why does avira always do so bad in other tests

Not really I do not promote anything.How do you come up with this ?

I have read stuff like this before (e.g people use this % to promote those products). If I am not wrong I read it on the drweb's forums which of itself speaks volumes. Bacchus inspired truths were common there.

 

im not going to argue with you

ive made my comments, and they are there for all to enjoy and read.

 

More like you can't, seeing as how your claims were incorrect to begin with.

High detection trumps high cleaning any day. Detection is what ultimately places a limit on an AV's cleaning ability, and at the same time the opposite is not true. If an AV could somehow clean what it can't detect, then your argument might have some merit, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

 

high detection and poor removal
decent detection and great removal

which would you prefer?

actually.. its pretty obvious which YOU prefer, but its the wrong choice.

look at the figures i posted, it IS a generalization, i dont deny this

, however... it does put both Detection AND Removal into it, and the figures show for themselfs.

 

Posts like this don't help. I think it would be helpful if you could backup up your claims with some link or something reliable so that we could verify ourselves.

If what you say is true it sure is not good.But the problem is it true or is it not ?

Some evidence would be apppropriate

 

the sources are in brackets.

i dont understand the argument saying:

whats the point of removal, if it doesnt detect anything to remove.

i could counter this with:

whats the point of detection, if it doesnt remove anything.

its the SAME thing, its just more people look at figures and percentages and when they show GOOD, they are happy and continue their rants and raves (and usually, comments about the lower detecting AV's)

ive made my comments, its not an argument, just a theory.

no real need to argue it, you either agree or disagree, or... you could just comment and let other people read it.

that is, what a forum is.

solcroft, you must think i come on here to just argue with you, i havnt got the effort for it, so i'll leave it with you.

enjoy

 

General Policy Statement - Antivirus Section
Members should not start topics in this section asking "Which is the better or faster or lighter or whatever?" or make threads setting one Antivirus product against another (i.e. this vrs. that). Topics such as those require no thought, always produce the same arguments, and never resolve anything. Any topic of those types posted in this section will be closed by the forum staff. (The reason for this rule is to get people to put some thought into their posts, and not ask some unclarified "what is best?" type of question, or to pit some AV products against each other, then sit back and watch the fun as their fans race to argue with each other.)

Can you read?

 

The figures are there, but a gross misinterpretation is the problem.

If the AV detects it, then you're protected against it, regardless of whether your AV can clean it or not. Simple.

 

i can read,

if this is against forum policy, i want all DETECTION RATES removed from the forum too, because isnt that.... infact, putting 1 av vs another.

the fact is, yes it is FACT!

you dont like my theory, absolutely choose to ignore it because you are using AVIRA.



i dont care, i really dont ... lol

 

All you do is want to argue,with no facts to support what you want other's to "see" and

2) General Policy Statement - Antivirus Section
Members should not start topics in this section asking "Which is the better or faster or lighter or whatever?" or make threads setting one Antivirus product against another (i.e. this vrs. that). Topics such as those require no thought, always produce the same arguments, and never resolve anything. Any topic of those types posted in this section will be closed by the forum staff. (The reason for this rule is to get people to put some thought into their posts, and not ask some unclarified "what is best?" type of question, or to pit some AV products against each other, then sit back and watch the fun as their fans race to argue with each other.)

 

cmon now.. this thread will end up locked.. stop the fighting.... everyone has their own opinion...

 

Yes, this thread is knocking on that door. Get a clue folks. Focus on the topic, not the posters discussing it.

As for the thread topic - the answer is: Avira doesn't always do bad in other tests.

Blue

 

Detection = prevention. Kick out the dropper/downloader before it delivers its payload.
Cleaning = attempt to remove a missed infection. Malware is installed/working because the AV didn't see it earlier.
This is what solcroft is trying to say.

 

Not only that, if the AV didn't detect it to begin with, what makes you think it'll be able to clean the infection?

 

Exactly. A infected system can't be trusted anymore.

 

With all respects to the source you've quoted this is crap.
Detection means much of the business. Once it detects something it can block it and you stay protected.
Most of the malwares can be deleted and Avira does it pretty well. It deletes files being locked after reboot and it can also clean some malware types. I'm talking from my own experience here after cleaning several infected PCs with Avira.

If an AV can delete the infected files, it's very well. Cleaning and repairing registry, etc is wonderful of course but it's much important to detect. What's the use of cleaning if you don't have what to clean ? (Because you haven't detected it).
Saying 615414 samples that are unprotected is ridiculous... judging like that it means you are not protected by an AV that detects them, but you are by an AV that detects less, but cleans more.

 

i do understand your comments, i really do.

but you are missing my point, that all av's will leak malware, yes even Avira.

so infected machines will occur on all levels, but what then... trust your av?

it certainly seems not so, with some.

 

I agree
Avira and others will never have 100% detection rates.

But to stay on topic, I expect the OP to give us the exact links where he found the tests.

 

Your argument might have some validity if you are installing your super cleaner AV onto an already massively virus infested system, but if that's the case, I would argue that it's already way too late, and time for a reformat.

On the other hand, if you start with a clean fresh system, install something like Avira with superb detection, then that should keep you virus free for a long time, regardless of it's cleanup capabilities. If a virus somehow executes on your system, up pops Avira and let's you delete or quarantine it on the spot, before it goes any further, hence no cleanup needed..

No offense, but I think your logic is a little backward and twisted up there...

 

i wouldn't be that happy, Chris

 

I mean if you are looking for high detection and cleaning then really the only 2 that come to mind are Norton and Kaspersky. But I also agree that a clean system, one like Avira that is high in detection will fill the glass. I agree that you have to detect first, clean second.

 

nope im not, i wont sugar-coat anything Macstorm, but drweb are working to improve, and im happy for that.

drweb already added 6 months sigs after the test, within the 1st month.

the CEO himself, promised to all that they have the tools and ability to improve this, and its 'high-priority'

we shall see how things go

-----------
do avira have plans to improve their cleaning, i know kaspersky is working on this for v.8

 

We all hope so for Dr. Web

Such incredible cleaning capabilities deserve a better detection rate!

 

As with all things in life you must know first then deal with said info.

 

Information below best states the issue of 'detection vs. removal'

and

and

Although I think that Performance Characteristics would be very important in choice of a product to try, its true performance on YOUR SYSTEM would trump any 'Testing' reports.

Personal taste will play a huge role on any users preference for a product.

I would like to see a 'Sticky' explaining best methods to handle 'Trials' (to avoid contamination leftovers from one affecting the next).

My 'better-half' ran two years on CA's EZ-Trust protection (very stable and user friendly) but, even with a detection rate that is off-the-scale on the low end of testing, she never had the first infection (or detection)