Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by aigle, Oct 1, 2009.
pcmags reviews ..... i dont trust reviews from someone take money from security companys for advertisements
I don,t also but it,s interesting read many times.
Rather disappointing results for MSE on some of PCMag's tests, although the basic malware blocking seems to work decently enough.
It would have been a stronger article without trying to drag in "doesn't stop you from visiting web sites with malware", a total non-sequitur inserted I suppose to make MSE look bad versus kitchen-sink suites. So what does he do, disable all the security settings on his web browser to see if the functionality is duplicated in MSE? Not hardly.
But still, looks like Microsoft could improve their executables cleanup and keylogger protection.
I see PCMag still love Norton!!!
They hated us until last year. Here at Symantec we are just relieved that's changed.
That said, they are the last, decent reviewer of security software left. All due to respect to AV-test and AV-Comparatives, they only do a good job testing one aspect of the software - static file scanning. Even their proactive tests only look at scanning for new malware in files. PC Mag at least looks at and stresses almost every feature of the products. He checks installation on clean and infected machines, malware removal, tamper resistance, effectiveness of the spam and phishing filters, support, he reports on what av-test and AVC say . . . .
There used to be a number of testers who did this now there is one. (CNET and PC World do some testing but not nearly as complete and Consumer Reports is completely clueless).
We need more reviewers like PC Mag.
Neil was gushing over NIS more than a year ago.
Is THAT hate?
I remember Neil giving NAV/NIS praise in '07 and '08 (can't remember last year) with only the exception of the Add-Ons which he described as "archaic". But with the 2010 version he has no problem with them now.
Well PC World likes MSE. http://www.pcworld.com/article/1728...essentials_never_pay_for_antivirus_again.html
LOL I was just going to post that
It got 4th place...but much of the score is weighed on scanning speed, which MSE is a bit slow due to SpyNet. It did quite well in their performance tests, 100% with rootkits is good, it was high in malware detection also.
I love the product, we use it to help clean out malware infested rigs and it does very well.
You all say that PC Mag reviews are not correct and trustworthy , that they praise Norton/Symantec , etc . I used to think the same but I now see that it is not very true . Yes , he (Neil) always compares the tested products with Norton but that's because it is the one that is their (PCMag's) number 1.
You must accept that MSE is nothing special (as a product) compared to Norton 2010 , Panda 2010 and other suits . MSE is very simplied FREE AV solution . Its onliest benefits are that it is FREE , Microsoft product and that it is good at protection/prevention but that is it . AV-Comparatives have also never been too positive about MS products .
Let's be honest - compare MSE to NIS2010 and you can't say that the product MSE is better than NIS (NIS has so much more functions and still better overall protection) - that is why the review of MSE looks like this.
No MSE doesn't offer as much as a paid suite. Not all of us need a full suite, I know I don't. You say MSE is good at protection/prevention. That is all I need personally.
I think it's important to note that the free versions of both Avast and AVG have web scanners. In any case no free AV is a complete solution. On one of my systems I use Avast, PC Tools Firewall Plus, and Winpatrol. I consider that a minimum and may add Mamutu. Using only a free AV and the Windows firewall is not sufficient IMHO. The main advantage of MSE is people can use it without registration and without nag screens. The disadvantage is they still have to download it, so it may not help all those people who couldn't be bothered to download one of the other free AVs.
MSE is not supposed to be compared to a suite. I have MSE, Prevx free and PC Tools firewall and prefer that set up more than NIS, even if NIS were free.
Did MSE make another temp file on your external hard drive again?
That all really depends on the user. As long as I have a clean image then I am not worried about it either way.
A client just came back with a Symantec Endpoint Security installation riddled with fake AV warnings...
SuperAntispyware and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware came to the rescue...
Symantec's products are only good for corporate where they have lock-down; you guys are still not in touch with the pulse of the internet.
But this happens to each and every vendor . This can be prooved.
Fact is that the reviews of PCMag are , as noted , 'user dedicated' reviews - they review not only the detection part but the program functions/options.
All your comments confirm my words:
-> MSE doesn't offer as much as a paid suite. Not all of us need a full suite
-> Using only a free AV and the Windows firewall is not sufficient IMHO. The main advantage of MSE is people can use it without registration and without nag screens
-> MSE is not supposed to be compared to a suite. I have MSE, Prevx free and PC Tools firewall and prefer that set up more than NIS
One NIS itself is much more than MSE + Windows Firewall + whatever other integrated functions of the OS . And turning this statement back to the thread topic , that is why the review of MSE looks like that . It is very acurate , correct review , IMO. 3.0 / 5.0 is OK for MSE for what it is right now as a whole .
So if some piece of bloatware does everything but make your morning coffee, including duplicating functions already available in the O/S or browser that makes it a 4.8/5.0 or whatever.
To turn around and "compare" something that claims only to be an antivirus solution on that same scale it ludicrous. By definition it can't do any better than 2.5/5.0 or something like that because it doesn't do (or claim to do) everything but the kitchen sink.
In that case Prevx really sucks. That thing is tiny and just handles things with a single set of functionality. So if it could get 1.5/5.0 that would be just outstanding, right?
Nonsense. A review of a product should rate the product on how good it is at what it claims to be. By that standard it sounds like MSE does good at detection, could do better at cleaning and has a couple of categories where it does not do well. Why not just say that instead of pointing out that it doesn't do the other 99 things that NIS includes as a suite?
Yet another laughable pcmag review
Thanks for making my day
But it isn't bloatware - neither slow , nor huge . It is no longer bloatware . I could say MSE is completel bloatware because :
- it is slow to install
- it INSTALL Microsoft Updates
- enables Automatic Updates
- first update could take minutes and because of this and the slow install , the time necessary for the program to install , update and start start complete protection is very huge .
NIS 2009/2010 installs in ~60 seconds , doesn't install something I don't wanna use (such as MS Updates) - I want Windows Updates only and running and applying LiveUpdate can happen for 1 to 2 minutes . Protection up and current in max 180 seconds. This on average 21 century computer . MSE will need much more than 180 seconds. Do you call this bloatware?
And what are its duplicating functions ? You mean a suit has a firewall , anti-SPAM , antispyware . Yes , the OS (Vista , for example) includes them in Windows Firewall , Junk Filter in Live Mail , AS in Windows Defender - but that it is . The suit I talk about does all these things better . Additionally , XP doesn't have them in complete way.
P.S. I'll stop posting about this because the topic is a bit different . We are going off-topic .
I think there could be a lot of good arguments that a freeware assemblage of security programs could provide as much, if not more, protection than payware NIS. Plus there is also the argument that a layered approach of security by different vendors provides a more secured computer than all layers provided by a single vendor/ ala suite.
How is it "laughable"?
Untrustworthy, I meant.
IMO it's always a good laugh to read pcmags "reviews".
Well why do you think it's untrustworthy?