From: "Twayne" <
[email protected]>
| Norton AV (Symantec now) never had a low catch rate; catch rates for all of
| them vary over time but Norton has always had a good record. Their
| heuristics outperform most other packages too.
| Resource Occupation: Was partially true once, depending on which of the
| services you used. The actual AV was not part of that, however. You seem to
| be mising up different products. Not true for anything being sold today.
| 2009 and 2010 are little darlings that way.
| lol, I saw what I'll bet you're basing that on. Do you beleive everything
| you read?
|
http://internet-security-suite-review.toptenreviews.com/
| And this one looks interesting for spyware:
|
http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/
| The internet's like the bible: You can find any positive or negative you
| wish with the proper searching, spam or accidental discovery. The only
| "proof" is to listen to what other reasonable people have to say and then
| test the products in their trialware and make up your own mind. It's not
| rocket science and since most AV vendors all use the same sources for their
| data, they all do pretty well at most things. The cowboys that reinvent the
| wheel seldom work out well.
| I have to take a couple minor exceptions here, namely Avira. They like to
| use their installed base for covert BETA testing and does some of its
| "detection" by seeing what folder certain files live in. As an example, I
| had a setup.exe in a folder called "hospital test" for a VB program I was
| developing. Avira detected it as a rogue and wanted to delete it. I moved
| the file to a more expected location and Avira no longer found it. Moved it
| back, and it was detected again. Zipped it with a different name, and Avira
| didn't find it. They were not relying on the contents of files or even the
| names, but only WHERE some names were located. AFAICT by looking at their
| forums just now they're still covertly beta testing by their users. In other
| words, false positives are excessive in Avira's ware.
| I can think of several other programs though, who could have been
| recommended.
Twayne I have been researching malware for quite a long time and have seen the market
change over the years. I remember Norton AV prior to Symantec buying their software and I
KNOW how there detection increased greatly when Peter Norton puchased Central Point
Software and their product Central Point AV. For those who don't know, long before
Microsoft bought RAV they oem'd CPAV for short while and called it MSAV.
But over the years their software has lost it luster. NAV became bloatware and would be a
major resource hog. Symantec noted that and yes, they reworked their product and starting
with 2009 their software becaem less of a resource hog.
However, Symantec still has a poor detection rate. PERIOD!
I don't base that on reading 3rd party articles but personal research.
