in the tests of 2008.
     
  12. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2007
  13. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    "After downloading the 35MB file, Panda performs an initial scan of your system, and in our case, found eight different examples of spyware. Unfortunately, Panda didn't tell us precisely what spyware it found; only that it deleted it."

    I find that troubling.
    At the very least an av should identify what it found.
    Automatic deletion is not a good idea either.IMO.
     
  14. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    my problem with Panda will always remain the same...I just don't like the panda icon in the systray, hokey<g>...but honestly if it were free I wouldn't recommend it. Defend it all you want but would you run it on your machine on the dark side of the net?
     
  15. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Same here.











    And the money/Co./religion behind Panda is disgusting. My .02. o_O
     
  16. ASpace

    ASpace Guest


    Hi !

    You don't understand that part because it is not explained well . As an ex-Panda user I know it and even though I resell other product I feel the need to "defend" it because this review is "bullshit" . CNET mean that after you download Panda and start the installation , it will perform scan of all the memory and registry and then it will continue installation. Since the product is still not installed , it lacks all the feautures . This is simple pre-install scan . Panda is very sensitive when it comes to registry entries of spyware and perhaps it found some registry entries on their computer , it removed them but this pre-install scan has no intention to give more info . Its aim is to attempt to kill something that might interfere with the installation . After the product is fully installed , just like every other it will display more info about what and where was found.
     
  17. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yep, i would.

    yep, just a pre-installation scan which only takes a few seconds, finds things such as tracking cookies etc.

    But obviously, the review does not show this in detail .. infact, it doesnt really show anything.

    says who?
     
  18. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I agree . In fact , IT magazines/medias are getting worse every other day . Making such statement would only make bad to the company .

    Panda is not that good to get as high score as other may get in variety of reviews but in my opinion this "review" has as an aim to say bad for this particular product , to advertise more than once other products and because of the fact the reviewers were not competent enough in learning this product well , they wrote something stupid to present it as too bad in their readers' eyes. They are supposed to be impartial here.
     
  19. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    lol, almost too funny to read :p
     
  20. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.

    That explanation make sense.
    Thanks HiTech.
    The CNET reviewer apparently didn't detail that information.
     
  21. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I mean IT magazines and other medias are generally supposed to be independant in their reviewes , which is not the case here , I guess.
     
  22. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    If your playing with my registry I'd hope you'd tell me what is is your deleting before you do so, or did I read your comments wrong?...



     
  23. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    it is unknown what cnet means. maybe they allude to a classification like on the spywarewarrior list (http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm):
    "Ridiculous false positives" are noted in cases where an app produced inexcusable false positives on a "spyware free" system but did not demand payment to clean that non-existent "spyware" / "adware."
    Poor scan reporting: This means that the application either did not provide information about what it found (e.g., it simply reported "8 spyware items found" without identifying particular parasites by name) or did not report enough information about the basis for the items it found (e.g., it reported finding the Look2Me parasite, but did not report what Registry keys, files, or folders it had identified as Look2Me).

    which i do not think is in the case of panda (on a clean system). but i can understand that cnet and others would like to know what was found and removed.
     
  24. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    ok, i was curious :)

    Untitled.jpg

    true it does disinfect automatically on the pre-installation scan.

    however, it does tell you what though......

    its only a 10 second scan, the article is misleading... extremely.
     
  25. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408

    Hmmmmm.....
    So if it detected a FP and deleted it,that would not be good.
    As it might have just as well been an important part of the operating system.
    I'll pass on Panda myself........Still happy with my current AV.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.