J
James
Is there a reliable comparison chart somewhere with recent results of
ranking anti-virus programs?
ranking anti-virus programs?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
djs
x-no-archive: yes
I doubt it. There is this:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200306
....but Virus Bulletin takes advertisement revenue from anti-virus vendor
sponsors (for their conventions and such). So you tell me how
"reliable" that is.
http://www.hackfix.org/
....also has some ratings, which I trust more, but I can't access that
site right now.
They all rate PC-cillin highly. And since I've done my own testing with
PC-cillin (with actual trojans), that's what I trust.
Is there a reliable comparison chart somewhere with recent results of
ranking anti-virus programs?
I doubt it. There is this:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200306
....but Virus Bulletin takes advertisement revenue from anti-virus vendor
sponsors (for their conventions and such). So you tell me how
"reliable" that is.
http://www.hackfix.org/
....also has some ratings, which I trust more, but I can't access that
site right now.
They all rate PC-cillin highly. And since I've done my own testing with
PC-cillin (with actual trojans), that's what I trust.
L
Lemon Jelly
djs - typed:
At least VB publish their criteria of no false positives & a virus list
that has to be 100%passed. Your criteria of no related advertising
rather bars most sites. THG came in for a lot of flack over their CPU
reviews. Most magazines are also guilty of taking revenue from those
that have products reviewed. I know of one cycling mag that doesn't
carry adverts but its price is high & circulation low. Are people
willing to pay for independence?
Hackfix doesn't rate AVG any more highly than VB (passed recently for
the 1st time?) AVG seems to be worth precisely what most people paid for
it. McAfee seems to be the most problematic with XP from accounts on
various NGs.
x-no-archive: yes
I doubt it. There is this:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200306
...but Virus Bulletin takes advertisement revenue from anti-virus
vendor sponsors (for their conventions and such). So you tell me how
"reliable" that is.
http://www.hackfix.org/
...also has some ratings, which I trust more, but I can't access that
site right now.
They all rate PC-cillin highly. And since I've done my own testing
with PC-cillin (with actual trojans), that's what I trust.
At least VB publish their criteria of no false positives & a virus list
that has to be 100%passed. Your criteria of no related advertising
rather bars most sites. THG came in for a lot of flack over their CPU
reviews. Most magazines are also guilty of taking revenue from those
that have products reviewed. I know of one cycling mag that doesn't
carry adverts but its price is high & circulation low. Are people
willing to pay for independence?
Hackfix doesn't rate AVG any more highly than VB (passed recently for
the 1st time?) AVG seems to be worth precisely what most people paid for
it. McAfee seems to be the most problematic with XP from accounts on
various NGs.
D
djs
x-no-archive: yes
I just call it like I see it--there is no way to accept advertisements
and be able to claim total lack of bias. If that bars most sites, well
that's a fact of life. I can't help it.
I have always had a very low opinion of AVG, despite the fact that so
many people rave about it. Like so many other freebies, people like it
because it's free, not because it's good. The "You get what you pay
for" adage never enters their mind, apparently.
Lemon said:djs - typed:
At least VB publish their criteria of no false positives & a virus
list that has to be 100%passed. Your criteria of no related
advertising rather bars most sites. THG came in for a lot of flack
over their CPU reviews. Most magazines are also guilty of taking
revenue from those that have products reviewed. I know of one cycling
mag that doesn't carry adverts but its price is high & circulation
low. Are people willing to pay for independence?
I just call it like I see it--there is no way to accept advertisements
and be able to claim total lack of bias. If that bars most sites, well
that's a fact of life. I can't help it.
Hackfix doesn't rate AVG any more highly than VB (passed recently for
the 1st time?) AVG seems to be worth precisely what most people paid
for it. McAfee seems to be the most problematic with XP from accounts
on various NGs.
I have always had a very low opinion of AVG, despite the fact that so
many people rave about it. Like so many other freebies, people like it
because it's free, not because it's good. The "You get what you pay
for" adage never enters their mind, apparently.