Pc Mag review of security suites

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by larryb52, Dec 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
  2. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    could have figured that much lol.. i know its a decent program and they made huge improvements but imo its no where near the way all the mag reviews make it out to be. has to be dollars in their hands for all of these reviews ... lol at least i think so
     
  3. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    It is much like Consumer Reports rating a Toyota highly; it is a safe and non-controversial conclusion for a majority of their readers based upon the subjective criteria employed.
     
  4. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    yeah, no surprise here.

    pcmag=pcworld=norton=$$$= :thumbd:
     
  5. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Norton Internet Security 2008

    Editor's rating: 4.5
    Reader rating: 2.5

    Norton 360

    Editor's rating: 4.5
    Reader rating: 2.0

    :D
     
  6. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Note the consistent relationship between the amount of advertising dollars expended, and the rating of the software by their reviewers. Of course, it is hard to prove a clear conflict of interest, but any application of logic and real world business experience, would draw you to only one conclusion. Note also, that users/readers ratings are usually significantly lower in percentage terms than the reviewer's. This again would be an indication that something is not right with the reviews in the first place.
     
  7. Brent Hutto

    Brent Hutto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Posts:
    72
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Except that the review<==>advert causality can just as plausibly work either direction. If I have $XXX to spend on magazine ads and I'm splitting it between two magazines, it's rational to spend 80% of $XXX advertising in the magazine who just said "This Product is Grrrrreat!" and 20% of $XXX in the magazine who says "This Product is OK but nothing special".

    Of course then there's still a second-order incentive for the magazine to praise the products with the largest advertising budget. I'd rather have 80% of Symantec's ad budget than 110% of BitDefender's.
     
  8. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    But using this logic would not justify the rating for Bitdefender when you look at users ratings. Because it gets beat to hell here.
     
  9. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I agree 100%
     
  10. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Perhaps those of you who have invested so much love for boutique security products simply can't recognize that Symantec rates high because they have a good product.
     
  11. Hangetsu

    Hangetsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    259
    Actually, you're not wrong from a cleaning and protection perspective. It WILL do that. The current version for many is also light on resources (for some, I just happen to not be one of them)

    However, they received these reviews in the past for very subpar versions, when performance was bad for EVERYONE. While you're right that the current products are good, I think its also true that the reviews come through dollar-green tinted glasses. :D
     
  12. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I won't discuss it one more time. Symantec have a very poor detection, We can compare with Kaspersky, F-Secure, Avira, BitDefender, AVG, NOD32 and other... Symantec/Norton is worst. Point.
     
  13. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    At the last av-comparatives ondemand test, Norton got 98.80%. That is poor? :blink:
     
  14. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater

    Very poor detection? Then how did it get an advanced+ rating from av-comparatives? Point, my you know what.
     
  15. Hangetsu

    Hangetsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    259
    What tests are you basing this on? o_O
     
  16. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Symantec update removes Web filtering program
     
  17. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    norton has poor detection?

    you might aswell just say that kaspersky has poor signature detection, and nod32 has poor heuristics o_O
     
  18. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Norton is first class when it comes to file infectors and complex polymorphic viruses.
     
  19. RobZee

    RobZee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes, there is definitely a potential conflict of interests and Symantec has had a deserved reputation for being heavy, bloated, etc. But I find it interesting that hardly anyone disputes the validity of the test result by av-comparatives, which does have an established reputation for its independence.

    Rob
     
  20. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    Apparently CNET is not in Symantec's pocket, lol.

    "The Norton Internet Security 2008 interface is ghastly..."

    Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it goes well with Vista's default color scheme.

    "...the suite itself can slow your computer to a crawl..."

    Huh? What version are you testing, '08 or '04? :rolleyes:

    I won't go on anymore with this.

    I believe tiagozt is referring to how Norton handles localized threats in Brazil as he mentioned in CSJ's thread. Whether this is true or not I don't know but since localized threats are delivered by email mainly, it only takes common sense or an ISP that has built in virus/spam filtering (or both) to minimalize these threats.
     
  21. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    I have Norton on two of my PCs. NAV on one, NIS on the other. No problems and very lightweight.
     
  22. henryg

    henryg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    I don't get it.... KIS7.0 recieved a score of 4... under the "Antivirus" section. While ZAIS7 recieved a score of 4.5. Isn't ZA using Kaspersky's A/V engine?
     
  23. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Correct , So it is a little starnge to say the least
     
  24. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Likewise BullGuard uses the BitDefender engine and got 3.5 while BitDefender got 4.5.

    Its probably due to differences in options, easy of use, etc.
     
  25. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    the new computer shopper didnt like nortons nearly as much as they did..
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.