Sixteen Antivirus Solutions Put to the Test

Originally Posted by TheCommander

Norton's current AV program works well. I've been using it and it does not take up as mnay resources or is as bloated as the previous versions.

But can it Stop Dokken?

Originally Posted by MrGuvernment

i don't think people are taking it too seriously, just seems too many people are so fast to write off the top 3 and the results MUST of been paid for cause it is IMPOSSIBLE that MS or Symantec could ever make a good product

Those are the same people that never worked in DOS and don't have any clue of what Norton used to be.

Norton 2010 is some of the best i've seen in my experience with avs. Period.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

Originally Posted by MrGuvernment

Yes i know their past products have been bloated, but they detection rate has been good always from anything have read for viruses (maybe not as much as malware /spyware) but most apps werent good at the last 2 until recently.

Just because their past sucked doesn't mean you should write off their current line, especially when reliable sites say otherwise.

that is kind of my point, they have a history of suckage. if their current one is good what about the next one? this is one area in which reliability weighs more then current performance.

and as far as what reliable sites a good many people have said here have agreed that their real world detection rate just isn't on par with the others. this is from experience and not some predetermined test. The simple fact is that I have gotten more work from computers with norton failing that can simply be explained by its complacency. I don't need maleware removed. I can always manually fix a system even if I have to recover the data and then DD the disk. and there is no questions using that method. as others have said an anti virus program's worth is its proactive abilities, not it recovery capabilities.

Originally Posted by Outamyhead

Yeah I can't believe it either, it is totally useless at blocking Anti-virus 2010 and previous versions, or Windows Security, I haven't found anything that can yet.

I'll agree with you here. AVs aren't doing too well against this AV2009/2010 malware because new variants pop up everyday and they're a PITA to clean from a machine.

But I believe PrevX is doing well against these types of infections because of its heuristics/detection capabilities. Recommended by quite a few people on wilderssecurity.

I like to complain about the little things: like why the hell did they put it in pdf form? Way harder to read/compare

Originally Posted by Dev1ant

I'll agree with you here. AVs aren't doing too well against this AV2009/2010 malware because new variants pop up everyday and they're a PITA to clean from a machine.

But I believe PrevX is doing well against these types of infections because of its heuristics/detection capabilities. Recommended by quite a few people on wilderssecurity.

That virus in particular is what I'm talking about. Norton just doesn't do well against it. If it wasn't so prevelant there probably wouldn't be an issue. However, I"ve had to clean that one off many many times. I just reimaged a machine yesterday because of it. I could have cleaned it off with another tool but i was so fed up it was just easier to reimage.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

The test is pretty much worthless.

No detection rate results --instead they used viruses every program could identify.

No measure of system resource usage --their "best" program could (theoretically) slow your system down by 20%, compared to 5% for the second or third-best.

No measure of scanning speed.

No measure of how often signature updates are provided.

No measure of how good heuristic scanning capability is.

No comments on ease-of-use.

this.

Originally Posted by firas

this.

that?

Originally Posted by Valset

they may have not paid for it and Norton may have improved buy anti virus programs need to be reliable and norton is just not. one good year out of how many bad ones? I am sorry but one of the first things I do with a clients computer is remove the norton products. even if they are currently good I don't need hit and miss protection software. Avast has been good in my experience as well as others. a good anti virus coupled with a good malware program is a better solution then notron, not to mention free to non business users.

Avast good ? You're kidding right? Too many false positives for me, it's just barely better than nothing

I'm not a fan of Symantecs AV products either, we use Endpoint at work and it pretty much only "catches" stuff after the fact, not good in my organization with thousands of PC's and servers. Unfortunately it's what we have to run.

Never even heard of Escan who the hell are they ?

I've been using Nod32 for years and have been infection free or if something tries to do a drive by install off the web Nod32 and UAC both stop it in it's tracks.

I'm actually getting ready to give MSE a try as I've heard nothing but good things about it.

Originally Posted by Kangg

Avast good ? You're kidding right? Too many false positives for me, it's just barely better than nothing

I'm not a fan of Symantecs AV products either, we use Endpoint at work and it pretty much only "catches" stuff after the fact, not good in my organization with thousands of PC's and servers. Unfortunately it's what we have to run.

Never even heard of Escan who the hell are they ?

I've been using Nod32 for years and have been infection free or if something tries to do a drive by install off the web Nod32 and UAC both stop it in it's tracks.

I'm actually getting ready to give MSE a try as I've heard nothing but good things about it.

I have had nothing but success with it. usually install it with a 3rd party malware program. I haven't had an issue with false positives myself (not saying that you haven't) but they beat the crap out of misses.