From: PajaP on
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests
Choose the report for 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' and download the PDF.

This is their most recent 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' from December
2009.

To quote AV Comparatives "The goal of this Whole Product Dynamic Test is
to compare the protection offered by various security solutions, by
testing them under real-world conditions"

I am sure some may find the results surprising, especially as some of
the long-term players in the AV game (regularly promoted here) scored
the same or just 1% more than a more recent and free offering. I am sure
you know which one I mean.
From: Buffalo on


PajaP wrote:
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests
> Choose the report for 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' and download the
> PDF.
>
> This is their most recent 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' from December
> 2009.
>
> To quote AV Comparatives "The goal of this Whole Product Dynamic Test
> is to compare the protection offered by various security solutions, by
> testing them under real-world conditions"
>
> I am sure some may find the results surprising, especially as some of
> the long-term players in the AV game (regularly promoted here) scored
> the same or just 1% more than a more recent and free offering. I am
> sure you know which one I mean.

It's too bad the free Avira wasn't tested.
Thanks for the link.
Buffalo


From: Leythos on
In article <ur4vj5truspdamkkjq6iotntp61trs6ol6(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news-
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests
> Choose the report for 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' and download the PDF.
>
> This is their most recent 'Whole Product Dynamic Test' from December
> 2009.
>
> To quote AV Comparatives "The goal of this Whole Product Dynamic Test is
> to compare the protection offered by various security solutions, by
> testing them under real-world conditions"
>
> I am sure some may find the results surprising, especially as some of
> the long-term players in the AV game (regularly promoted here) scored
> the same or just 1% more than a more recent and free offering. I am sure
> you know which one I mean.

And you're showing that you're not seeing the entire picture again -
look at the 2009 summary report - if you can find it, look at the 2008
summary report... You will see a trend and that will be what you want to
base current and future performance on, not a one-time result.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: PajaP on
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:00:30 -0700, "Buffalo" <Eric(a)nada.com.invalid>
wrote:

>It's too bad the free Avira wasn't tested.
>Thanks for the link.

Maybe not the free one but they are testing their flagship 'paid-for'
product. I would expect the free would achieve similar results.

The summary Report for 2009 is also very interesting reading.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports
(top link is the one for 2009)

Interestingly Avira was in second spot last year. Nowhere near it this
year.
Gets just 2 Adv+ ratings compared to Microsoft's 4 Adv+ (though MS does
get Std for 2 awards).
Microsoft gets two gold awards. Avira just one.

My findings from reading this report and other reviews across the
Internet:

Avira has commendable high detection results but is let down by its
false positives (very annoying and is one of the biggest complaints I
read about Avira). Thankfully its saving grace is it has a low impact on
system resources (for most systems but not all, I can vouch for that).

Microsoft has very good detection rates with very good removal
capabilities and a low false detection rate. It has a low impact on
system resources, though there are a few postings here and there where
it is claimed to use quite a lot (I can vouch that it uses low resources
on my system and is barely noticeable in operation).

Lets not forget though the Microsoft software is *free* and MS is fairly
new to the AV game.

To me what this shows is MSE is on the way up and could mean Avira is on
the way down. Not because Avira has become a bad product, just the
competition has upped it game. Hopefully Avira can turn it around again
in 2010 but I am sticking with Microsoft (for now).
From: Leythos on
In article <t8v1k5t67sa5st281id2dofq95napgu2r3(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news-
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> Interestingly Avira was in second spot last year. Nowhere near it this
> year.
> Gets just 2 Adv+ ratings compared to Microsoft's 4 Adv+ (though MS does
> get Std for 2 awards).
> Microsoft gets two gold awards. Avira just one.
>

And even more interesting that Symantec gets great marks, but in all my
years of working with AV and secure networks, Symantec is the product
that let me down and Avira caught the malware and blocked it.

You're missing something on MS Performance, it didn't rank in the top 3,
but, as a number of us have told you, Avira is the winner on Overall
Performance and LOW SYSTEM IMPACT.

To me, this means that MS doesn't have the performance or low-overhead
that Avira does, and my own testing, while only MY TESTING, shows that
MS doesn't come close to defending a system as well as Avira or even
Symantec End Point Protection.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)