Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 05, 2008, 09:10:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length

188826 Posts
22020 Topics
52812 Members

Latest Member: saak

Search:     Advanced search | Tag Cloud
+  Welcome to the Comodo Forum
|-+  Learn about Computer Security and Interact with Security Experts
| |-+  Anti Virus/Malware Products/Other Security products
| | |-+  AV Comparitves February 2008 Results
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: AV Comparitves February 2008 Results  (Read 1686 times)
Info-Sec
Computer Security Testing Group
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547



« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2008, 12:27:38 PM »

False.

True, they are the same engine, and the admin on av comparatives confirmed its the same exact engine (with out the antispyware)
Logged

*Vista *CFP V3 *Avira * Avast *Spyware Doctor
*XP *Zone Alarm PRO *NOD32 V2.7 *Spysweeper
Matty_R
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 945


Nice to see you,to see you nice!


« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2008, 01:14:39 PM »

The thing is Avira Antivir is German,which normally means outstanding performance,reliabiliy and ergonomics.Bit like the BMW/MERC of AV`s Grin

Matty
Logged

The only ingrediant necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing!
CCleaner - Freeware Windows Optimization
ultragunner
Comodo Loves me
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 138



« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2008, 02:07:15 PM »

True, they are the same engine, and the admin on av comparatives confirmed its the same exact engine (with out the antispyware)

Have you noticed they tested the premium version instead of the classic version. The classic version is not proven & tested.
Logged


 
andyman35
Global Moderator
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2008, 03:50:57 PM »

Have you noticed they tested the premium version instead of the classic version. The classic version is not proven & tested.

That's incorrect that the free version is untested,the classic version was used in this particular test:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.anti-malware.ru%2findex.phtml%3fpart%3dtests%26test%3dpolymorphic

If you're saying that the classic version has an inferior AV capability apart from the lack of an e-mail scanner, perhaps you could show where this has been documented,since the Avira site doesn't mention this.

Having said that in my opinion the premium version should be purchased if finances allow,since the developers of this great product should be rewarded. Cheers
« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 08:53:00 PM by andyman35 » Logged
Info-Sec
Computer Security Testing Group
Comodo's Hero
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547



« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2008, 04:11:50 PM »

Have you noticed they tested the premium version instead of the classic version. The classic version is not proven & tested.

Yes they test the paid version, but the admin of av comparatives himself said the free has the same detection rate as the paid version.
Logged

*Vista *CFP V3 *Avira * Avast *Spyware Doctor
*XP *Zone Alarm PRO *NOD32 V2.7 *Spysweeper
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SSL Firewall
Page created in 2.528 seconds with 18 queries.
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks
Design by 7dana.com