G-Data Total Care 2009: The Heavy Weight Of Security
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: 2009, antivirus, test | Themes: Software
- 1. One-Stop Comparison for 14 Anti-Virus Titles
- 2. Anti-Virus Basics
- 3. Comodo Internet Security v3.8: The Newbie
- 4. Avira Antivir Personal Free Edition v9.0.0386: The Best of the Freebies
- 5. Clamwin Free Antivirus 0.94.1: Open Source Protection Software
- 6. Avast! 4.8 Home Edition Free: The Classic
- 7. BitDefender Total Security 2009: A Balanced Choice
- 8. F-Secure Internet Security 2009: A Disappointment
- 9. Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet Security Pro 2009: A Reasonable Option
- 10. McAfee Internet Security 2009: Very Complete
- 11. Norton Antivirus 2009: The Choice For Ease and Simplicity
- 12. Panda Global Protection 2009: An Outsider Who’s Left In The Dust
- 13. G-Data Total Care 2009: The Heavy Weight Of Security
- 14. ESET Smart Security 4 (Nod32 Antivirus 4): A Positive Evolution
- 15. Kaspersky Antivirus 2009: A Half-Colored Version
- 16. AVG Internet Security v8.5 (paid version): An Insufficient Evolution of What You Can Get For Free
- 17. The Verdict
- 18. The Test Protocol
- 19. More on this topic
13. G-Data Total Care 2009: The Heavy Weight Of Security
Ranking first in our evaluation from last year, G-Data’s various permutations carve out a solid reputation for the company in the area of information protection. We were intrigued, therefore, to test out the newest security product from G-Data.
A Sober and Functional Interface
Here, the importance was put on efficiency. Sobriety and clarity have definitely been privileged–the color palette contains only red, white, and different shades of gray, so that the different functions are immediately identifiable and easily accessible. The only exception to this color-coded rule comes in the form of a green color used to indicate activated functions. The graphics of certain other offerings are definitely more impressive, but the effect here is very positive.
The default settings are well thought out and the possibilities for personalization are very complete. It is a shame, however, that if you use the default settings, only files that are less than 300 KB in size are checked. In practice, it is easy to modify this setting, but when would such an option ever really be practical or appropriate? The impossibility of password protection is another deplorable aspect of this program.
A Superlative Performance
Despite the variety of threats used during our test, we could not find fault with the detection motor of G-Data during the hard drive scans. Only McAfee did nearly as well.
If one looks at the general protection, this German anti-virus system takes the cake. Indeed, we couldn’t find any problems with the resident protection either. The real time shield acted two times: the first time during the opening of the folder then again during the opening of the files in the case where a threat had survived. During the insertion of a USB or other external storage device, a scan was also put into action. Additionally, despite the absence of a control bar, infected email attachments were neutralized whilst the email itself remained readable. Everything is done here for the protection of the computer, which leads to an important mobilization of the power of the system.
Performance Issues During Scans
The additional time needed for starting up Windows is acute, inferior to that of its direct competition (+23%). As with the other software that we tested, no deceleration of the system due to frequent access to the system was measured.
The duration of the complete scan is average, but the system’s power is largely given over to the scan, which greatly affects the processor (whose capacity was used up completely in our case) and the memory (almost 180 MB, or 378 MB if one adds together the use of the RAM memory and the swap file). The uninstall process works well, as G-Data leaves 16 keys in the register at the end of the operation.
Conclusion
The quality of protection is without contest and G-Data offers a markedly more complete protection than the others in its category do. Its price is competitive, which is even less than the average cost of the software in this comparison, and the additional software delivered with it is complete without being exhaustive.
However, this performance leads to a very significant use of your system’s power and we definitely advise that you use G-Data on more recent computers (with multi-core processors and at least 2 GB of Ram) if you do not want the hard drive scan to put your machine completely out of commission.
- Previous page Panda Global Protection 2009: An...
- Next page ESET Smart Security 4 (Nod32...







And here I thought AVG Free was the best free antivirus.
Kaspersky internet security/ anti-virus does not look like that.. what the heck
No NOD32?
What about Microsoft's own Oncecare
These guys sound like they don't know what they are talking about. They claimed that Avast skips text files even though "they are a classic refuge for malevolent programs." Text files cannot be executed and therefore cannot contain viruses. The pictures they have are different as well. In any case I am a happy user of Avast and prefer it to McAfee and Norton but have not tried the others.
the picture they use for Avast is with a different skin. You can switch the skin at anytime.
I m using avast home too. I think the scanning for HD is bit longer and taxing a lot on my P4 2.6. But its free..no complain...
what about Kespersky ??? lol so much missing good antivirus software
Spanish Kespersky = norman?
French... T_T?? not english there we go
KASPERSKY Ftw ...
what I used to like on Tom's site was the use of graphs... can't find any in this round up. More over how the can you judge resident scan performance just on start up time? What about disk R/W after all services have been initialized?
Anyway quite poor article
I use Norton NIS 2009, and have had problems that made me look for another. When I saw this article, I said "Great timing lol !"
Unfortunately, there is nothing in this article that inspires confidence in either the comparisons or the conclusions. There are comments about Norton that my personal experiences tell me are incorrect (at least in the US).
And, as said before, no tables, etc.
Very disappointing.
@Shadow703793: NOD32 is in page 14
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2009-a [...] 15-14.html
@romain_75: Kaspersky in page 15
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2009-a [...] 15-15.html
@shurcooL: So do I, use AVG for last 3 years thinking it was best one.
May be good time for change ...
eset smart security 4!!!and zone alarm extreme security 8
I'm very surprised to hear that Norton is not a resource hog. It is the reason I switched to free AV software like Avast and AVG. I'm not going back to Norton even if they paid me...OK I might consider it.
Why do you have pictures of Kaspersky on the page with AVG antivirus?
haha kapersky became norman.. avg became kepersky.. lol
Was this review bought or something? For Norton to get such a good review I am leaning towards it being bought. I mean c'mon, Norton not being a resource hog and stealing your system. How do you expect us to believe that?
Why not review Kaspersky Internet Security, instead of just the Antivirus, when the Internet Security package for other brands were reviewed?
Also, The KAV Internest Securitiy is $54.99 at Walmart. The review stated it was double.
I seriously have my doubts and found myself shaking my head after reading the reviews for several of the products in here.
I'm surprised you didn't give a "Best Value" award... I'd say for best value go with Trend Micro, for less than $20 you can get protection for 3 PCs for one year (Look online you will find it). I use it on all my computers and no complaints.