Ya'll get a kick out of this; CR AV ratings

Well, most comparatives found in magazines are paid so... you can't trust them too much.

 

While I do not completely trust CR's knowledge concerning pc security software, the fact is that CR accepts no advertising money and no money from any products that appear in their ratings.

Acadia

 

I would have to agree...if no money is accepted or promotional advertisement is involved,their comparsion should be considered. Its hard to accept comparsions especially if a AV you favor is not considered thats just the nature of the beast. A good example is Nod32 or Kasperksy...if its not shown to fair well, in a given AV comparison their is a tendency to trash the comparsion. AV Company's .....are big business....out to make a buck its understandable and I agree.......however competitive against one another is ruthless from a business standpoint....I know from experience.....this we have to keep in mind.

 

McAfee should not be on ANY list. See http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=76180&view=previous&sid=9928a331836af6a9d346e04707caeddb

 

How do you figure? Did you even read the article? Obviously not.
Per CR:
"With good detection, ease of use, and scanning speed, and very good features, this free program is useful for protecting multiple computers on a tight budget."

Hardly sounds like a "crap" rating.
I'm GLAD they included it, to let the less-savvy puter users know that free vs. paid protection is a viable alternative.
Sure, I would like it if they had included Antivir & others, but I'm glad they offered an alternative (albeit limited) to those who may not be able to afford paid protection.

 

Still thats no excuse if you ask me. They even wrote that it doesn't have scheduler. Sure, you're testing free version. Remember, Alwil also offers Professional version which is actually commercial edition and has all the bells and whistles. It's a matter of princip. If you test commercial ones, all should be commercial editions not some mixed bunch. It's like comparing Rolls Royce with VW Golf 2. Sure both will get you to selected destination but one will certanly give you more features and comfort...

 

Posts related to an Anti-spyware ratings would be appropriately posted in our other anti-malware software forum and as such I have created a thread that now contain posts from this thread unrelated to this AV discussion.

Consumer Reports AS ratings

Bubba

 

If a FREE program can keep up with the big boys, then it should rank no lower than 4th place.

DO NOT rely on CR if you demand critical performance evaluations. These reports are just good enough for the average housewives.

 

Well thats the problem of my entire rant. If it's free and as good as others, why the heck is so low?

 

Go HK

remarkable!

 

Can these novel viruses be downloaded for "educational purposes"?

Fairy Al Haqari

 

Consumer Reports tests were conducted over the last 6 months. I agree you cant always take into account 100 percent what they say, but here ~Link removed - Rogue site - Ron~ are the 2006 reviews from PC World, a little more of a expert than Consumer Reports.

 

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=17857.0
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=12175.msg102828#msg102828

toptenreviews has nothing to do with pc world (i hope)

 

Dont think they are, maybe PC magazine.

 

nah, i can't believe that any magazine would be that 'crazy' to use the flawed toptenreviews for publication. I still hope you currently confuse something.

 

The reviews at that site rate McAfee higher than it deserves, which makes me question the reliability of such reviews.

See http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=76180&view=previous&sid=9928a331836af6a9d346e04707caeddb

 

you already posted that link here (https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=812646&postcount=29) - i think we all saw and noticied it in this thread already

 

Plus creating such synthetic samples creates completelly synthetic test environment and would only comply to proactive test (to some degree).
For on-demand classic testing you simply need real world samples, otherwise it's just useless test. Plus AV vendors NEVER had chance to even get these samples. So how realistic it can be?

 

Hi,

some peoples used av comparatives retrospective results to tell wrong things (imo deliberatly misinterpreted the results for own reasons). You can read my comments about that in my weblog (http://www.av-comparatives.org/weblog/?cat=7). It has to do with the CR thing, thats why I post it here.

regards,
IBK

 

I never knew that ZoneAlarm was that good that it came in second on the Consumer Reports test.

 

Interesting when contrasted with this:

 

eTrust EZ is not using VET engine as far as i remember...