Do idiots actually base their choices on the GUI?

[barak1001]

I was reading Google News first thing this morning and came across an article proclaiming, "Microsoft finally gets anti-malware right".

I skimmed through the article and noticed that the writer hasn't run one single test to see what viruses the program catches or not. He also doesn't do anything to see what false positives it generates. He basically just installs it, likes the interface, and then calls it a success.

Which leads me to wonder if the common computer user is so idiotic that they think all programs are created equal. After all, the writer of the article goes so far to compare Security Essentials to commercial products having never found a single virus with it.

Now notice, I'm not a MacTard. In fact I basically can't stand Apple products or what they stand for. I'm definitely not a Microsoft Fanboy either (I consider most MS software overpriced). I basically just feel that software (especially antivirus software) should be rated based on functionality rather than how easy the gui is to navigate.

What do you think?

Here's a link to the original article for those interested.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44142/140/

[grey wolf]

the answer is yes.

i've been spending some time at another forum (gasp! (you guys are boring)), where we serve as sort of the official tech support for the site. people come and post with their problems and we go from there.

OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD. these people are dumber than a second coat of paint.

and they absolutely do think all software is created equal. more people come away learning that the hard way than you'd possibly imagine.

are people really so stupid as to think a nice interface equals a better program? abso-fucking-lutely yes.

[barak1001]

I spend a good part of my day helping people out with their computer problems via IM. That being understood I already had pretty much figured out that most people are clueless. The thing that bothered me here is that this is a site that's supposedly for "Tech Generation".

You'd think writers for such a site would apparently have a clue, but I guess not.

[Weatherlight]

We are pretty boring. I blame MD. He doesn't love us enough.

[Feret]

the answer is yes.

i've been spending some time at another forum (gasp! (you guys are boring)), where we serve as sort of the official tech support for the site. people come and post with their problems and we go from there.

OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD. these people are dumber than a second coat of paint.

and they absolutely do think all software is created equal. more people come away learning that the hard way than you'd possibly imagine.

are people really so stupid as to think a nice interface equals a better program? abso-fucking-lutely yes.

Not to mention that MS did have a malware fighting tool (Defender), but its like buried in their site now if you want it. I actually found it worked better than Spybot and Adaware for a while. Now not so sure. I've gotten so good at avoiding bad sites,so I'm not sure if its because of the software I've been using or good computer hygiene habits

[barak1001]

I once had an idiot actually start cussing me and get all pissed off because I told her that limewire was full of spyware and wasn't worth using.

She was giving her "expert" advice and trying to get people to use it in a chat room. When I suggested using Shareaza (which connects to the G1, G2, AND Edonkey networks) I was told that Limewire was just as good, even though it only used one network. I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I should stop trying to "force my opinion" on other people. Unfortunately for the idiot in question, it's not an opinion that limewire is spyware or that it sucks ass.

You can't cure stupid.

[Angel-A]

So, it looks like this guy nowhere says how it actually performed against malware, and apparently went copypasta with what microsoft has told him about it instead of checking it himself, just going on about how sleek and shiny and k3wl it is.

That article is a commercial.

[grey wolf]

You'd think writers for such a site would apparently have a clue, but I guess not.

looking at the comments, it appears much worse than that.

comments that point out that this article is useless for not demonstrating how good the software actually is are voted down, and comments which praise the software are voted up. almost universally.

i'll have to remember that tgdaily is run by morons and read by stupid people.

[barak1001]

One of the idiots says in a comment that Security Essentials is "highly rated" by Av-Test.org.

I went and actually read up on its scores. It had around an 80% detection rate. Not even close to what I'd call highly rated.

While on the subject. Norton actually scored higher than Kaspersky this year in testing. Hell has apparently frozen over and the apocalypse is going to begin. I would have never thought that would happen. Kaspersky (which I normally would tell anyone to use) only got a 98% detection rate and returned a fairly large number of false positives.

I may have to switch software soon if they don't step up to the bar.

[BDUAres]

I posted 2 posts on that place-one:

Who cares if it has a slick interface? Last time I checked a pretty GUI was irrelevant to whether or not a product actually works. Give us benchmark comparisons to the proper AV/Malware programs that actually work. As it is written this article tells us nothing except the interface is pretty. This is not reporting, it is advertising and should be marked as spam.

now marked at -7 votes.

I just placed another one

Looking at the comments, it appears comments that point out that this article is useless for not demonstrating how good the software actually is are voted down, and comments which praise the software are voted up. almost universally. go figure. still unanswered is the question of whether or not this piece of software atually works, and whether it works better or worse than the currently available alternatives - Anti virus programs & anti spyware programs such as Avast, AVG, Spybot Search and Destroy, Adaware, Super Anti Spyware, Spyware Guard, Spyware Blaster, Malware Bytes anti malware products, etc, all free. There has to be a whole lot more to a product than just looks and GUI for it to be worth anything, especially in a critical genre like computer security.

Will have to see how that turns out in the voting score

[BDUAres]

AV-Comparatives has released its December 2009 Potentially Unwanted Applications (PUA) comparative. Out of the 16 anti-virus/anti-malware programs tested, this product of Microsoft's came in at number 13 in it's final finished version, near the bottom of the list. This is the first test of this kind with the new MS product, and Microsoft clearly has a lot of work to do to even get to the level of other free software such as Avast, which beat it. As stated many times previously, a GUI has no relevance on the performance of a product. Eye-candy does not equal effectiveness.

[barak1001]

I've been using Kaspersky now since 2004. It seems as if it's still scoring well below Norton on all of the tests I've seen. Who would have thought that would ever happen?

I'm still considering switching antivirus when my Kaspersky license expires, but I've got a year to make the decision.

[BDUAres]

Over the years I have collected and use several different types of anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-malware software.

I use NOD32 4 for my antivirus, Spybot Seach and Destroy, Spyware Blaster, Spyware Guard, Super AntiSpyware, and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for my run of the mill stuff.

I also use Peerguardian lite running at all times, Online Armor for my firewall, and a few system cleaning programs that seem to work well for me: Advanced SystemCare, Eusing Free Registry Cleaner and CCleaner.

There is no 'one stop' piece of software that can take on all the roles that all these things can do at once, and never has been. But by using enough of these together I have managed to keep my XP Pro systems running decently without having to reinstall the OS for more than 5 years, which is not too bad in this day and age.

The only problems I have had have been a few false positives, or what I think were false positives, from NOD32, but then it is better to be safe than sorry.

[barak1001]

I'm going on 3 years with the same install. Kaspersky usually works pretty well. I normally run protowall when downloading which, with my current list, is blocking 774,672,759 ip addresses.

I'm not paranoid enough yet to run more than one security solution.

I don't keep anything on my computer that's so important that I can't reformat if I need to. No credit card numbers, no personal info, no naked pictures of my wife ... wait ... scratch that last one.