AVG 9.0 great anti virus

Sad but true, Jacee.

Jacee said:

I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

whs said:

Jacee said:

I seldom see an infected computer with ESET or Kaspersky as the A/V.

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

JMH said:

whs said:

Jacee said:

I agree with you Corrine ... if you do see an infected computer with either of these av's, we usually find out that they've been obtained via crack/keygen

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

I agree and besides we have beat this dead horse many, many times before.

zigzag3143 said:

JMH said:

whs said:

Then how come they don't show all the way on top in the latest AV comparison. There are at least 8 others ahead of Eset.

Everyone is coloured by what they experience & report accordingly.
Conversely statistics can be manipulated by choice of tests to produce whatever result the tester wants.
People seem to have an axe to grind no matter how subtle it is........

I agree and besides we have beat this dead horse many, many times before.

What you guys are essentially saying is that those security reports are for the birds. But this is the only data we have - by what else would a layman go?
Own experience is pretty useless because you never know whether you have good protection or were just lucky and got never attacked.

Everthing one reads needs careful evaluation. It is up to the individual as to how much weight they attach to the report.
Ultimately the interpretation is a subjective decision.

WHS, I don't have an answer, I'm only saying what I see. As JMH said, it is subjective. On any given day, one A/V can perform better than another or one A/V will catch something another misses. On any given day, an A/V defs can include a f/p that quarantines Windows System files, resulting in an unbootable machine.

Corrine said:

WHS, I don't have an answer, I'm only saying what I see. As JMH said, it is subjective. On any given day, one A/V can perform better than another or one A/V will catch something another misses. On any given day, an A/V defs can include a f/p that quarantines Windows System files, resulting in an unbootable machine.

Thanks Corrine for the answer. I know there is no guideline hammered in stone. But with all the imponderable elements surrounding the AV area, I would rather rely on the findings of some professional organizations than on the whim of a few people - and granted, those organizations can have an agenda. That's why I read several.
As an example: with all the hype surrounding MSE I got dragged into replacing my NIS with MSE - and caught one trojan and one Browser Highjacker. That never happened with NIS. Maybe it is a coincidence, but it makes you think.

whs, has Norton ever blocked anything on your PC(s)? How many times if any?