| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 124532 | 2012-05-01 08:23:00 | AVG Free | lakewoodlady (103) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1273133 | 2012-05-01 08:23:00 | Yes, but how did it really stack up! What did they test it against? pcworld.co.nz LL |
lakewoodlady (103) | ||
| 1273134 | 2012-05-01 09:41:00 | Wonder how much AVG paid the Author and PCWorld to say that :) | Iantech (16386) | ||
| 1273135 | 2012-05-01 09:48:00 | They obviously didn't test Microsoft Security Essentials | Greven (91) | ||
| 1273136 | 2012-05-01 09:57:00 | These so called tests are NOT done by the publication that actually puts them out. Its been proven time and time again they are simply a test that some place has done. like always they are done under so called controlled conditions, which dont and cant replicate real world usage. One article I was reading stated they do quick scans on infected drives -- well "whip de do", anyone who knows anything about a antivirus/ Malware scans can tell you "quick scans" do bugger all, only full scans will give real results. You want proof that just about every magazine uses the same article , but may change just the odd word, take a look at the link in that article, there is a link saying "free anti-virus you can trust' Now go to that page, copy the following words from the article there "You want security software that’s as close to perfect as possible. After all, if just a single piece of malware slips through your defenses, it can wreak havoc on your PC. The question is, how close to perfect is free antivirus software?" Do a google search and watch how many different publications all have just about the exact same wording for "their" articles. ;) What a joke AVG also scans a PC relatively quickly. When we directed it to check 4.5GB of data, it sped through the job in 1 minute, 35 seconds, lol most of the time data is not where infections are, they are usually scattered throughout the operating system. BTW -- The 2 PC's I have had to reinstall this week and its only Tuesday had AVG the latest version totally screwed by infections - real good eh!! |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1273137 | 2012-05-01 12:04:00 | AVG scans in 1 min 35 sec. Must be good - ha ha. Wainuitech has the best knowledge on these matters, because he does real testing in the real world. | nerd89 (14761) | ||
| 1273138 | 2012-05-01 12:46:00 | **** 100 seconds is sweet. It took me 2 hours to scan 500mb properly. | Slankydudl (16687) | ||
| 1273139 | 2012-05-01 23:13:00 | AVG has always been mediocre | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1273140 | 2012-05-02 00:08:00 | AVG has always been mediocre I'm not so sure, when it first came out prior to MSE existing it was probably the best free option around and got good reviews for several years. Can't really complain about the price either. In the last few years it's slipped a bit and they have added a bunch of annoying features but the main killer has been MSE which in general has just been better. I'd use avast or avg still if MSE wasn't free, you just have to pay attention to the options when installing to avoid the optional crap but any antivirus is probably better than none. You can still use windows defender with the other free anti-virus software as well (MSE disables it because it duplicates the function). |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1273141 | 2012-05-02 07:03:00 | When I bought my first computer, AVG free was fast and good. Later, AVG became fast & useless then later still, AVG became slow & useless. | Greven (91) | ||
| 1273142 | 2012-05-02 07:55:00 | AVG used to be the best free AV, but I now use MSSE and always recommend it as the best free. LL |
lakewoodlady (103) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||