F-Secure Internet Security 2009: A Disappointment
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
8. F-Secure Internet Security 2009: A Disappointment
Thanks to the power of its detection engine during the scans, the 2008 edition from F-Secure was promising despite the weaknesses it has with its resident protection. Let’s see if the 2009 version is also worth purchasing.
A Rather Attractive but Incomplete Interface
True to the 2008 version, the interface is very pleasant to use–intuitive, clear, and readable, it gives a good first impression during the installation of the software. Sure, the colors on a few pages are a little garish, but the navigation is easy and the functions are easily accessible. The essentials are there from a graphic and organizational point of view.
It’s when one starts looking into the actual functioning of the system that things start going awry–it’s easy enough to be guided through the program, but the settings possibilities are limited, especially when you consider the kinds of options the competition offers.
Very Modest Performance
This system is definitely a contender for the most disappointing performer of the year. The effectiveness of the scan is distinguished only by its slowness, and F-Secure can’t seem to manage actually getting rid of the viruses it detects.
The real-action protection is slow, passive, and from time to time illogical–among the dangerous files that have been marked, certain ones are deleted and others aren’t. Because of the absence of an automatic scan for external support drives, the protection against eventual threats isn’t very effective. One good thing about the system, however, is that the virus protection for email attachments is really well conceived and lets you keep the email without the problematic attachment.
A Significant Drain On The Computing System
Not only is the start-up time for Windows the slowest among all of the software that we tested this year, but the duration of the scan is also really long (46 minutes) and the program is very greedy with the computer’s resources. The memory, however, is very lightly used.
In the original version, the uninstall process is a model of ineptitude–it was not very well organized and we found that it would not work using the control panel. F-Secure has published an updated version in order to remedy this problem, but the lingering impression remains one of carelessness.
Conclusion
The 2009 version of F-Secure is very disappointing. Its less-than-perfect conception, limited effectiveness, and price that is no longer as competitive as it was in the past, all make it a less-than-attractive option.
- Previous page BitDefender Total Security 2009: A...
- Next page Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet...
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.