The Test Protocol
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
18. The Test Protocol
As part of our efforts to make our testing process transparent, we decided to detail our evaluation method that we used for this comparison. The tests were done on a Sony Vaio VGN-CS11S laptop equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor with a 2.26 GHz clock speed and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows Vista family Premium edition 32-bit SP1.
In order to determine the impact of the software on a PC's resources and how much a typical system would slow down after each offering was installed, we did several tests. We measured how long it took Windows to start up after each anti-virus software offering was installed and gauged to what degree processor and memory resources were taxed during scans and how performance was negatively affected when hard drive files were scanned. We also judged whether scans generated just enough or too many windows throughout the process and how long it took to scan the hard drive. We also looked at how "clean" the uninstall process was (whether register keys stayed on the PC after the anti-virus software's removal).
To gauge anti-virus protection performance, we looked at how well the software detected threats when the hard drive was scanned and when USB-connected devices and other external drives were attached to the laptop, as well as the quality of the email-scanning feature and the resident protection or real-time shield.
The quality of the interface was measured by three sets of criteria: its readability and graphics clarity, the simplicity of the default settings, and the options the advanced settings allowed for and the possibility to lock down these settings with a password (protection against a virus possibly taking control of your computer by slipping through the cracks).
Best prices for tested products
- Previous page The Verdict
- Next page More on this topic
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.