At 01:30 PM 03/03/2006, W. D. wrote:
At 10:54 3/3/2006, Jin-Wei Tioh, wrote:
>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.
>
>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>switched to Kaspersky.
>
>--
>JW
How does it compare to AVG Free?
Well for one thing, it works. If you're using AVG free, you should
also use the rhythm method, eschew modern medicine for the
alternative sort, and heat your home in the winter by thinking warm
thoughts. <grin>
Seriously though, AVG really isn't up to the task of protecting your
computer. I get a lot of machines in running AVG Free and loaded
with viruses (fewer on machines running NOD32 or Norton.)
This chart, posted by Bill:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
Puts AVG Pro at 90.47% effective, and 10% effective against
polymorphic viruses. NOD32 comes in at 98.77% and 94.3% against
polymorphic. Kaspersky at 99.57% and 99.4% against polymorphic.
While it has improved in recent testing, AVG Pro still regularly
fails VirusBTN's tests.
And if the for-pay Pro version is this bad, how good is the free one?
NOD32 has a smaller memory footprint than AVG Free.
T
