Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eyespy, May 9, 2002.
Interesting...... AVG still looks good !!
AVG is good AV scanner. It is free and can do a job.
Is that your site, TD?
I've seen a couple of lackluster test results for AVG. I guess I've seen some results for KAV and FSecure too that were not impressive.
I'm beginning to see that it is very difficult to get a really honest comparrison between AVs, probably because of the difference in configurations of user machines.
The more I learn, the confusededer I get.
the virus bulletin is generally pretty tough on AVG. I used the free ver once and it missed a virus that NOD32 caught. I dropped it at that time, but it may have improved considerably since then. I can't recall the virus.
here the virus bulleting shows the preformance of the AV it tests. Not lookin good for AVG! Perhaps the authors of this site are biased? I have no idea.
Yes it is my website, but I didn't do any of tests! Go with your instinct and choose the best AV
Not necessarily. It depends on what type of virus samples they've used.
I can test AV product myself and use Virus samples that one AV will miss and 2nd one will pick. Does this mean that AV which missed all virus sample is bad ? NO. It could be opposite in some future test.
your last post..... thats about the most honest explanation of AV comparisions I have ever seen......simple and straight forward.........
very true technodrome.
Wrong AVG is not free. When I want to use AVG I have to buy it. It is free in some parts of the world but not in all. Most of the time people writting about AVG they forgot to mention it.
For free AVG is okay for free but it can not compete with top av solutions like KAV or NOD32.
Thanks for the reminder, Wizard. I for one do forget AVG is not free elsewhere. I use it on my infrequently used laptop. I wouldn't pay for it however and would purchase another AV instead such as NOD32 which is on my desktop PC.
Hey Techno & Unicorn:
Ordinarily I'd agree with you Techno, but this particular test seems to tell me more. The In-the Wild virus idexes are pretty extensive (see mo/yr each index) on real-time viruses circulating during each period. The apparent objective is a indicator of which AV developers are being timely at finding and defining viruses relevent to each period. And that's about all you can ask isn't it?
Aren't the basic mechanics of detection (not features) similar among products? I mean, if every virus in each index were properly defined in every one of those products, wouldn't everyone score 100% every time? Free AV is nice, but see money influences resources to glean, analyize, define and update customer programs. Some scored 15 to16 - 100% catches out of 22 periods -among those submitting (careful to look) a product in all 22 periods.
I sense the most decisive factor in AV selection is choosing one whose developer is consistantly "johnny on the spot" updating the program - otherwise just getting lesser odds playing the same game. So the statistical nature of this test shows me 3 or 4 good AV prospects on that basis. Is this a fair observation anyone - Techno? Snowman? And thanks for the link Unicorn on those In The Wild tests. Best to you all, Rickster
Rickster, you are quite correct, who ever updates first consistently (all other things being equal) would be the better choice.
NOD32 is normally that AV.
The hard part is deciding whether an AV is adding a definition the others don't yet have, or one they do have. When NAV releases a couple updates in a row, and NOD32 does not, does that mean NAV has protection against stuff NOD32 doesn't, or are they playing catch up during a slow period? Hard to say when they name everything different.
That's a good point. Wish there was consistancy in naming them - but wonder if they do it on purpose to keep a leg up on competitors - I mean, if I'm AV-1, there's a potential customer in every AV-2 customer that gets bitten. The fleas come with that dog too. Seems trust is factor and both NAV and NOD32 have sufficient tenure and statistical evidence to earn that.
If Norton wasn't so busy stuffing buggy ads on me and making puzzle-maze-infogather-questionaire hassles out their support structure, NOD32's statisitical edge wouldn't be the only thing prompting me to switch. How is NOD32 on that? Ever check blocking logs to see how much snoopy junk they want to write to your drive? It shouldn't be more complicated to find support's e-mail address for a simple question than finding a virus - like it is at Symantec's site. Later, Rickster
NOD32 has been good to me so far. I have no complaints. Any time i emailed them, I got a prompt answer. I never had to fill out a questionaire. I wouldn't say remarkable, they just have done what I would expect from them, nothing more, nothing less.
A company shouldn't have to make a circus side show out of their support stategy like some do. Dell is big on pushin support in their advertising but do they really give decent support? I dunno, but if the product is good, the focus should be on that, not support. Focus goes to support when you need it and it sucks. Like linksys, their crappy support is legendary. If their product was rock solid, no one would know their support sucks because no one would call them
definitely I would have to agree that swift updating is critical imo.....however, on the flip side of the coin...unless they actually say what they are particularly updating to prevent...then I have no idea of knowing if its "smoke" or the "real thing"......if this comes down to trust..well I am sorely lacking in trusting vendors...an do not hesitate to say so.
the question of support...to be fully honest I have never once used or contacted "support" in regards to any anti-virus program I have used. should I ever need to I would expect a near immediate response or,, the program goes for a hike....an I would never purchase any other products from that vendor again no matter how great they may become.....no second chances!
I strongly believe that consumers are far to forgiving of software vendors....certainly vendors can be expected to make mistakes..but not all the time....an not with anti-virus or anti-trogan software....we pay a fair sum of money for our computers..an those computers should not be used as a testing ground for wannabe programmers...get it right or get out of the business.....very simple. to expect any less is to expect the investment cost of my computer to be flushed
surprisingly I find many freeware programs that are better than some shareware....if fact I have actually made donations to freeware vendors who never asked...several times was told to give the money to charity instead.
so the bottom line imo is not so much which anti virus vendor is doing a better job....instead its a question of why are consumers tolarating less than the best? an thats not a very popular stance these days...I wonder why?
when my present anti virus program expires I have already decided to replace it......it worked just fine for me....but the company has messed over other customers......not acceptable behavior.
Thanks you guys. I’ll make a closing comment and give you guys a break from me for a while. Snowman, we’re not quite as forgiving as we appear. Not everyone is as pragmatic about filtering opinion as I am. For the most part we merely fear change. Didn’t need NAV’s support, merely saw a bit-defender virus article - checked my definition list and noted it wasn’t there days later. Wanted to fire off a simple question on that, ergo my comment. Would rather get an e-mail from Symantec that said, “Dear Mr. Clueless, you didn’t know AV vendors name viruses differently? Suggest you go to Wilder’s to unravel the mystery of how we do things. Thanks You.”
I’m with you on the stance ‘do it right or bye-bye’, it’s what we pay for. I find in life as in business a grain of salt helps. On these subjects it pays to bring the whole shaker. Found many static tests, but see conditions open to manipulation, i.e., lists submitted in advance of testing – or elapsed time, permitting producers to catch-up and improve results. For me, the In the Wild statistical data Unicorn kindly posed, pulled the puzzle together to hit the core issue. So, despite misgivings with support structures, features, behavior or anything else, products in parity to expectations in this test are keepers. Protection on core fact first – likes and dislikes, second. Thanks to all of you for your patience with me and your guidance. Hope to someday be of some benefit to you. Best regards, Rickster
Separate names with a comma.