PC World AV Chart

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eBBox, Apr 23, 2007.

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

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
  2. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Not reliable
     
  3. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    it is reliable. the test was done by av-test.org
     
  4. extratime

    extratime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Thanks IBK for confirming that.

    Good result by BitDefender, but that system slowdown is eye-opening!!
     
  5. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Sounds good to me
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Use the 9.5 version if you are bothered by the system slowdown. This is version 10's "fatal flaw". :p :D

    As for the results, they are reliable enough as already confirmed by IBK, and I will admit I find AVG Professional's detection rates very surprising, because I did not expect it to score as high as it did. If it scored almost the same as Avast in this tests, that means AVG Anti-Malware will obviously protect a lot better. And so few FPs as well :D
     
  7. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    O really? AV-test? Lol i didn't pay attention and just assumed it was a stupid magazine. I feel so embarassed now.
     
  8. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Why would Av-test only test 8 products though?
     
  9. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    thats usually the magazine which says they want to have results of those specific products.
     
  10. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Yeah, missing some but better than nothing ;) Funny with a "system drag" test :)
     
  11. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Avast shows pretty well, and to be expected.
    Jerry
     
  12. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    told you norton 2007 is good :)

    very impressed with its proactive detection, only 2% behind kaspersky WOWW!!! :D and with same detection % and EVEN same system slowdown as kaspersky, (to all you norton haters and hog/heavy comments)

    was my trusty drweb not tested on this? :blink:
     
  13. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    I dont trust to av-test.org

    Last time guy tested very large number of samples collected for 1 year. When we did calcucaltion it comes up that its several different malware every 10 minutes.

    Its impossible that somebody collect and organize that high number of samples. (and they are not AV vendor)

    Detection rate results: KAV=Norton=BitDefender :D o_O :D


    When I see tests where Norton and BitDefender are equal or better than KAV (detection rate) I know its false. (unless tester used 10 samples for testing)
     
  14. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    av-test is currently the best testers on OUT THERE, sorry IBK.

    also... impressed with pandas system performance, only 4% weee

    -------
    all i can think of, is 10-12 hours for new malware from norton compared to kaspersky 0-2 is the reason for it not being #1 or tied.

    norton also had less system impact from browsing, surprised.
     
  15. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    I wonder if the proactive detection of Norton has anything to do with SONAR?
     
  16. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    np, i know that they have more resources and possibilities than we have. Like i stated, av-test is the biggest av test centre in the world.
     
  17. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Me 2! I really would like a test with and without SONAR turned on- IBK ? :D
    I miss dr Web, McAfee & Norman
     
  18. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    this is a really good test, all nicely layed out with lots and lots of info.

    gutted my drweb is NOT on there, would have been nice for another comparison :)

    for ages ive been praising the new versions of both panda and norton, this only shows how much they have improved :)
     
  19. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Thanks for letting us know :)
    I'm shocked by the proactive results of NOD 32. Do you know anything about the test bed?
     
  20. Wai_Wai

    Wai_Wai Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Posts:
    556
    There is generally no reliable magazine. It all depends on where they get the test result. In other words, the reliability of magazine has to be valued per test result.

    A magazine may use AV-test's test result in one review. Then it may use another organization's test result for another reivew. It may do some in-house tests and use it in a review too. That's why it all depends.

    There is a good article about an overview on which testing sites can be trusted and which can not (written by av-comparatives or IBK).
    Must read! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  21. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    nod is dissappointing,

    it only got #4 because of its heuristics, seriously... without them, they would struggle.

    ---------
    weeeee my new 50' hd tele came today, o0(now, where is my ps3 eh?) :D
     
  22. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    its based on samples additions from the wildlist afaik. thats why the results are so high.
     
  23. extratime

    extratime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Another point of interest - they didn't test McAfee. Despite its declining detection rate I am surprised that PC World would skip one of the "Big 2", which most mainstream consumers are exposed to.

    How the mighty have fallen.
     
  24. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I must agree. NOD seems to be going downhill instead of improving. Not sure why, but the results speak for themselves.
    I was a little surprised that BD did so well.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  25. extratime

    extratime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Yep good result for Norton. What I don't like is that it takes them too long to add signatures after an outbreak, which this article confirmed.

    Combined with the fact it is still not that light I still wouldn't use it. But they are improving, no doubt about that.

     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.