Macworld Forums: Consumer Reports: Anti-malware freeware for Windows and Mac is effective - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Consumer Reports: Anti-malware freeware for Windows and Mac is effective here

I have a rock out by my mailbox that protects me from malware.

CR are laughably ignorant when it comes to computing. They should stick to reviewing ironing boards. Although they do a fairly good job reviewing automobiles as well -- so long as they don't have an axe to grind. (cough! Suzuki! cough!)

This post has been edited by Lenjc1957: 29 May 2012 - 08:42 AM

Lenjc1957, on 29 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

CR always has an axe to grind.

I can't imagine anyone but little old ladies taking anything they write seriously.

MS Security Essentials has often been rated among the best, but CR places it last among the free software apps. I wonder if their methodology is the same one that downrated the iPhone 4 (for the antenna "grip of death") even though it was the highest rated phone in their test.

bastion, on 29 May 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.

Bash CR all that you want, the gist of the article is valid: free anti-malware is more than adequate for the task.

k88dad, on 29 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

It may be accurate. The problem is that CR itself is not trustworthy.

k88dad, on 29 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Exactly what I was thinking. All this negativity about CR misses the point which is, good anti-virus solutions don't have to cost you anything. And in the end, the more informed and protected users are the safer the internet is for EVERYBODY. Later for the CR bashing, readers should be forwarding this article to any and all Windows users they may know.

Lenjc1957, on 29 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I agree that CR is not very knowledgeable about computers, but that they have to grind an axe in Suzuki's case is simply untrue. Did you ever go for a ride in a Suzuki Samurai? Scariest ride I've ever experienced in my life, they are moving coffins.

Petew, on 29 May 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

That may be the case, but they did manipulate the tests to get the result they wanted. More and more they seem to be letting their own prejudices override their own test results, which makes them a very unreliable source of product information.

bastion, on 29 May 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

And wild tigers!

I read MacWorld every day. And I really don't see much about the best virus protection. We found out about the latest "Flashback" threat from MW after the fact. If CR is laughably ignorant about computing, then where is the expert MacWorld analysis on this all these years?

On several occasions over the years I have purchased big-brand-name anti-virus programs, dutifully read and followed instructions only to have the computer start crashing or crawling as a result. In all cases a reformatted disk and not reinstalling the anti-virus software was the answer.

We Mac users have gotten away with not protecting our systems for years, but the party will end one day. I hope there is some viable software for us to use when that day comes.

In the article you say, "However, the publication does not define what that is in much detail, except to suggest "if you remotely access files on your computer when you're away from home, for example, you'll need stronger protection."

I would contend that this is about as in-depth as MW ever gets. And at least the reader knows that if they remotely access files that they are in a different category and need to look further.

So while MW is telling us about he latest patent disputes and predicting the size of hard drives in 2016 and other minutia, thanks to CR I now have a decent overview of the available anti-virus software which is much more useful information for me.

This anti-malware is FREE and it works, so what is there to complain about? You can download it free at http://midatlanticco...m/downloads.php