:huh:
so which is best ???
its been a year now and have never got a problem of virus wid McAfee,
and my use is also too rough i download all latest tools and all other stuff
if its a virus or anything like that McAfee surely picks it up and throw it out
i heard that Shield deluxe is good too ??
that's not a question easily answered. a lot of AV progs do an excellent job but each person has different wants/needs so that determines personal preference. i trust Virus Bulletin tests and check regularly on their most recent results. I have used ESET NOD32 for a long time and unless they suddenly fall off the planet I can't see myself changing
Personnally I would say it depends on your needs and cost...
I look for something that consistantly passes the virus bulletin VB100, and consistantly recieves 3-star Advanced+ certification in AV-Comparatives in both Heuristic (proactive/retroactive), and On-demand testing, and level 2 "Checkmark" certification from Westcoast labs. Most Labs have different criteria, and so the results can become contradictory- but out of all, AV-Comparatives and VB100 are usually good indicators.
WestCoast is a good "standard" cert, If it does well, then check VB100, If it does well there check AV-Comparatives as this is the most demanding, as it tests many different aspects. If it recieves Advanced+ in both Heuristics and On-Demand consistantly, you got yourself a Winnner...IMO a product that consistantly recieves top marks from
all three is ideal and will give you piece of Mind.
Some Vendors will only submit their AV product to the "easy" certification bodies (like WestCoast and ICSA, and other non-certified Labs) and not the more demanding ones (like VB100 or AV-Comparatives); this is usually a good indicator that the product may be somewhat deficient. ICSA labs for example awards certification, but doesnt test for self replicating/potentially catastrophic malware (like polymorphic Trojans). Most Vedors must submit their AV product for inclusion in the Lab comparason tests- If they dont, then that is usually a good indicator that it is also subpar and offers inferior protection. Look at it this way, VB100 and AV-Comparatives are the cream of the cream, a Vendor would love to recieve top certification, but if they enter and recieve low certification or no certification at all, it could hurt them more in sales then not trying for the certification at all, so they shoot for gauranteed certification, and leave the more advanced ones alone, and the more naive customers see the "editors Choice" picks and "awards", and the "certifications" and are sold. Most times the Choice pick and awards are a result of paid promotion. Had they failed the VB100 consistantly, or recieved "standard"/no Certification from AV-Comparatives then their product would become known as truly subpar and would result in a Marketing/PR nightmare.
for example,
Trend Micro/Panda/CyberDefender/Vipre/Advanced Systemcare 3
note- Trend boycotted VB100 due to its consistant failure to recieve certification, yet they manage to recieve Certification from ICSA and WestCoast Labs (and "others" that have lower standards for certification, and this does the customer little justice, as it gives a false sense of security). For the above Vendors it is all about sales, they could care less if the program will not protect, or will cause corruption. Cyberdefender prior to a company name change (
Cyberdefender corp was previously known as
Network Dynamics, and sold fake antimalware aps like Spyblocs and eblocs), and Advanced Systemcare is known to disable critical Windows Components, and cause corruption and excessive false alarms, and earlier versions were bundled with known malware.
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Main-Tests
Virus Bulletin : VB100 award and logo
http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/
