Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by aigle, Mar 31, 2010.
Only buy products eh ?
Norton excels at prevention tests performed by individuals, AV-C, AV-Test and other companies.
Seems that there are still many that need to realise this.
What's left to say but P C T O O L S.
Must have really improved over previous versions. I'm assuming spyware doctor with AV has similar detections.
What's PC Tools got to do to share some love from Wilders, win the tests? But well done Norton.
Edit - there's some anger round here lately. People been wearing their branded AV t-shirts and socks or something? Relax!
When multiple independent testing sources (e.g., AV-Comparatives, AV-Test, PC World, PC Magazine, etc.) all reach the same conclusion, it’s challenging to argue with the merit of the outcome. In the formal discipline of measurement, it is known as convergent validity.
IMO the reason for the argument is that while for the general users NIS probably does offer the best overall security, many of the learned folks here at Wilders consider that there are more bulletproof options available.
I must not be learned since I use NIS2010 on my home pc's and laptops. What it boils down to is a majority of our forum members use free solutions. Most of us could run without any protection at all and not get infected. LUA's, sandboxes, backups/images seem to be popular solutions.
I've seen quite a few self-proclaimed pc techs stating that "Norton is bloatware" or "Symantec is paying for favorable reviews" and even "most of the people with malware infections are using Nortons". It's a shame that there is so much misinformation out there. Then again without all of the nonsense and conspiracy theories what would we have to talk about?
"what would we talk about?" LOL FWIW I do malware cleanup in the field and to date I have not seen any infected machines running NIS 2009/2010. I have seen plenty of them running versions of AVG, Trendmicro, McAfee and CA. I realize that's anecdotal and I have no way of knowing if it's true more generally, so I apologize if I'm stepping on your favorite brand. It is what I see though. A big problem is average users only want to run one security program and they don't want to pay for it, so they wind up running free AVs when they really need full on suites. Users who can make in-depth choices and run multiple security products are a whole different animal - they would be us
Of course its Norton, who else? Quod Erat Demonstranddum.
I don't like flaming.
AVG that high, PC Tools that high. ESET not even in the top 10. Did I miss something when I replaced my AVG (after 8 was released) by ESET 2,5 years ago?
Ah! the world is changing, isn't it? On a serious note I'm not surprised at all with both PCTools and AVG performances.
From what I can gather from the reviews , AVG seems to have mustered a better score thanks to damn good behavior blocking (from SanaLabs) and their real-time web protection thanks to LinkScanner. Both Sana and LinkScanner were very good products and their inclusion has boosted the AVG even though the scan engine is still needs a overhaul (and not a tuning).
More reliance on Heuristic/Generic/Behavior in tests is good esp with the current avalanche of malware where db updates just can't keep up. Hence products with good behavior blocking have come on top i.e. Norton, AVG and PC Tools (now with threatfire inbuilt) in this test.
For those who don't believe in ideals of the tester/organization, the web is filled with AV tests (esp at YT !!) just pick the one that meets your criteria. And be happy ...
I wasn't implying that all users of NIS aren't knowledgeable,apologies if that was how it seemed.
My point was merely that the likes of SRP,HIPS,virtualization,etc can,in experienced hands offer close to 100% protection.Whereas for folks that prefer to just be passively protected NIS is a great option.
It seems that Panda needs to improve its behaviour blocker a bit.
The good rating of AVG is questionable though.
Find PC Tools Love here
ESET not offer web protection ?
hahahahaha, PC World is comedy.....
I've tried out almost all suites out there, and i found out that no antivirus except gdata/trustport finds all the viruses.. Bcoz i've had viruses which was identified by avast and not by avg,kis,bitdefender etc.. and also had viruses which were not detected by avast but detected by those above.. NW I"M USING AVAST FREE & COMODO FIREWALL.'m very much happy with it.. I've sent many samples to avast and they add them in just 1 day.. ..
Also avira is good at detection, but its too harsh as it finds everything as malware..(i've thrown some keygens to test it, while no other antivirus identified it as virus, only avira and avira varients showed it as a virus which is a clean file)... But AVAST IS GOOOOOOOOD, very lite, MEMORY,I/O,Processor usage... Its should have been AVAST not NORTON...
Why is that? Please elaborate.
Wow, simply Wow...
Same question for you as in post number 44.
ESET and Avast were among the first to offer web protection, what a hoot.
It's pretty sad when the reviewer, Robert Vamosi, doesn't even take a few minutes to look thru the Advanced options or RTFM. He also knocked Avast 5 for something that can also be adjusted if he spent a few minutes familiarizing himself with the product.
It takes <30 seconds to modify the scan profile for a default action. Robert Vamosi is clearly too incompetent to be reviewing security software.
1. Did they even take the time to check out how well each av detected Fake Av's? That is one of the most common threats that everyday users will come upon.
2. Did they look at the history of buggy updates? Avg has also has recently released bad updates that have messed up the OS before. If they are doing this test for average users they want to know how common buggy updates are.
(I am not saying AVG is the worst for buggy updates but that would be something I would include if I was doing the test.)