Cnet's lastest AV scores!

Cnet's lastest AV scores!
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Anti-Virus Software    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Cnet's lastest AV scores! Nosey Nanci 10-30-2006
Posted by Nosey Nanci on October 30, 2006, 3:49 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Do you agree with their findings?

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-6655968-1.html?tag=nl.e404

Sorry, I just want to know all your business.
Nosey Nanci

Posted by louise on October 30, 2006, 6:13 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


Nosey Nanci wrote:
> Do you agree with their findings?
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-6655968-1.html?tag=nl.e404
>
> Sorry, I just want to know all your business.
> Nosey Nanci

I find it appalling that they score for time rather than for
level of protection. However, when one reads the fine print
of the review, they do mention protection as well.

Yes - I absolutely agree about NOD32 and it isn't
all...that...complicated to set up. They put their energies
into protection rather than hand-holding - I like that.

Louise

Posted by kurt wismer on October 30, 2006, 6:56 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Nosey Nanci wrote:
> Do you agree with their findings?
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-6655968-1.html?tag=nl.e404

i think you'll find that folks around here don't put as much stock into
timing tests like that as they do for detection rate tests... timing is
a more subjective measure because of the variety of things that can
affect it...

also, there just weren't enough products tested...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Posted by David H. Lipman on October 30, 2006, 7:27 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

| Nosey Nanci wrote:
>> Do you agree with their findings?
>>
>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-6655968-1.html?tag=nl.e404
|
| i think you'll find that folks around here don't put as much stock into
| timing tests like that as they do for detection rate tests... timing is
| a more subjective measure because of the variety of things that can
| affect it...
|
| also, there just weren't enough products tested...
|

Yepper !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm



Posted by Ze Muffinman on October 31, 2006, 2:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I agree with the last three posts. Time has nothing to do with it if it
scans thouroughly (sp?).
Nosey Nanci wrote:
> Do you agree with their findings?
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-6655968-1.html?tag=nl.e404
>
> Sorry, I just want to know all your business.
> Nosey Nanci


Similar ThreadsPosted
CNET test scores October 30, 2006, 8:13 am
CNET 2006 antivirus performance test scores February 14, 2006, 8:06 pm
Re: CNET 2006 antivirus performance test scores February 14, 2006, 9:50 pm
Re: CNET 2006 antivirus performance test scores February 15, 2006, 12:40 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy