New VIRUS.GR virus report! Best on the net!

By Tokar
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

mAcOdIn Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I don't think he is lying, I don't think his numbers are flawed, I think his sample methodology is misguided.

Do you need your anti virus to detect a virus that is dead and can't replicate? It's useless? Why test against a corrupted damaged file?

Should an AV detect both the server and the client of a trojan? Do we need protection from obsolete viruses that can no longer run in windows?

Kaspersky does have the largest database I agree, however I'd say alot of it is useless archaic crap just like a large portion of his testbed.

I think the results are skewed, I don't doubt his results I just don't think they paint an accurate picture of the protection you recieve from an anti virus.

Grand Master

Tim Dorr Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

What about detection performance? I'm not going to install the best one if it slows my system to a halt. I've lived without an AV scanner installed for 5 years now over 3 different machines. Why should I start if it's going to degrade my system performance?

Grand Master

Chode

Posted
Posted

Why am I the only one who has noticed that their test machine was using only Windows XP Pro Service Pack 1, not Service Pack 2?

Since these tests take into account most forms of malware, and they are intentionally using an unpatched version of Windows, I call bull**** on these results. It's like if they were judging a virus scanner based off 3 year old virus definitions.

They can patch your machine up, do a nice long windows update, and then maybe I'd pay attention to it.

Veteran

Tokar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
how about mcafee enterprise 8.0i ?

kav's realtime scanning slows the system down as much as norton does if i remember correctly.

585826738[/snapback]

ive used both programs for long periods of time...im using KAV Personal now...

I have noticed no system slowdown.

Mentor

norseman

Posted
Posted

Detection and removal are 2 different things as well. In a real case scenario (Best Buy GeekSquad), we have worked on thousands of computers. Norton will only detect half of the viruses AVG / NOD32 will and if lucky remove half of them ones it finds. AVG and NOD32 can clean / remove all of the viruses found.

Both have a lot smaller footprint than that bloatware Norton. And yes I have played with the corporate copies and find little if no difference between the detection / removal of viruses. Yes it does have a smaller footprint and is faster in scanning. It is still a POS.

Most of the virus programs they listed are very poor products to be charging for.

Mcafee and Symantec products leading the way to the dump.

Mentor

struct

Posted
Posted
Read my comment -- I never said that.

585825653[/snapback]

it wasn't posed at you in particular, nor anyone. It was just the feeling I got from reading the thread.

dont care about tests i like nod32 been with it long time and never had any problem since that time

585826926[/snapback]

well by all means, keep using what you like!

Detection and removal are 2 different things as well. In a real case scenario (Best Buy GeekSquad), we have worked on thousands of computers. Norton will only detect half of the viruses AVG / NOD32 will and if lucky remove half of them ones it finds. AVG and NOD32 can clean / remove all of the viruses found.

Both have a lot smaller footprint than that bloatware Norton. And yes I have played with the corporate copies and find little if no difference between the detection / removal of viruses. Yes it does have a smaller footprint and is faster in scanning. It is still a POS.

Most of the virus programs they listed are very poor products to be charging for.

Mcafee and Symantec products leading the way to the dump.

585827337[/snapback]

that's certainly a nice theory. why don't you put up some hard numbers to show it like this guy is?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.