Neowin.net

Does it matter how many were worse? Does some other apps failing horribly somehow make OneCare a "great" product? You seem to think so.

To me, finishing 16th means that there are 15 products I would recommend before OneCare.

Yeah I'd look elsewhere too but if it is 97% then thats not too bad. Infact looking at it it got 97.7 and 97.1% respectively for malware and adware/spware. That puts it ahead of the likes of Nod32 (94.4%, 94.7%) and only just behind Kaspersky (98.4%, 98.3%) which seem to be the two more popular ones amongst Neowin users.

Really these tests never seem to have consistant results anyway IMHO. The winner of one test can be 20th in another.

Another thing in MS's favor here IMHO is the results are pretty consistent between the antivirus and spyware categories. Quite a few products that excel at one did pretty abysmal in the other. It wouldn't surprise me if you took an average of the results from the two test that MS could rank a fair bit further up overall for the sum of it's two parts.

Thank you, nice see someone understands.

Let's see. If a computer was exposed to a statistical spread of 100 pieces of malware, You would have to clean up one or maybe even zero infections that slipped by the top performer. With OneCare, you would have two or three.

You guys are looking at comparing 97 to 99. The infections come from the failures, people, not the "successes". So you are looking at a failure rate that is 4 times worse than Avast! (which is not even the top-performer) for anti-virus. (the stats for that are 99.3% vs. 97.1%, or 0.7% failure to 2.9% failure)

If you think getting 4 times as many misses is a good thing, then you may need a quick lesson in how to review these types of statistics, because (quite frankly) you are all screwed up in which side of the stats you need to look at.

Also as I mentioned, this is one test. These tests are hardly ever consistent amongst sites carrying them out and imho the only constant is the lack of consistent results shown. Really you can't read too much into them because for every test that says one anti virus is the best theres another dozen that says it's useless. Ones like Nod and Kaspersky didn't perform that well either, infact Nod did worse than one care. Many many test would put those two alot closer to the top however.

I'm not saying the results were great by any stretch of the imagination, what I and the OP are saying is they were blown out of proportion in how they are misanalysed. Many of the ones that beat OneCare in one category failed abysmally in the other which while attributing to One care being 16th for antivirus detection doesn't mean overall the product is worse. Yes theres products that did better in both categories, but just because it came 16th in antivirus detection doesn't mean it was 16th overall when the sum of it's parts are looked at.

Why? Because you don't want it to be true?

If you disagree then conduct your own test.

Many of us have...in the field...year after year. And NOD32 was the leader in detection, clean up, and lightest on resources. The new KAV just caught up in resources and even found one trojan that got past NOD32 a month or two ago, so it's the winner in my book.

EPIC PWNED!

would you like a tissue?

KAV has ALWAYS been #1 in ALL fields, unless you're a NOD32 fanboy!! :redface:

Never
Trusting
Symantec
Ever
Again

Period.

Norton Antivirus has = epic fail for as long as I can remember.
It's a steaming load. You may want to flush it.