Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Antivirus Subscription

Reply
Thread Tools

Antivirus Subscription

 
 
gangle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
"°Mike°" wrote
> ...I base my "assumption" on facts -- I have tested the products myself,
> and I tell you that Avast is crap.


I hope you used condoms while doing all this testing.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bassbag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:19:35 -0000, in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> bassbag scrawled:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:57 -0000, in
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> bassbag scrawled:
> >>
> >> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:46:13 -0000, in
> >> >> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> >> bassbag scrawled:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Whats misleading? about a product that fails for throwing up a false
> >> >positive with "100% detection of every virus in every category" , and
> >> >another wins because it doesnt throw up a false positive but fails to
> >> >detect 299 viruses?
> >>
> >> Like I said, you are missing the fine print. The Virus Bulletin was/is based
> >> on an "in the wild" list. The supposed 'failures' fell outside of that list, and
> >> that is the cause of the odd looking results. The "wild list" is standard
> >> practice for these kind of tests.
> >>
> >> >They are the best thermometer for an AV that complies with thier testing
> >> >criteria...nothing else.
> >> >me
> >>

> >Ive read the fine print , and i see that you understand the fineprint

>
> It appears that you don't.
>
> >too, but you miss the point.

>
> No, *you* keep missing it. NOD32 detected viruses NOT included
> in the wild list.
>
> >The fact is that most people (including myself in the past) directed to the
> >VBA results look at the lists and only see "pass" and "fail" and base an avs
> >performance on that.I dont how many times ive seen people recommend
> >an av based on how many passes or fails they see at VBA 100, and the
> >example i pointed out concerning norton passing when it failed to detect 299
> >virus ,while esets nod32 failed because it brought up a single false positive
> >but detected EVERY virus in the same tests is beyond belief.

>
> Go back and read *all* of the facts again.
>
> >Now if that was clearly documented next to the result ,there would be no
> >issue .Your first post suggesting "avast is crap" and pointing to the link you
> >provided to back up your assumption (i.e 7 passes and 18 fails) means
> >absolutely nothing

>
> I base my "assumption" on facts -- I have tested the products myself,
> and I tell you that Avast is crap. You're just going to keep spouting the
> same old rubbish, aren't you? I see there's no reasoning with you.
>
> > as avast may have detected all viruses but failed on one false positive.
> >Thats why its easy to be misled by the results shown there.
> >me

>
> Now, why don't you go away and do some extensive research and testing
> of your own, and *then* see if you have the same views about Avast,
> or the VB results in general.
>
>

No need to be rude.I understand your frustration at being wrong but get
over it.Wheres your proof that "NOD32 detected viruses NOT included in
the wild list".???????????The article link i gave you says this..let me
remind you...
quote..
2. In a letter published in the November 1999 issue, Symantec's Eric
Chien proposed that an antivirus program which produced one false
positive (ie: tagged a file as virus-infected when it wasn't) should be
disqualified from winning the VB100 award, regardless of its detection
performance. I didn't really pay much attention to this at the time ...
an occasional false positive is trivial when stacked up alongside a heap
of missed viruses, and I didn't think Virus Bulletin's technical guys
would go along with such a daft proposal ... but I was wrong. The "one
false positive equals disqualification" rule was introduced, making the
online presentation of the VB100 Award even more misleading than before
.... in fact it put a whole new meaning on the word "misleading" ... in
November 2000, although NOD32 was the only antivirus program in the world
which made a clean sweep of 100% detection of every virus in every
category, it was disqualified from winning the VB100 due to a false
positive, while Symantec's Norton AntiVirus failed to detect a whopping
299 viruses but still won the VB100"

Notice that nod32 detected "100% of EVERY virus in EVERY category.The
fact that you performed your own tests is irrelevant.We are talking about
the VB1OO awards which you point newbies to,to back up your flawed
assumptions.If you really want to be useful in helping people make thier
own minds up whether an AV is good or not ,then give them ALL the facts
on how the VB1OO award is attained ( though personally i think you
probably didnt know yourself).
Topic closed
me

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2003
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:58:47 -0800, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
gangle scrawled:

>"°Mike°" wrote
>> ...I base my "assumption" on facts -- I have tested the products myself,
>> and I tell you that Avast is crap.

>
>I hope you used condoms while doing all this testing.


I always wear a vast condom.

 
Reply With Quote
 
JWooden271
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
>Hi
>My Norton Antivirus is due for renewal in a couple of days. Is there a
>less costly company to use that does the same thing, Thanks in anticipation
>& Merry Christmas
>Jan


There are lots of free alternatives to Norton.

I use AVG Antivirus, available from www.grisoft.com

Another freebie antivirus program is "EZ Armor", available at:
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/index.cfm?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Morgan Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003

"JWooden271" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >Hi
> >My Norton Antivirus is due for renewal in a couple of days. Is there a
> >less costly company to use that does the same thing, Thanks in

anticipation
> >& Merry Christmas
> >Jan

>
> There are lots of free alternatives to Norton.
>
> I use AVG Antivirus, available from www.grisoft.com
>
> Another freebie antivirus program is "EZ Armor", available at:
> http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/index.cfm?
>
>


I went through the same thing about 3 months ago and I switched to AVG Pro
7. It is only £26 (about half the price of Norton), last for 2 years (not
just 1 like Norton) and includes all new versions released (again unlike
Norton as you dont get a free upgrade to 2004 if it is released within a
year of you buying 2003!).

I am very happy with it. it is stable, has constant updates and uses very
little system resources. I also really like its UI however it isnt for
every. It has lots of options for you to play with also which is cool


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Personal Antivirus Removal Guide (Remove fake rogue spyware calledpersonal antivirus) dfinc Cisco 7 08-06-2009 04:10 AM
Newsgroup subscription filter Spacen Jasset Firefox 0 01-16-2005 03:25 PM
symantec: norton antivirus versus norton antivirus corporate alexander rickert Computer Information 3 11-03-2004 09:37 PM
Sophos AntiVirus Vs Norton AntiVirus Tim Computer Support 7 08-16-2003 11:19 PM
Antivirus Questions - Norton Antivirus xmldso.cab file. Symevent? Nicole Kidman Computer Support 1 08-16-2003 06:13 PM



Advertisments