Year well my 35 years trumps your, nyah, nyah, nyah. Really, posting vacuous credentials doesn't enhance anyone's arguments .

To your points:
I didn't say anything about the study being flawed.
You say
"
My clients pay me to evaluate the best solutions. If I can't automate a package it isn't an option but virtually all A/V and anti-spyware products can be configured for auto-update and auto-quarantining of malware and virii
"
which is precisely my point...you, with 25 years (count 'em, 25!) of experience can configure these gizmos. Mom, Dad, and Joe Sixpack can't as easily so they need a product with a minimum of options and has support. With Vista the situation, particularly with Symantec/Nortons is horrible. The upgrade path is tortuous (so much so that I abandoned Symantec/Nortons after using their A/V solution for, gee, 10 years? The number of hoops one must jump through to get even their 2007 suite updated can only be described as bizarre.

For the majority of the great technically unwashed they need a product that is easy to install and easy to use, has support, and will be enhanced. OneCare's 82.4% rating is not as good as the others. But it is better than zero, by far, and if having Microsoft's logo on it (which I suspect is a problem with some people in here) entices Granny to buy and istall it, we all benefit.

Oz

Ray,
Please don't be confused. It's quite clear that a number of members here have at least as much if not more experience than your good self. The fact is that many of us are sceptical of studies performed by unknown persons of unknown repute. The point I was making and which I'm happy to restate is that any single study of this kind should always be eyed with some scepticism when taken in isolation. Now give me a number of reviews/studies which come to similar conclusions then I'm more likely to give them some credence. Personally I would consider ease of use to have some level of importance but to be fair my feeling is that it is secondary and my recommendations will always be based on overall performance which invariably includes a degree of usability. In the case of this particular product I am simply stating that from my perspective it has no credentials and I would therefore not be recommending it unless there were no competing credentialled alternative.

Ahhh, so the number of years really counts, like in jail? How long do you plan to be inmate?
They do accept donations from AV companies. Read methodology pdf.

The study is not flawed but only talks about detection rates. It's methodology is questionable and can be cheated. Needs of individual and corporate customers could be more complex then simple detection rate. In real life all tools presented will work fine IMHO.

Now who's being pointless here? Care to explain what do you mean?

I would use Gardner reports instead, they are including many factors when recommending any product.

all in all they are all good arguments but i am no it specialist and have no experience in this area, but one thing i know is if some one is good enough regardless how good your protection there is always a way in.

i am a simple person who just wants what most people want and that is set and forget, none of this bullsh*t of i have got the best virus protection or this survey says this is.

surveys sell to suckers (use what your happy with).

been using avg free never had a problem(touch wood),

i was born a ford man and will die a ford man.(change sometimes isn't good you can get burnt).

Long live avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg avg reva da reva

LONG LIVE AVG
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

The ONLY independant AV comparatives tester I look to is Virus Buletin. Any AV package that consistantly get the VB100 award has my vote. One of the criteria VB has is to aslo look at how much system load the AV app has, becuase as we all know what good is protection when the system becomes almost unusable. (can someone say Norton's).

As to how can the study be flawed? Since you have been around for 25 years you will no doubt remember when there were only 3 independant AV labs worldwide, you should also remember when Symantec bought one and had a vested interest in another all of which was undisclosed. You should also remeber that at the same time all of a sudden Norton's products were top scorers with two of the ïdependant"labs.

I'm not saying that this is the case with the study your refrencing but you never know do you.

PS. I believe Virus Buletin was the third that would not budge / compromise in the Symantec debacle.

In order:

Number of years is a valid indicator of experience. By itself it does mean nothing other than saying that I'm not a noob. I'm sorry if my showing my age in some way unnerved you. I'm not sure why it required a reply instead of just dealing with my points.

You say "The study is not flawed. . ." while saying in another message, "It is sad that people like you are paying attention to paid advertisements like this.
Remember, any study was paid by someone." And another message from you said, "Another pathetic study - who paid for it?"

So basically all you have done is give guilt by association. Until you explain what you really think there isn't any point in a response from me. It is sad, Vlad, to use terms like "pathetic" without any elaboration. How am I to believe anything you say when you never really explain what your issues are.

Gardner? I assume you mean Gartner Group. I know you don't like years but I have also been a tech writer for over 15 years and have access to many of their (expensive) reports. Would you please cite a report of theirs that actually rates A/V products as I haven't seen one. They've issued reports on the technology and best practices and recommended methods for choosing but I can't find a single one that actually has ratings.

I look forward to replies to the issues raised but if you want to take it personal don't look for me to reply (and my original post wasn't directed to any one person).

Huh?

Where did I say that you said anything? My original reply wasn't directed at any individual.

See my reply to Vlad for my response to years. I'm really surprised you mentioned it since he already mentioned it. Does it somehow add to your superiority by using slick words like "vacuous?" Are you really saying that years of experience is devoid of significance or point (to use the WordNet definition) in the context of a discussion of technology and the parsing and interpretation of a study? I'm sure a Dr. Just out of medical school really is as good as one with years of practice experience. Uh huh.

The average person NEEDS a product that is accurate and reliable. That doesn't, by default, remove things that may not be bad (false positives).

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really aren't championing mediocrity. To say something is better than zero is a damning indictment of a solution. Why in the world would you want anyone to have a false sense of security?

And, even asking my mom (before she died in 2000) who MS was would have gotten a blank look. The real problem is with opp systems and browsers that allow easy access to malware. The real answer is a solution such as Green browser that puts the browser in a "sandbox" that doesn't touch the rest of the machine or virtualization such as Vmware (The Vmware player is FREE as is the pre-configured virtual browser).

I'm open to discussing technology put if you want to take personal issue please send a private message if you want a reply.

Folks in this community just can't get past personal statement, can they? I could bore you with college formal logic but because I've been around 25 years does not mean that I have specialization for nearly that long in A/V tech. I could cite lots of fun proofs but why bother? Oh, and I'm being on my best behavior and not pointing out all the spelling errors in your post.

The statement that really does you in is, "I'm not saying that this is the case with the study your referencing. . . " This is innuendo. It is conjecture. It is NOT fact. It is like my saying something like George Bush is really a Commie. It has no real substance.

So back to THIS thread: Do you have any information about this study or about OneCare?

Oh well I was sitting back mildly amused until you started generalising about "folks in this community" but now I think I might just make a comment. All I would say is if you come in here speaking in what certainly comes across as a condescending manner to people who are simply voicing their opinions, the fact of whether they are right or wrong ceases to have much import. Your attitude invites personal comment and you shouldn't be surprised when you get it! Maybe your words could be a little better chosen if you have problems with people's responses.

, im sitting back laughing at all of this, i wanna see some more rebuttal's. lol. come on, rock this boat a little more, i wanna see who falls out first. lolol

Ssshhhh! You'll spoil it!

Oh I know words a lot bigger than vacuous.

Trumpeting ones years of experience (25, count 'em 25!) is just silly in this context since the entire subject matter (PC's and viruses) haven't been household items that long. I came across my first computer virus on my trsty old Amiga 1000 back around 1986 if memory serves. That experience, while perhaps an interesting to an Amigaphile isn't relevent to today's world.

In some cases I would prefer to have Dr. Just out of med school who is armed with the latest in treatment and diagnosis rather than Dr. Old Fart who hasn't kept up with the literature in the last 25 years. There are analogies to be made with computer specialists.

A detection rate of 82% isn't as good as other products, but detection of more than four out of five is far better than better than nothing.

A/V products leap frog each other constantly in terms of detection rate. But they have to be light on resources and easy to install and use, as well as cheap, otherwise people won't use them at all. Guaranteed no security is worse than a false sense of one, even at 80%.

Oz

Relax there, mate. "Years of experience" bravado reminds me of my age

Now you have not reply on my explanation but dragging personal issues - I will be better than you and will not attack anyone Do you have reply to my explanation?

I am opinionated fellow and can use whatever(not prohibited) words I want in this forum, because have some restrictions outside. Leave with it You have asked and I have explained, it is up to you to take it or not . I simply don't care.

Forgive my typo, spell checker did not pick it I am actually that guy, who is evaluating products and making recommendations to the management, so technical writing is not my thing (hate TOR's)I don't have access to Gartner now, but sure that they have a magic quadrant for corporate anti-viral solutions, If you have - have a look.

You did not raise any issues to my understanding.

I have learned a new word today

I just bought a new sealed copy of One Care from ebay for $44 + $12 P/h.