Bull. Stop misleading people.
Bull? LOL Yeah sorry, there's me trying to sell the free AV I don't even use to get rich quick. Rather than just plant a one-line ad homien and rely on your prolificity on the forums for credence, why not actually bring some evidence to the table to refute me? There is nothing incorrect about what I said.
The malwaretips forums run a daily virus sweep where approx 250 of the day's newest 0day malware samples are run against the industry's various products. Quihoo and Eset's NOD32 tend to score between 95% and 100% in detection and prevention (i.e. both signature and HIPS based), while the likes of Avast, MSE, Avira and even MalwareBytes tend to score in the 35% to 50% bracket depening on the day.
That's around 1,500 new samples tested every week and the results are pretty consistent across products with the usual expected daily variance. The results are independent and there in black and white - so what exactly is it that's misleading? Anyone can join and see for themselves and I've not stated anything else.
As always a multi-layered approach focusing on prevention is way better than relying on detection. UAC, common sense and non-admin accounts will prevent a lot of common malware. But with the nature of driveby malware (even the BBC has served it in recent times, on legit pages) and especially cross-platform Java exploits (which accounted for up to 60% of infections in the last couple of years according to some sources) it's becoming increasingly important to have good layered defences in place.
HIPS (at least that isn't too chatty and likely to be ignored), sandboxing and behavioural analysis are much more useful than plain detection. As I said this is why the likes of Comodo tend to do very well in real world testing even though historically their signatures haven't been the best. What slips past the sigs tends to be pounded by the HIPS and auto-sandboxing.
If you'd care to point out where I was talking bull and why (preferably with sources and actual evidence) I'm all ears to learn something new. But to refute a simple statement based on malwaretips in-house testing (which was attributed as such) when the results are there in black and white, is perplexing.