PC World - Top Standalone Antivirus Software for 2010

I noticed this at PC World in case anyone might be interested:

Top Standalone Antivirus Software for 2010
We looked at eleven antivirus packages from around the world. G-Data Antivirus 2010 wins for its outstanding malware detection; Norton Antivirus 2010 comes in a close second thanks to its polished interface.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/1986/top_paid_antivirus_2010.html

Dave

 

I wouldn't trust that review at all.

 

That cracked me up.. Check out the bottom line for Avira, about made me about fall out of my chair laughing. That whole line up and bottom lines are a joke.

 

So if Avira had a nicer interface it would of scored higher?...good grief!! Avira's would you buy it or not score says it all on that page: yes: 13 - no:1

 

Well, some nuances about the last line at Avira's 'test'

Avira is a great AV. Only the reviewer has a point. I know quite a few people who I talked into using Avira FREE in stead of AVG FREE. After a while they complained and teased me: since I use that so called better AV, I have a lot virusses, what a nice friend you are (advising a diferent AV).

I felt a little embarressed and investigated why Avira performed less than AVG: The reason was simple (a user interface issue and limitation of the FREE version):

They just used the default choice of Avira FREE, which just leaves the file for what it is. So user interface choice 'complexity' reduced Avira's effctiveness.

Some (most?) people simply don't read pop-ups. While they are intelligent people, but the fact that the AV pop-ups is not a reason for concern, it is a confirmation that the AV does it job properly, so they expect it to default to the best option.

I would say when Avira has less options and defaults to the best option, it would be more effective for some of my friends.

Regards Kees

 

The ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ alarm was going off when i was looking at this so called review.
avast! all the way in the bottom... i've seen enough.

 

for what link?

 

even if avira does not perform well in other areas they fail to understand that nobody gives a hoot about interface low rating blalalahallah blahalbalah makes me love it little more

 

The fact that your FAVOURITE antivirus software is not rated #1 does not mean that the test is wrong .

Quite the contraty . If you attemp to read the full reviews of any product you'll see that PC-World mentions AV-TEST.ORG Laboratory and that PC-World takes their anti-malware and scanning speed results from AV-Test comparisons/tests .

Is AV-Test untrusted organisation ? I don't think so!


I have read the full reviews of ESET , Avast , Norton and G-data and in my opinion , what is written for them is correct.

 

Kees you're right with user alerts and interface being a higher priority to users who don't know the ins and outs of the net.

Auto-quarantine products, and slick interfaces help average and less than average users. Using prevx for example, I'd say average users feel confident in reading and interpreting the alerts and with the overall setup of the program.

 

Trend Micro is several levels higher just because it has nicer interface than avast!. And because avast! has slightly lower proactive detection rate, it's considered as "so so detection". But Trend Micro on the other hand also has poor detection, but it's far higher. That's where the ******** alarm went off...
Besides, avast! has proven to be high level antivirus in many tests, not just AV-Test with pretty consistent track record where Trend Micro consistently performed poorly. So, it's not about what i think, it's about how they interpret the results. Obviously they favor Trend Micro because it's Trend Micro or because they are rating them based on interface design. So, if anything should be, avast! and Trend Micro should be next to each other. On top or bottom. But since they aren't, i call this review a BS review.

 

I got the buy one and get the next year off promo from Antivir not too long ago. I guess I better run to the G Data antivirus 2010 website at this moment and dump Antivir because it is old news now.

I agree that Antivir might need a little face lift and stronger default settings for the common user. I bet most people overlook the expert mode check box when they go through the settings the first and only time. It takes several minutes to get the optimal settings just right.

PC World doesn't explain the trade-offs when you use an antivirus that uses two engines. Some systems can't handle that much power underneath the hood. The top pick, G Data that is. I'm sure it is an excellent product, but most people would go for Norton or Avast.

 

I have to agree with ASpace on this one. I think the test is right on the money.

 

I will agree that the test is probably fairly accurate, these tests always make some users unhappy when their product doesn't score as well as they would like but just wait till the next comparison and it can all change.
bigxc

 

Where is the table summarizing all the detection rates in the individual categories? Where is the documentation of the testing methodology? What platforms were used? How was the dynamic testing conducted? Etc etc

Without this, how can anyone say the test is accurate, or crap?

 

You can set every AV to do its job automatically but doing that sucks if you have many friends
So i agree that every AV should have the easiest defaults for novices at start.

 

ye this review is pretty stupid, the test is based 95% on what the GUI looks like...

 

The test must have been conducted by AV-Test.org
As an Avast representative (antivirus included in this test) , you are more than obligated to contact them and ask for this information .

PC World is a commercial magazine , made for the masses . Such technical details you want (and I also want) can't be included in such a magazine - simply because masses don't understand a single world of them . Masses want number 1 , number 2 , number 3 - with simply Pros/Cons/Conclusion.

 

"7. Avira AntiVir Premium
Bottom Line: Avira AntiVir Premium Edition needs more features and a face-lift before it can become a top choice."

I wonder if cosmetic surgery might be of any help with detections, but then again the internet seems to be the perfect ground for misinformation.

 

I think you under estimate the intelligence of masses. I would rather think it easier to manipulate readers judgement as it is often the case for political issues. In this particular case obviously somebody who stumbles upon "PC World" and its mendacious reports, might just simply think these tests are done for readers' peace of mind as often is the case for consumers' associations.

Unfortunately it is difficult to contradict them online, as it is also true that any of the AVs tested would do an excellent job in just about any computer.

Life goes on.

 

Oh , that is wrong. Absolutely wrong . Life and practise has proven me quite the contrary.

Why do you think it is difficult ?

And why do you think the test is fake . I am sure that is has a lot in common - you must be using an antivirus that got a lower score ? AVIRA ? Avast ?

The test is very acurate . AVIRA scores 99.3 % overall . This is excellent , hey!
It gets lower (7th) because of other things - technical GUI , not maxed default settings , no extras - is it wrong that the GUI is quite technical and a bit old-fashioned ? This is what masses care about .

 

I didn't say "fake" I said mendacious. You are "now" a reseller of Symantec and Eset (not sure about that anymore) which makes you a lobbyst for either companies, the perfect person with a vested interest. Now, I know you are quite objective in your posts, and I respect your opinions, but don't tell me that Symantec is number two, and Avast is last. I should also mention that my main beloved computer has no AV, and I have Avira on my second machine to check flash drives only.

 

apart from mcafee the bottom 5 seem to say http://www.pcworld.com/shopping/detail/id,324714/pricing.html never believed any of these tests and have found all products i have used have protected my pc's equally so i just go for performance. moan when/if you get infected and that can happen to anyone..

 

PCMAG's review of Avira is typical.

It's probably not the best AV for those who know nothing about computer security, and expect their AV to protect them against everything, without using their own brain.

I must admit, I didn't like the default settings. In particular the types of malware to scan for, like fraudulent software or security privacy risk.

GDATA the top choice ?

I recall it being somewhat of a resource hog, of course that doesn't matter (much) if you have a fast system.

 

I think most will agree that the criteria used for ranking in the magazine, aren't the same as the criteria that users of this forum would have.

It is also interesting, how different "test labs" can give so different results. For example Avast in the magazine is said to have bottom signature detection, earning the "inconsistent detection" label. In AV-Comparatives, specially in the last year, Avast is consistently scoring between the top ranking places.

That says something about testing.

P.S: Trend Micro in most other tests posted in this forum, was constantly mediocre, including the test from PCSecuritylabs dynamic testing. Now its above Avast and right after Avira because it has "nice GUI", despite having "poor detection" even in the PC World review.