Would you change your AV because of this test?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Wordward, Jan 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wordward

    Wordward Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Posts:
    707
    This coming from someone who changes firewalls and then calls it the best. LOL. I plan on sticking with Avast and I thought I was going to stick with Comodo until I read about the new problems a few people are having with it and the explorer exe. Anyway as far as these AV tests go. I just find them interesting and wonder how valid one like this really is. For example. Although Avast has been doing slightly better than AVG in most other AV tests, in this one it pales in comparison to how well AVG does, and I find this to be at least somewhat curious don't you? Nod if you agree with me. LOL. Get it? Nod, as in NOD32 your more than obvious favorite AV. LOL.
     
  2. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    What's the name of that app on the far right of the test pic?

    Looks like 'Bcero'? :blink:
     
  3. DVD+R

    DVD+R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    The Antipodes
    The only reason I'll permanently change an AV is if the one I'm using allows me to get infected :cautious:
     
  4. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    Seriously, those 5 processes do not slow down your pc. Are you using Windows 98 w/ 32MB of memory? :cautious:
     
  5. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Isn't he talking about the three month graph there?
     
  6. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  7. xandros

    xandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    yes i change my antivirus cos i see many tests not only this test
    before i use nod32
    next i use kaspersky internet security
    next i use dr.web
    now i use antivir premium

    who know what i will use next !!
     
  8. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,131
    I look at them but there are other factors that make me feel secure & with todays software detection isn't just only benchmark. I would add that I'm uncomfortable to add Kis back to the laptop as I have reformated & I don't want to deal with the check disk issue. I have ESET but the beta form it is in has not left me feel non protected since I got it. So I migreated to F-Secure. The reason is it found something on a machine a year ago, it has a solid rep & I like the technology the company comes up with. Sorry for being wordy but detection isn't what it's cracked up to be as the only measure. In todays software I hate to say it but it buyer beware & will it run on your machine. But that's just me...
     
  9. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,752
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Well you know what they say about an Av's ability to protect you 100%. ;)
     
  10. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    Aaaaah... so that is the reasons some are switching AV logos ever 3 days or so?... Now I get it! ;)
     
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yep, some people switch logos and others just steal them from others :thumbd:
     
  12. ccsito

    ccsito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Nation's Capital
    My Windows 98 PC had 32 MB originally installed when I first got it. I upgraded the system to 256MB which is the max for the MOBO and no slowdowns with Antivir. :thumb:
     
  13. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    May I interject that Windows 98 is incapable of reading and using memory space greater than 64 MB...

    Ya waisted da Dollas old feller :isay:
     
  14. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Let's get back on topic folks.

    By the way, with respect to the interject...., MS would dispute that.

    Blue
     
  15. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,229
  16. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,229
    It wasn't there at first, I guess he editted it to add it.
     
  17. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    Respectfully is this the same MS Team that claimed File fragmentation was not an issue? For the longest time they insisted disk fragmentation was not an issue yet I would estimate about 90 % of computer performance problems we deal with are file system clutter and file/disk fragmentation related... Including unexplained intermittent system crash are often resolved with a simple defrag... My point is that it's not because Microsoft says it that it's actually true!

    Also I had enough service calls related to memory related handling on Win 98 to purchase a new car! Honestly 98 was so crappy I made a great living supporting it...;) as I'm sure many others also did!
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  18. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    Sorry for the "off topic" thing:

    Alright... Let me rephrase this... Couldnt actually use the darn RAM even though it could read it... (Want instability? increase the load on that RAM and watch it crash... over and over again) made the energizer bunny look tired!

    As for XP you can use up to 3 Gig not 2 as you stated. However you do need a rather convoluted registry tweak to make it work beyond 2 Gig, and only within applications "Written" to take advantage of the xtra Gig of RAM.

    As a side note for all ya's RAM lovers... Upgrade to XP Pro X64 and watch yer 4 Gig of RAM or more run like a charm... (Actually being used too!). I personally think this XP Pro X64 is the best "Consumer" OS created by MS in a long time... Hint: think Windows 2003 Server pared down with a few tweaks to 64 bit then slap a XP Pro X64 logo on it, and yell get the point. More stable all around!
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  19. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Well, I guess that means that the multiple years that I ran a Win95/98 system with 128 and then 384 MB RAM and nary an issue (I had a CPU fan quietly die which created a transient instability until I noticed the crashing pattern on warm days) simply didn't happen.

    If you don't believe me, I could care less. However, the RAM upgrade mentioned above that you dismissed as money wasted was, in fact, money well spent. Even if it was spent today.

    Regards,

    Blue
     
  20. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    Well... Keep in mind, this is 1 system. I serviced thousands over the years... Besides you may actually have the "RAM" installed, but do the programs installed actually use it? many variables are at work here.

    What I can say is that compared to XP, the previous ie; Win 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE & ME are buggy unreliable and prone to glitches... Mostly due to poor memory handing, probably attributable to the hierarchical heredity they inherited from MS DOS... XP being a major "redesign" in memory architecture and file system.

    From a service perspective, I made a lot less $$$ per individual setup since XP is by far more stable...
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  21. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    That's great and this branch has probably gone far enough off topic as is.

    Have I personally dealt with thousands of systems? No, but I've dealt with plenty over the past 30 or so years personally and professionally in a host of different settings.

    Like I said, it wasn't a bad purchase. I'm comfortable with that assessment.

    Blue
     
  22. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    If you believe in Jotti's test then I think you are smoking the curtains. Scan file scans is NOT a measure of an AV's capabilities. It doesn't exercise the majority of the engines a modern security has. For example it doesn't exercise the Network IPS, The Browser protection, the behavioral engine.

    All current tests suck with the exception of Av-Test's Dynamic test (all his other tests suck as well).
     
  23. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    It's because of these type of tests as to why I don't use an AV.:D

    Much prefer my Returnil/Sandboxie/images setup.:cool:
     
  24. Hermescomputers

    Hermescomputers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,069
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada, eh?
    You are not alone with this opinion. I still have a few die hard users who still for some reasons insist on paying me to keep their 98 box running! :D
     
  25. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I may be smoking the curtains, but at least, i can come to reasonable conclusion as to why users which in theory run almost unbeatable antiviruses, can get infected every single month. Because according to the "good tests" (Jotti's is bad), all you would need to stay clean for months at least, based on probability law, would be to get the top antivirus. With the top antivirus you would pretty much not need anything else, you could surf with IE and activeX on and not bother about anything because 99%+ of the times, your AV will catch it. Unfortunately, the internet is full of desperate people, with hijack logs full of multi-infections, while running these "super" antiviruses. To each, his own conclusions.

    Personally i don't care about extra security engines, on my PC, i have even the mail scanner disabled and also have Avast with just standard shield. At least, with Jotti's they all come on the same level. If you rely much on the other engines, you can draw further conclusions, but at least, you see where you start from. Because Comodo's AV on paper, is formidable too, because it has HIPS. But its scanner isn't that brilliant yet. Theoretically, having the HIPS, would beat every antivirus out there. But i still prefer judging an antivirus by its normal engine, than from its HIPS.

    When behaviour blocking will be widespread amongst antiviruses, then we will probably see a quality jump in prevention. But right now, it is not widespread and it is immature. So i will keep judging the starting point from Jotti's. Jotti's isn't golden either, because some are false positives (obviously) or spyware-adaware, but at least, it gives you a more real situation and explanation as to why users keep getting infected when running just an AV with IE and not a parade of applications like Wilders' members. It is laughable to read on pc magazines or internet how that wonderful antivirus got 99,5% on a test and 1 hour later get a mail from a friend "Helppp!!! I got infected!", while running that same great av. I don't believe in the easy explanation of "no scanner has 100% detection, so that's why people get infected" either, because in real life, it would mean that the av would fail once every 99 virus caught (more or less) - never happened on my pc, not even close - and that Jotti's scanners are defective, because if you take 100 random samples, of certain malware (signalled by the majority and best av), none will get near that percentage.

    So, if the tests, can't reproduce real life conditions, what is their purpose (rhetorical question, of course).

    Or, if we are to believe the "best" tests out there, why is there the need for a gazillion extra layers and why people still get infected so easily that Vista had to implement UAC?


    Regards
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.