PCWorld - Free vs. Fee

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by De Hollander, Nov 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
  2. iravgupta

    iravgupta Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Posts:
    605
    The conclusion mirrors my current opinion: best free - avast! and best paid - Norton.
     
  3. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Giving an AV rating based on GUI is bogus. Apparently thats the only reason Avira was placed second to Avast. Same thing for Bitdefender. Placed second due to GUI issues and scan speeds.

    Detection and prevention > GUI and scan speeds

    Just goes to show PCWorld is bogus.
     
  4. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    :thumb: Agreed. Bogus
     
  5. 3GUSER

    3GUSER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Posts:
    812

    You are wrong . It is all a complex (of course detection is more important).
    As for the particular test it's detection/tests are conducted by AV-Test.org

    As you mention Avast and BitDefender - they are places 3rd/2nd in the paid products tests - of course Norton is number 1 . Both Avast and Bit Defender have always had lower results than Norton , including the recent AV-Test certifications and AV-Comparatives tests.

    In my opinion the results are real. As for AVIRA - it is no longer that program from let's say 2-3 years ago that relied on heuristics and was very powerful on that part . Things have changed and continue to change .

    If I were to make a list of free applications , I would rate them the same - avast , avira , mse , panda , comodo. Honestly.
     
  6. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    +1

    I wouldn't care if a GUI looks like old school DOS ASCII screens and selections made with the tab, cursor and spacebar keys. If the app itself kept my system fully protected from hijacks and infection and my data protected from theft it would look GREAT!
     
  7. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,924
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Removed 2 Posts concerning another thread.
     
  8. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Seriously, have anyone ever read something meaningful coming from pcworld/pcmag other than their awesome ads? :D
     
  9. dschrader

    dschrader AV Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Posts:
    54
    I like PCMag's reviews - Rubenking is the last true reviewer of av products.
     
  10. brhokla

    brhokla Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Posts:
    12
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    I look at what they say as the truth, nothing but the truth. Solid as a rock and without doubt 100% truth!
     
  11. Vladimyr

    Vladimyr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    Australia
    They don't impress me as in-depth evaluations but are we reading the same review?
    "Pros
    Excellent malware detection and blocking
    Quick scan speeds"


    Apparently, GUI issues were not the only, or principle, reason Avira was placed second to avast!
    "On the negative side, AntiVir Personal, along with Comodo's free Internet Security Premium, had the most false positives--six--of the free antivirus products we looked at. As a percentage, this number is still low--it was .004 percent of files scanned, and they were all non-operating-system files, but any false positive can be a hassle. That said, only one free product we tested--Avast Free Antivirus--achieved a perfect false positive score."
     
  12. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Sure are:

    Only difference is the interface according to that right there.

    So Norton is great because it has good detection and a good interface. Bitdefender is second because it has good detection but interface issues. Not really sure how you can argue those as they are in print right in the article. The best part is later down in the article it accuses NIS of also being slow. So if that were the case Bitdefender is equal to NIS.
     
  13. 3GUSER

    3GUSER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    You read the review like the devil would read the Bible.

    Norton Antivirus leads the paid-software pack owing to its excellent malware detection, very good interface design, and comprehensive feature set that includes ............................

    Not because of the interface but for 3 things (the last one - comprehensive feature set expands.)

    I need to underline (again) that : Antimalware tests are conducted by reputable testing organisation AV-Test.org and that PC-Mag and PC World are consumer magazines that are also read by non-tech people so that things should be explained differently
     
  14. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Except GUI isnt a basis for antiviruses to be based one. Sure you have a crappy AV with a nice GUI lets place it over an awesome AV with a buggy GUI. Crappy AV wins.

    Of course you would say NIS over the others because it just happens to be in your sig. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    I agree. I trust Rubenking.
     
  16. brhokla

    brhokla Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Posts:
    12
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    I didn't know that the GUI was that big a deal. Ease of usage, protection and not slowing a system should be top priority with most of these products. I just figure that a great product can be better at everything but lose due to the GUI? I use Avast and they made comments about the GUI like it's ugly or something. Personally it looks as good as any to me and is highly functional and easy to navigate through.
     
  17. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    GUI > Detection duh!
     
  18. PC_Pete

    PC_Pete Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Posts:
    124
    I think the "brand X wins because of the GUI" outrage requires selective reading of the reviews.
     
  19. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Relax mates
    I think to the average consumers a good presentation of the product (GUI) is important, it shows well . . . "Quality" /sarcasm (Not always) :rolleyes:

    But for us wilders, it's not a problem :D
     
  20. 3GUSER

    3GUSER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Posts:
    812

    Note to all - this is PC-World , not PC Mag

    :)
     
  21. 3GUSER

    3GUSER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    I really can't understand you and what is your problem here . If you be more specific without all the sarcams , may be discussion will go better.
    What exactly in the order of top list you don't like ? You think that Avast or BitDefender should be placed on top (number 1) or what ? Avast - best antivirus of 2010/2011 or ?

    You definitely should read whole review of all products and may be look also at www.av-test.org web site
     
  22. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Are you talking about the full article in PC Mag or the extract published as an article teaser/clifhanger on their website?
     
  23. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    I dont care what the number one AV is. Im happy with PCAV on both of my laptops.

    The problem is GUI is not a reason to rate a program less than others especially in a Free vs Fee type situation. Its based on detections and removal, not GUI. Who gives a flying [insert what ever here] if the GUI has ugly colors like Avast. That doesnt detract from its function.
     
  24. deadmeat

    deadmeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    84
    Although I have my own opinions like everyone else I'd rather just state what I see.

    Although no longer directly connected with this I am still in contact with the guys I used to work with servicing customers machines.

    Infections were always secondary to the misuse of various tweaking and "cleaning" tools in as far as irrecoverable systems were concerned although to be fair this balance has changed in the last 6 months.

    Of the infected machines presented, the majority were installed with Avast! or AVG (free), Norton and Kaspersky in more or less equal numbers. The two commercials are the most widely available here on disc in the native language which explains why the take up rate is so high compared to others (e.g. sold as must have accessories at the point of sale :) )

    Accepting that many had never seen a scan activation, or had the updates disabled for some reason, there was absolutely no difference between the rates of infection for each product.

    This rather led us to believe, which was backed up by the owners, that other factors were the major influence, being;

    Most believed wholeheartedly that once these things were installed then they were truly "protected" come what may.

    Especially in the case of commercial products folks felt that having paid for something they should be allowed to do what they wanted with it and not necessarily as advised by the program which of course they "owned":)
     
  25. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,218
    I'm also convinced that most good AVs (the majority) are very effective if kept updated and not turned off when downloading something!(my father in law's secret on how to infect a computer within hours...).

    Beyond stating the obvious, there is a certain loyalty towards feeling good with a particular company, especially if it has worked flawlessly for a while. I'm using Avira free and paid, honestly I can't see any difference between the two, but I'm sure that if I picked any other company, except for conflicts and speed, in terms of detection they would probably all afford the same level of security if kept diligently updated. 0 day security can only be achieved with other tools.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.