| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 65046 | 2006-01-05 18:43:00 | Which one is the best anti-virus software? | polo (6383) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 418475 | 2006-01-05 23:07:00 | Yes. Metla. End of story. |
mark c (247) | ||
| 418476 | 2006-01-05 23:22:00 | Etrust from CA | beama (111) | ||
| 418477 | 2006-01-05 23:38:00 | Kaspersky and McAfee are the best since they detect at about 99.3 % of the virus. NOD32 I heard they don't scan inside archives. | lightfoot (39) | ||
| 418478 | 2006-01-06 00:38:00 | As usual,so true Met. :thumbs: | Cicero (40) | ||
| 418479 | 2006-01-06 00:44:00 | Kaspersky and McAfee are the best since they detect at about 99.3 % of the virus. NOD32 I heard they don't scan inside archives.You heard wrong | Rob99 (151) | ||
| 418480 | 2006-01-06 02:24:00 | You heard wrong 1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28% 2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93% 3. F-Secure 2005 version 5.10.450 - 97.55% 4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.518.8 - 96.75% 5. Norton Corporate version 9.0.3.1000 - 91.64% 6. Norton Professional version 2005 - 91.57% 7. McAfee version 9.0.10 - 89.75% 8. Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31% 9. BitDefender version 8.0.137 - 88.13% 10. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 87.87% 11. Panda Platinum 2005 version 9.01.02 - 87.75% 12. Arcavir - 87.73% 13. MKS_VIR 2005 - 87.70% 14. RAV version 8.6.105 - 87.26% 15. F-Prot version 3.16b - 87.07% 16. Panda Titanium version 4.01.02 - 86.27% 17. PC-Cillin 2005 version 12.1.1034 - 85.98% 18. Nod32 version 2.12.4 - 85.66% 19. Command version 4.92.7 - 84.92% 20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50% 21. Avast version 4.6.623 - 79.65% 22. Dr. Web version 4.32b - 78.71% 23. Sophos Sweep version 3.91 - 73.79% 24. UNA version 1.83 - 73.49% 25. BullGuard version 4.5 - 70.24% 26. Norman version 5.80.05 - 65.32% 27. Ikarus version 5.16 - 60.97% 28. AVG version 7.0.308 - 54.07% 29. E-Trust version 7.0.5.3 - 52.35% 30. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 5.5.062.011 - 52.32% 31. Vexira 2005 version 5.0.56 - 51.74% 32. VirusBuster 2005 version 5.0.147 - 51.51% 33. Solo 3.0 version 2.7.1 - 49.16% 34. Fire version 2.7 - 48.86% 35. ClamWin version 0.83 - 48.44% 36. Digital Patrol version 5.00.08 - 48.10% 37. V-Buster Pro - 46.33% 38. Protector Plus version 7.2.G01 - 45.81% 39. V3Pro 2004 - 38.87% 40. Ewido version 3.0 - 38.67% 41. ViRobot Expert version 4.0 - 38.10% 42. Quick Heal version 7.03 - 37.75% 43. VirScan Plus version 14.703 - 36.20% 44. MR2S version 2.0.104 - 35.05% 45. RHBVS version 4.60.821 - 32.96% 46. A Squared 2 version 1.6 - 25.37% 47. VirIT version 5.2.10 - 22.83% 48. TDS version 3.2.0 - 21.09% 49. Wave version 2.0 - 16.49% 50. AntiTrojan Shield version 1.4.0.15 - 11.91% 51. PC Door Guard version 3.0.0.15- 11.91% 52. Trojan Hunter version 4.2.908 - 10.19% 53. Tauscan version 1.70.1414 - 6.99% 54. Trojan Remover version 6.3.6 - 6.67% 55. The Cleaner version 4.1.42.52 - 6.28% 56. IP Armor version 5.46.0703 - 2.77% 57. Hacker Eliminator version 1.2 - 2.67% 58. Anti-Hacker & Trojan Expert 2003 version 1.6 - 0% I have tried McAfee and Norton. I refer McAfee than Norton. Not sure why McAfee got low score. May be it is a non-corp version. But it also depends on who does the testing. However, most gave Kaspersky and McAfee good scores. |
lightfoot (39) | ||
| 418481 | 2006-01-06 02:37:00 | Norton and Macafee rated higher then Nod32? Damn, that would be funny if it wasn't so damn stupid. You heard wrong, Your list is dismissed as madness. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 418482 | 2006-01-06 02:45:00 | Norton and Macafee rated higher then Nod32? Damn, that would be funny if it wasn't so damn stupid . You heard wrong, Your list is dismissed as madness . I'd like to see some data from some tester please? I forgot to give the link to that test: . virus . gr/english/fullxml/default . asp?id=69&mnu=69" target="_blank">www . virus . gr check it out . Anyone got other test? |
lightfoot (39) | ||
| 418483 | 2006-01-06 02:46:00 | while nortons and macafee may detect at such good rates, they are not much good if the AV program don't run or continuly stuff up your pc ! :D read the list with a huge grain of salt. eveyone test them differently and the versions they test are most often not what you have on your pc. by the time they publish the reveiw the AV program has gone onto another ver. you also have to take into account of what settings are used. some makers tweak the settings so they work faster, but don't check certain things. a good eg of how inaccurate testing can be..... they even list panda on that list, i could never get it to even RUN, let alone find a virus. realworld testing is far better than any lab testing. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 418484 | 2006-01-06 02:49:00 | You have some, you posted it, That sort of dribble means nothing. There test are performed by throwing virus signitures at a computer with a band new install of the OS and Anti-virus program. Out in the real world we are constantly using NOD32 to remove multiple viruses that the likes of Macafee and Norton are oblivious to, meaning the above findings are worthless. If you really want it I have multiple items of marketing from Nod32 that show nod32 to be the "best", but thats worthless as well imo. Real world is the only place that counts. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||