Anybody read this review...?

[jhiker]

The new issue of 'Computer Shopper' (at least I think it's Computer Shopper and not Computer Buyer - they are very similar) has just group tested leading a/v suites with particular emphasis on detecting Trojans. Avast gets completely hammered and comes out with a one-star rating. I've been a satisified Avast (Home) user for years and it's kept me out of trouble on several occasions. I've always been quite happy with it but it is really so much less effective than other a/v programs. I notice Kaspersky comes out particularly well and even AVG gets rated more highly.
Anybody else read the review?

[RejZoR]

These magazine tests are mostly full of shit (not nice word but thats how it is).
I trust only av-comparatives.org tests.

[jhiker]

Why?
Would you care to expand on that?

[FreewheelinFrank]

Computer Shopper is one of the leading computing magazines here in the UK, and, with respect, that sort of dismissal is not going to carry much weight with its readers.

[TAP]

In my opinion, most of tests/reviews from such magazine were not done by *real-antivirus experts* (real-antivirus experts such as Joe Wells, the founder of the WildList Organization), to make thing short, reviewers/testers from such magazine don't really know what they say or do, they just use their personal opinions or personal experiences that may based on wrong knowledge.

Do you think who can test/review an antivirus software better than real-antivirus experts who really know how malware and antivirus software work? 

[OrangeCrate]

Tap,

Your comments aroused my interest. I went to the WildList Organization website, and couldn't find any AV program reviews.

Would you be able to point me to a link where Joe Wells comments on avast!?

Thanks.

[FreewheelinFrank]

[Edit: I was actually refering to Tap's post here: sorry for any confusion!]

I don't really have much time for that sort of argument, sorry. I doubt if anybody would be claiming that authors from a major magazine "don't really know what they say or do, they just use their personal opinions or personal experiences that may based on wrong knowledge" if avast! had come out well.

Not so long ago people here were making excuses for avast! not passing the in-the-wild virus test, now people congratulate avast! when it passes.

I haven't read the review (I'll have to go out and buy the mag) but I'm certainly not going to dismiss it out of hand. avast! certainly needs to improve its detection rate, and I'm sure the writers at Computer Shopper know what they are doing.

[OrangeCrate]

Computer Shopper is one of the leading computing magazines here in the UK, and, with respect, that sort of dismissal is not going to carry much weight with its readers.

Frank,

I'm confused. If Computer Shopper is one of the leading computing magazines in the UK, why would their readers dismiss an article that trashes avast!?

Edit:

Frank, See post below.

[jhiker]

TAP

Hang on a minute..
It may be a simplistic view but surely an objective test - either a trojan is detected or it isn't.
Are you really telling me that it's possible to 'influence' the results to such an extent by doctoring the tests or manipulating the a/v sensitivity settings or something?
Even if it were, what's to be gained in a so called 'independent test' carried out by a respectable publication.

BTW - I looked at some past results on a-vcomparitives and Avast does indeed seem to score quite low for Trojan detection. I'm sure the Avast developers are aware of this and striving to improve things. I'm not denigrating Avast - i like it - I just want it to be the best!

[Bascule]

I picked this up in the News Agents today and leafed through.

I'm normally one for checking out the mags and reviews before going for a product and I've been using Avast! for a couple of years without any problems. So based on that I walked away thinking "must download Kaspersky tonight - what's £18 for a year when the product is streets ahead of Avast!"

But then I got to thinking. The results of that test seem to be at odds with pretty much everything else I've read, including other independent comparisons so perhaps I should stick with Avast! after all. I'm not sure what to do. Those mags do wield a lot of power when they publish this stuff and they really should do it responsibly.

 

[TAP]

Tap,

Your comments aroused my interest. I went to the WildList Organization website, and couldn't find any AV program reviews.

Would you be able to point me to a link where Joe Wells comments on avast!?

Thanks.

No, I didn't mean Joe Wells comments on avast! or something like this or the WildList Organization has any antivirus reviews. I just say I want real-antivirus experts who have more credibility in AV industry such as Joe Wells (and others) to do the most correct tests/reviews.

I don't applaud people or magazine who say avast! is good and blame others who say avast! is bad, I have to know how their methodologies that make such results. If their methodologies are acceptable and avast! fails, I would blame avast! for its flaws, but if their methodologies are flaw and avast! fails so is it fair for avast!?

And what I said in Reply #4 is just my opinion, anyone can or cannot freely agree.

[OrangeCrate]

Frank,

Never mind, I lost continuity between your post and RejZoR's (?).

Sorry.

[polonus]

Hi jhiker,

I also question the objectivity of such tests. What would you think that you have two of these tests and Bitdefender in the one test is number one, and in the other test is number final. It says something about the credibility. And then it is what you get out of the virus zoo to test the darned scanners with (in the wild). Furthermore you cannot compare apples with pears (heuristic scanners, the amount of packers detected, on the fly scanning, shortly there are so many features a scanner could have, how do you weigh the results?).
Don't pay too much attention, better put energy into a question how do I achieve the best results on my machine in the way of multilevel-protection.
I think if you have for instance one resident scanner like Avast, together with one non-resident open source solution like ClamWin, some online scanner regularly like BitDefender together with stinger.exe, and the free downloaded DrWebCureIt, together with in-browser script protection and siteadvisor, hyperlink pre-scanning installed, WebShield active, I think in that case we are talking shop, you are well protected, and you need not worry about test results. That is all IMHO.

polonus

[jhiker]

Joe Wells isn't sat at my computer... I am.

It's me who's doing the real-world testing on a day-to-day basis and I want to be sure I'm protected as well as I can be whether it's with Avast or an alternative...

[jhiker]

I think if you have for instance one resident scanner like Avast, together with one non-resident open source solution like ClamWin, some online scanner regularly like BitDefender together with stinger.exe, and the free downloaded DrWebCureIt, together with in-browser script protection and siteadvisor, hyperlink pre-scanning installed, WebShield active, I think in that case we are talking shop, you are well protected, and you need not worry about test results. That is all IMHO.

polonus

...or Kaspersky..?