Panda Panned by CNET

weeeell, starting anew again since I posted my last piece of crap, all AVs have FPs. Especially my beloved. Panda is a good product and the only way to find out if it is right for you, is to try it.

The Wars are over folks. Security products, especially AVs should never be compared. Pretty much they will all keep you secure, based on a lot of different factors. What we need here is not what is best, but folks to start talking about their own individual needs and surfing habits. That is the only way, anyone here, can give constructive feedback to THAT individual user or their question.

So what it boils down to, is what fits your needs at the right price. I would have no issues at all, using Panda. Hell for that matter, Etrust. As long as I understand what type of internet user I am.

Educate, dont berate.

 

Yes they do,most security software for that matter.
My concern was that the first scan after install automaticly deleted anything that it finds bad.
Which I do not find to be a good thing. I would like the choice to delete or not.
For all I know Panda may very well be a good AV.

 

i think you are mis-understood,

its the pre-installation scan, not a full scan or even a quick scan.

its the scan BEFORE the software has even installed anything.

it is basically a scan that checks very little, about 10 seconds...

mainly just goes through your temporary internet files, and your memory to check that there are no viruses that could affect the installation.

 

Here is a picture of Panda's trophy case for all of the awards their product has won for performance over the years.

http://www.brookstone.com/bs_assets/images/shop/large_300/556613_p.jpg

Says every legitimate AV test for the last decade. Show me the ones where Panda finished at the top.

You can't --- because there aren't any.



Panda will tell you about their awards....

http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/about/awards/


...just none of them reflect that there product is worth much.


The Computerworld award for technological innovation 2005 is case and point. This is what this award meant:

OK, fine. I'm glad the Basque and their sheep like Panda. That still does not make it a good product.



.

 

C.S.J,
You would be correct, I did misunderstand.
Thank you for educating me.

 

so 90% is poor these days?

it was only 4% behind nod32, in the same test, and it also beat some other great av's, in the same test

and this test was before 'mega detection' was added to their product, personally ... im interested about the next Marx test.

West Coast Labs gives Panda's products its checkmark certification for virus detection and removal, as well as for detection of Trojan horses, spyware, and general malware, so its not completely free of testing.

 

http://blog.chip.de/0-security-blog/microsoft-verbessert-seinen-virenscanner-20070821/

Perfect.

That test you link typifies Panda.

If that result is graded on a curve, Panda gets a C- or D. Really. Figure it out. Panda finished in 18th place of 29. And this is put forward as one of their decent test results.

But that’s Panda. A laggard. Below the median, mediocre, underperforming…

You say your interested in the next Marx test based on their new 'mega detection.' Just watch, their 'mega detection' will make no difference.

Like 'TruPrevent,' like other buzz terms and hype that Panda churns out, they will remain just below average.

When their online scanner seemed to find things that nobody else did (much like the pre-installation scan detections now) I started to think that their "TruPrevent" was something good. But no, it was just hyperbole. Just another slogan. Just finding things that did not matter (false detections).

And now Panda has "Megadetection." OK....



.

 

I am not a fan of Panda's marketing with its super, mega, Titanium crap, but at the same time, Rob Varmosi from CNET cannot review for nuts.

 

I'm not a Panda-fan by any means, but I would still trust it more ANY day before Rob. The last review of his that I read was the one stating AdAware left all it's competition behind

 

Hi.

I think Panda is a good antivirus choice, I trialed 2008 version and it's very light. Also I noticed it the last paragraph of this article "Kaspersky Antivirus 2008". There is no such a thing and maybe they thought on Kaspersky Antivirus 7 but they should be more precise. In articles like this one, mistakes like this are not allowed.

 

I noticed that too about KAV 2008...CNet AV reviews just get worse and worse. I don't pay any attention to them any longer...years ago they were reasonably respectable...now the vendors have to pay to get a good review. Remember the NOD32 one a couple of years ago, I think it was, and the bruhaha over that?

 

Yea, they use to trash A2 too, saying that it was a terrible antivirus... (roflol)

 

BitDefender did well there
Thanks for the link
.

 

What it detected in your case (the screenshot you show) are cookies

 

Funny thing is i still get panda advertising marketing/sales emails quite often. The more funnier thing is to my regular f-prot work address.

 

The whole point of a ani-virus product is to protect.

While getting a virus is rare (in my case), when I do, I don't want a product that allows 1 in 10 to get in.

Less than 2 in a 100 is much desirable, and there are products that give that level of protection.

 

Stay clear of Panda.I tried it once and still get loads of emails from them.Even the free antivirus leave you be ,when they are uninstalled.

 

You are getting off-topic!

Yes , it is known fact that Panda sends SPAM , a lot of advertisements to those who have somehow subscribed to their services but the topic is the review of Panda by CNet and all the nonsense they have written .

The SPAM the company sends tells us bad for it , for the marketing dept. but this does NOT make Frank the Perv's statements look OK or in place.
The fact that Panda has not as much awards doesn't make Panda bad . They doesn't have these awards because they didn't take part in Virus bulletin , they didn't take part in AV-Comparatives , they didn't take part in other comparatives but this is their own decision . They have their own marketing strtegy . You don't like it , you don't speculate about it.

No , I am not saying Panda is the perfect product , it is good for one , not for other . One review , a few reviews make no SENSE . Real world is what is most important . AND real world is not what CNet present here

 

Yep it is a decent result.

there is nothing wrong with TruPrevent

yep, are you surprised?

i know, but thanks anyway

1 in 10 is only based on a test set of 874,822 samples, that figure would change dramatically for a customer using the AV.

 

Honestly, yes.
A 'bit' different picture from what I see on the last av-comp review.
.

 

If they did entered tests and scored well,then they might not need to send so much spam to get people to buy

 

And how will it change? The > 800,000 sample is what exists. I can see the results shifting because some virii are more popular than others, but for all l know with the current active set it can be greater than 10%.

 

Yes, what does one use it for?

I tend to run AVs over backed up stuff which can contain security utils and, trying it out atm, was disturbed to find that items sent to the Quarantine can't be restored without being disinfected (should have been a little more thorough in configuring its behaviour!, believe there was an option for it to ask what should be done with what it finds in the on-demand scan)

As a side note, the reason I have it is that I could buy it at a store front (partly), this also is partly why I shall be moving on to another product soon...gotta love cloned backups!

They did allow an upgrade from the boxed '05 to '07, no cost, with three user license

 

I'd love to hear more!