Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 121414	2011-10-25 07:01:00	Antivirus	dianne pierce (13385)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1239783	2011-11-05 15:58:00	wainuitech well, I understand what are you saying, but i don't have my own workshop and i can't make all the tests you are doing, I acn't aregue with what you are saying because i have no possibility to do same tests myself, I wrote from my experience, and it was 100% effective. It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources. Finally i hope to test all those things that you said in your posts but before that I still prefer BD to nod, avast, avira ... A word of warning. Don't bother arguing with someone that knows what they are talking about. As for business PC's I have seen a lot that are complete dogs.	mikebartnz (21)
1239784	2011-11-05 18:02:00	mikebartnz whats bad in arguing? i said what i thought they told me their version and proved with their testings that i was wrong, I think It was pretty interesting	chumscrubber (16416)
1239785	2011-11-05 19:24:00	Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1239786	2011-11-05 20:15:00	I will say this, bit Defender has improved since I tested it quite a way back and it was a failure in many ways then. If I had to make a choice over BD or Norton ( which is meant to be the Bees knees) Bit Defender would be the better option. We have already agreed that No one AV will be perfect. One of the biggest failures that Bit Defender did was allow a slaved drive to infect the host drive when it was attached, where as Nod32 detected and killed it right away. Preventing infections getting in is the biggest challenge to any AV company, allowing a drive to become infected, then trying to clean it afterwards is no good at all. In BD case, it missed it completely and didn't even detect it, which being an active infection it should have.	wainuitech (129)
1239787	2011-11-05 21:00:00	I wonder how many of the big corporate & government pc's are running nortons.	Driftwood (5551)
1239788	2011-11-05 23:21:00	I wonder how many of the big corporate & government pc's are running nortons. The mind boggles.	mikebartnz (21)
1239789	2011-11-05 23:34:00	I wonder what Miss Pearce thinks of all this?	Cicero (40)
1239790	2011-11-06 06:37:00	Yeah, she wil be wondering what she started. But its the same can of worms that seems to get opened about once a week.	Driftwood (5551)
1239791	2011-11-06 21:37:00	wainuitech It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources . Unfortunately, many business's (Ak) have woefully old & underpowered PC . Im talking 8 year old PC's that only get replaced when they die . Many laptops struggle with modern resource hungry software . The true test of any AV, is in the wild across manys hundreds of Pc's in many different companies & environments (NOT YOUR 1 PC) . Thats why the regulars hear swear by NOD . They have it installed on MANY HUNDREDS of PC's . I agree with the comments that some particular AV results or infections found may be completely irrelevant, eg cookies often show as 'infections' with some AV/antimalware and one popular free AV has more false positives than the rest . However, what relevance in the time taken to manual scan a PC ??? why do you care ?? The scan time would probhably be due to the default setting of the AV . Some AV are set to manual scan more files than others . Some may not scan Compressed files with default setting & be much quicker . You want fast, dont scan any MP3's or photos . They alone can take hours if you have alot of them . Ive seen many infected 'mp3' files . Dont use the default settings for manual scans . Set to scan ALL FILES then Walk away for 4 hours+ Set to all files any AV will taken a long long long time to finish a manual scan .	1101 (13337)
1 2 3 4 5