PC antivirus software question

Page 1 of 6  

I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008 Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
thanks for all your input.
steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"

What is "not so great" about what you are using?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Get and read the latest issue of Consumer Reports. They did an extensive comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and for sale. They liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down on Norton/Symantec (the suite I use) and also down on Trend PCCillin, the product I previously used but found way too slow and buggy.
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and accurate analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why do you say that? For many years, most folks have found much of their info pretty accurate...the magazine's knee-jerk liberal belief that government regulation is the answer to all marketplace problems notwithstanding...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/12/2008 11:23 AM snipped-for-privacy@dog.com spake thus:

And why is that? Please explain. As I understand it, they actually *test* the products that they compare, which is more than can be said for a lot of the idle speculators one hears from, oh, I don't know, in forums like this ...
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:36:58 -0700, David Nebenzahl

The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely laughable.
If you want to believe they have a clue, then by all means, follow them wherever they go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And what about guys who post broad, sweeping generalizations-- just their opinion, really-- and glaringly don't support them with any data ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just because I don't feel obligated to spoon feed you, doesn't mean what I said is not valid.
Consumer reports has made an art form out of comparing items based on data points that are often of no consequence, while ignoring features and elements of performance that are vital to a real evaluation. They also often make GLARING errors that expose their shoddy practices.
No, I'm not going to sit here for hours typing up a synopsis of all their many gaffsgaffs.
Here's one described briefly:
Two VCR's - one gets top rating and one gets bottom. They praise certain features on the top rated unit that they casitgate on the bottom rated unit. Top rated has a much better picture, faster rewind, and so on compared to the bottiom rated unit. Only problem is.... drumroll... They are the exact same unit internally with slightly altered cosmetics and a different brand name on the front. They even use the same service literature and part numbers for servicing. They are built in the same factory on the same assembly line.
Consumer Reports writer asks as he punches in for work, "Okay, what am I an expert on today?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Salty Dog,
I. for one, put quite a bit of value on Consumer Reports and their reviews. Since I have been working as a electrical engineer in hardware design since the 1960s, and have been subscribing to their publication since the early 1970s, I have found their testing approach to be, for virtually all things I am professionally aware of, scientifically sound, not ":completely laughable" as you state. Their journalism is also fair and balanced. They have a substantial testing organization staffed by many engineers, a large set of laboratories, and a total willingness to go to outside testing firms including the one I was employed by, to have specific testing done which exceeds their in-house staff or facilities.
I do not always agree with their outcomes, and also do not always agree with their metrics or discriminants, since I may personally put a much higher value on some feature or performance than they do. Such is the nature of making comparisons. I do, however, find their results often correlate with my own experiences, and have used them as a buying guide for many major purchases.
Dismissing Consumer Reports entirely is a very narrow and unreasonably dismissive attitude in my opinion. For antivirus software, I put a great deal more value in their opinions than I do of those computer publications which often have their own advertising agendas, and favor products which pay their bills. PC Magazine and others would have you believe that Trend Micro PC-Cillin is a great product, yet both me and the original poster found out exactly the opposite after spending $50 or $60.
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good for you. I don't. YMMV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

What gives you that impression of them? If they had advertising, which they don't, I might have a tendency to agree but without the advertising I find them to be pretty "straight up" and reliable.
Now, let's hear your reasoning.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IGot2P wrote:

Experience. Every time I've trusted Consumer Reports I've gotten burned.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Oh, I might trust them on household appliances and similar things, but when it comes to cars and electronics, forget it. Anybody else remember their silly rollover stunt with those stupid outriggers that raised the mini-SUV's CG a foot or so? Like articles in newspapers, whenever they write about something that I actually have some expertise on or witnessed, I find myself saying 'that ain't right...' And their reliability ratings are meaningless, like any self-selected polling pool.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And their

I entirely disagree. They gather annual reliability data from 100's of thousands of readers through a 4 to 6 page survey form, and publish an analysis of the results. You may call their ratings "meaningless", but I will take them any day as a lot better reference than any other source I am aware of. Can you name a better database of reliability info for consumer products? For that matter, can you name "ANY" other source of reliability data on consumer items other than your typical anecdotal opinions of a salesperson or neighbor?
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smarty wrote:

You mean besides J.D. Power & Associates?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

John,
Hardly!! They have no reliability data whatsoever I am aware of. Any by the way, can you show me the link to their comparison of PC antivirus software products? No you can't, because there isn't any such review. They are profoundly smaller in scope compared to Consumer's Union. They deal much more heavily with 'Consumer Satisfaction', a very useful metric for sure, but they are not in the same engineering, publication, or investigative reporting business as Consumer's Reports / CU at all.
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smarty wrote:

Well, now we know that your research skills are on a par with those of Consumer Reports.

Would you provide one credible link to support the contention that PC antivirus products suffer mechanical failure?

The issue was determination of reliability via consumer polling, not "engineering, publication, or investigative reporting".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

John,
JD Powers makes no claims to measure reliability, a standard engineering metric used and quantified throughout the engineering world. Instead they coin their own "dependability" measure, a term they chose which is totally unused in any quantifiable engineering way. Reliability talks in terms of specific failure rates, failure modes, time between failures, and other very concrete and universally accepted engineering measurements and terms used for at least the 40+ years I have been a professional engineer. It has specific and consistent meaning to anyone with a technical education in engineering. Dependability is a phrase which a lot of companies hang their hats on because it deliberately escapes precise and consistent usage and meaning. No doubt JD Powers has chosen this to avoid explicit and concrete definition of terms. Just as Maytag did in the desparate attempt to convince people they still make 'dependable' appliances.
I have no idea what your point is regarding mechanical failures for PC antivirus software. Clearly JD Powers is by no means nearly as comprehensive in their scope of product reviews as Consumers Union. If you are trying to argue to the contrary, please do so.
I agree with you that the point is determination of reliability via consumer polling. I again ask you "Can you name a better database of reliability info for consumer products"?
Smarty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smarty wrote:

I see. And so Consumer Reports in their owner surveys determines "specific failure rates, failure modes, time between failures, and other very concrete and universally accepted engineering measurements and terms"?
I'm sorry, but you're quibbling over a point of nomenclature.

You stated that on other organization uses owner surveys to collect reliability data. That is the point being addressed. When antivirus software suffers "specific failure rates, failure modes, time between failures, and other very concrete and universally accepted engineering measurements and terms" then I will look for someone to be publishing reliability information for antivirus software.

Can you name _any_ such that measures reliability using _your_ definition?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.