| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 116458 | 2011-03-04 21:16:00 | Latest PCworld Rubbish | wainuitech (129) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1183555 | 2011-03-06 00:53:00 | I stopped getting it when my free 6 month subscription ran out from when I entered the computer excellence awards 2008. I got a runners up thing. Buy the odd copy now and again, interesting to see whats happening with "project beast" looks just a wee bit like "project timid kitten" at the rate stuff is advancing. Was greatly amused when my school paid for the use of the program that won CEA... speaking of which what happed to the computer excellence awards? |
The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1183556 | 2011-03-06 20:25:00 | Hi folks, I had to laugh at the idea that advertisers influence who wins security tests . Have you seen who advertises on our back cover every issue? And the result they got in the test? That should put the kibosh on that idea, right there . I'd rather lose my advertisers than my readers' trust . I have to tell you, also, that I've tested antivirus myself, and would *love* if we could test suites locally . But it's incredibly intensive, and there's just three people working on PC World . We just don't have the resources . However, I would _not_ under any circumstance reprint test results I don't 100% trust . That's our credibility on the line there . I will not compromise it . Andreas Marx' testing is top notch . Go read his methodology and tell me what issues you have with the methodology . I'm more than happy to argue my case . I've argued with him over methodology in the past, and I'd do so again if I didn't feel it met my standards . I really understand people's reluctance over Norton, and I have issues - such as the nagware it puts on new machines - but the software is both affordable and performs well . I run three different antivirus suites on my various computers, and I have no complaints about Norton . I'm more than happy to print some folks thoughts - send 'em in to editor@pcworld . co . nz, and they'll help fill our letters page! The Zeditor |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1183557 | 2011-03-06 22:00:00 | This might be enlightening: pressf1.co.nz ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1183558 | 2011-03-06 22:07:00 | Just opened the mag and had a read, I echo Waiuni's sentiments exactly. :( | wratterus (105) | ||
| 1183559 | 2011-03-06 22:10:00 | I used to love buying PC World and used to ready the request for help to give me some ideas on problems that I may have. Now we get them on here in 5 minutes. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1183560 | 2011-03-06 22:34:00 | Don't say that, or they'll go the way of Experts-Exchange! ;) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1183561 | 2011-03-06 23:52:00 | I really understand people's reluctance over Norton, but the software is both affordable and performs well. I run three different antivirus suites on my various computers, and I have no complaints about Norton. I wouldn't touch Norton's if my life depended on it. Norton's does NOT perform well. Affordable? seriously? That has gotta be the biggest joke in history. I've seen countless computers brought to their knee's by Norton's. As soon as i uninstall it, everything works fine. There was one computer i had to fix that had nortons on it, graphics were flickering, it took ages to start up, things took forever to load. But as soon as i removed every trace of Norton's, it ran like brand new, and all the issues were gone. |
goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1183562 | 2011-03-06 23:55:00 | However, I would _not_ under any circumstance reprint test results I don't 100% trust. That's our credibility on the line there. I will not compromise it. Andreas Marx' testing is top notch. Go read his methodology and tell me what issues you have with the methodology. I'm more than happy to argue my case. I've argued with him over methodology in the past, and I'd do so again if I didn't feel it met my standards. Well Zara, that made my day :thumbs: You made a few comments regarding the tests and PC Worlds credibility with what is printed - so time to call the bluff :nerd: A simple question and I'm reasonably sure the testers cant honestly answer this, since controlled LAB tests will show differently to real world usage: (in fact please DO ask the question). Q. Why is it , if the Antivirus software that is lab tested, and meant to be the best, namely Norton, McAfee is consistently seen in Computer Repairers workshops or People who fix PC's totally riddled with malware, and trojans, to the point of disabling the software , and the PC brought to a crawl and totally unusable. Yet programs like Nod32, which are rated low Via LAB tests, have to be used to clean up the infections that disabled the previously mentioned software ? Edited: look forward to an honest answer. Cheers. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1183563 | 2011-03-07 00:33:00 | Well Zara, that made my day :thumbs: A simple question and I'm reasonably sure the testers cant honestly answer this, since controlled LAB tests will show differently to real world usage: (in fact please DO ask the question) . Q . Why is it , if the Antivirus software that is lab tested, and meant to be the best, namely Norton, McAfee is consistently seen in Computer Repairers workshops or People who fix PC's totally riddled with malware, and trojans, to the point of disabling the software , and the PC brought to a crawl and totally unusable . Yet programs like Nod32, which are rated low Via LAB tests, have to be used to clean up the infections that disabled the previously mentioned software ? Edited: look forward to an honest answer . Cheers . Hi Wainutech, 1 . Could you please provide references for your claim? 2 . Did you have any queries about Andreas Marx' methodology? I'm not sure why people are using "Lab tested" as some kind of epithet . What lab testing can't account for is user behaviour . If people using Norton are less experienced than people using NOD32, that may go some way to helping explain it . Let me expand: the kind of web threats that tend to infect computers these days have relatively low detection rates, by almost ALL products . Drive by downloads are often targeted and change frequently - if you've watched a dropper in action, you'll know what I mean . If you've read out "Most dangerous sites on the web" feature, you'll already know that some places are more at risk than others, and people can and do get infected regardless of the product they use (although AVG's live linkscanner is nifty in helping against this sort of thing) but the difference between a NOD32 user who may know how to clean their own computer if something goes wrong, and a Norton user who doesn't, explains the difference in how frequently these are seen at computer repairers . So, I guess I'm saying, can you demonstrate that the issue is with the product itself? I have lab tests that strongly suggest the problem is not the product . How about you? Additionally, there's the issue of different versions of the product . I'm more than happy to say NOD32 is great when it is - in previous years', it's been close to the top of the chart . This year? Not in our tests . So, maybe those anecdotes you relate are about last year's product? Again, without specific data to refute, it's hard, but I'm posing possibilities here . Best wishes, The Zeditor . |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1183564 | 2011-03-07 01:26:00 | 1. Could you please provide references for your claim? The link I provided was a good one. Many many screenshots of results, specifically where others have missed things and NOD32 being run afterwards cleans up. Happens for *every* anti-virus product out there, I believe even MSE included. 2. Did you have any queries about Andreas Marx' methodology? Yes, in list format :D 1) How does he do it? 2) Where did the samples come from? 3) How is he testing each AV product? 4) After installing and running through Product X, what else does he test with to see what it missed? 5) How are certain things treated where one virus infects the registry multiple times, some products count that as "one" infection, others count it as a hundred-odd. 6) Has he differentiated between Malware, PUPs, Spyware, Viruses, Trojans and rootkits? Or just thrown them all under the "virus" umbrella? Side-question: What browser / setup was he using to make NOD32 prompt him several times? I've done it in both IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera. At worst, you enter it once to download, then once to register in the actual software. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||