24 antivirus products for Windows 8.1 tested – only two with perfect score

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: 24 antivirus products for Windows 8.1 tested – only two with perfect score[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2014/11/myce-windows8.1-antivirus-november2014-95x75.png[/newsimage]
[quote][/quote]
Read the full article here: http://www.myce.com/news/24-antivirus-products-for-windows-8-1-tested-only-two-with-perfect-score-73583

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

ugh…again more test that doesn’t reflect what happens when someone clicks to accept the virus or malware how the program really works at that point in time. This would be more of real world test can the program work good as it says it can work??? MSE and Windows Firewall and not problems reason users get virus/malware is they go to infected sites and then get infected. The software is only 50% of the protections the other 50% users whom go to those infected sites or use infected software take the other blame.


#3

To me that scoring metric is flawed. Performance and Usability should not account for two thirds of the score. If protection isn’t near 100% then that program is useless regardless of its usability.


#4

The “usability” is where the marking for false positives comes, so that does need to be considered in the main score.

Performance, not so much, unless so severe that it would change your decision…

Practically, the case of no antivirus must score 12/18 - 100% for performance and 100% for usability.
And would score above Microsoft and Threattrack, only a tiny bit below AVG.

I prefer their scale to that of VB100.

PS. used to be able to get individual results, but all are 404


#5

Performance and usability are important.

At some point I dumped Norton Antivirus because it was slowing down the computer too much. Luckily that’s when they decided to make the next version much faster.

Then later I dumped Norton Antivirus again because installing it made my Windows 7 claim that it was an illegal copy (it wasn’t).

In both those case it didn’t matter if the detection rate had been 100% - the antivirus was still unusable for me.


#6

I’ve been saying this for years but Windows Defender always gets really appallingly bad ratings for blocking threats.

If anyone is solely using Windows Defender for protection then your PC isn’t safe!

[B]Wombler[/B]


#7

[QUOTE=Wombler;2741807]I’ve been saying this for years but Windows Defender always gets really appallingly bad ratings for blocking threats.

If anyone is solely using Windows Defender for protection then your PC isn’t safe!

[B]Wombler[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree…:iagree:
But I use Defender in a layered setup,an antivirus is only a small part of it.
IMHO,it’s more important these days to keep malware of your computer,than trying to delete,clean or quarantaine it…
My line of defense is browser protection,firewall, antirootkit,HIPS,anti-executable,soft virtualization and then Windows Defender…
Defender’s weak point is that it mostly lags behind vs other antivirus programs with it’s updates for new threats.
But other antivirus programs are also vulnarable during the beginning of an outbreak of new virii,and their ability to protect your system solely depends on how fast their signatures are updated.
And that’s why I don’t rely on an antivirus as 1st line of defense…:wink: