- FIRST IMPRESSION -
Virus scanner, well. I had you (professionally) all already: McAfee, Avast, ESET, BullGuard, Avira, BitDefender, Comodo, Kaspersky, Symantec or Norton ... Microsoft Security Essentials / Windows Defender ... I was not picky, you need to know. The list goes on long and F-Secure was certainly here and there really hooked. The virus scanners had been "a fish among many."
The first impression (ie during installation and the initial configuration) stabbed F-Secure now not necessarily so out from the crowd, that I could change all that now. This is a more "commercial" virus scanner, which at first glance no more and no less features than what they all offer. There are times a feature more as a feature less - but the fish are alike all of others.
- A look at the features -
Let's see ... we have "complete protection" in online shopping, surfing, online banking, social media, protect our "digital content" (please, what?), Distribute viruses, spyware, hacker attacks and ... and ... and. And we have a protection against identity theft (to be honest protects against identity theft is only one thing: mature, enlightened users). Browsing is also protected. Hm. But we've done in the context of "total protection". Oh, and a porn filter, sorry "child protection", we have also. Like any good router. Unfortunately, we have no firewall. The missing. Fortunately, the my router. But that's another story ... ;-)
Exploit protection we also - and fortunately does not explain how that works. But it works. Though sometimes slowly. Facebook is also protected - easily ... and the tool also tells me still the same, what's wrong with my settings. Okay, it scours for analyzing my Facebook profile - but that happens so on my behalf ... or not?
You remember, I'm a little negative attitude when it comes to double and triple mentioned in the description of F-Secure features. The reason is that the majority offer you even from other vendors - and then often in a much more ergonomic shape.
Anyway ...
Strange that I have previously used the metaphor "a fish among many." Another proverb also fits namely F-Secure: "The fish rots from the head." Somehow fits this phrase when you want to describe what displeases me about this virus scanner.
Lest we get us wrong: F-Secure makes certain virus scanner with good protective effect (the Android scanner's this regard also good), but protection is not enough, in my view, although you have to keep F-Secure products benefit from generally to play in the top 5 with when it comes to the recognition of known and prevention against unknown malware. So much for the indicated paean ...
We now return to reality: I had noticed already in the Android software that yourself behaving like a data octopus (which I think is in a security product for a very bad style) and also for the rights of distribution like is in the forefront. In the Windows version the both looks no different from: a security software that requires that I virtually shut let the pants and all of my key press in the hand, gives me no special sense of security. Makes makes me the contrary even thoughtful.
F-Secure is a little bit like the cliché-bodyguard, who always arises between its clients and people who want to talk to him - no matter who they are. Something like that seems to me in any case, what I since installation experience despite various Umkonfigurationsversuche: F-Secure mixes literally everywhere, can my i5 with 8GB RAM running a freshly installed Windows 7 Ultimate also been creeping slowly, when I in basically do NOTHING. So mundane things like working with an Office program or streaming video over the home network to time robbers.
In my eyes that holds over the Nerve and patience sample factor also still a problem that is usually ignored by many manufacturers. But who operates end-customer support, who knows that customers wait reluctantly. So what happens if my client thinks my software product slows him out? Correct: It's beginning to (almost certainly incorrectly) to configure it, to make it faster. That way, the protective effect is lost completely or partly that end users disable features a se ja good antivirus solution in order to "be a little faster," is a point definitely to the weight must fall in the valuation of F-Secure: Who as a manufacturer its customers by eg Norton and Kaspersky "of previously" known and dreaded (now partly remedied) "hard drilling in the operating system" (uninstall completely is not) and "outbraking" (laaangsam) with a paid product to bring the security aspect to let go, to get some more performance, of doing something wrong. In fact it behaves grossly negligent and takes approvingly accepted that your own safety system is undermined.
Another reviewer describes beautifully, what one should expect from an antivirus tool "foolproof methods possible, (m) a computer comfortably (...) hedge". This is precisely the point, the F-Secure missed here blatantly. The safety concept of F-Secure may be good for the defense against viruses, but it requires the user that it in the sense of security so resign yourself that everything (some) work more slowly.
Be honest: It's as if I would tell you: "I have an idea how you do not slip in winter:. Go slow" That is, I think, a good idea. Unfortunately, you will not help you further if you want to run a little faster but in the dense snowstorm to get the bus. Since then my advice fails.
Anyway: F-Secure also has its advantages. The relatively reduced configuration scope and easy installation make it possible, that "normal" computer user install this antivirus software and configure such features as the "child protection" so that you work. That in itself is already a good thing; the one must not ignore definitely in the evaluation.
It is this target group, it will be also no matter if F-Secure virtually "on the brakes" rises because usually occur the really stark effects not where Otto-Normal surfers occasionally makes the Internet unsafe and / or a 3- Zeiler writes in Office and images disengaged from his camera straight. In this same target group resource-eating aids my experience fall not necessarily significant. They are - simply accepted - out of habit.
Unfortunately, this is only one side of the coin. Anyone who digs through the positive and "recommended" denominated reviews, the statements are repeatedly encounter, which - at least me - make suspicious (should). As is always "A program was slow, so I have now taken the program B which is a lot faster." Well, we take the time for granted and overlook it, we where are the reasons: If Program A fact procured in a couple of years ago and "to the state" accommodated by installing updates with a fresh installation of Program B compared, then we have to factor in usual aging programs - aside from that program B is in the balanced-to-date version for systems use while you usually operated program A with an expiring license "to wear". Even if all this does not come into play, so some arguments seem quite obscure: "I had while I've never run program A virus problems Now I want to have it faster and take program example." Exactly. Only where this is a Tiger Meet basic, B to use program? Eben: There is none.
F-Secure makes this whole, quite disastrous and seemingly relativized only through the protective effect by viewing still one thing worse: The Datenkrake. When I look at that this protection solution my online banking with special "sessions" protect, where the security settings are pulled up (so high that in between before nothing went), they me but at the same time in banking "is watching", then will give me a bit uneasy. Then tell me the software even you mean anyway via https protected and encrypted traffic still "somehow more" want to protect, then I as a professional IT-ler'm mentally uninstall again when.
The "Optimized Performance" for gaming is the way a nice way of saying you can decrease the priority of the real-time protection when starting certain programs in F-Secure (I translate that now times in the language of other virus scanners) by way of exceptions. This is not rocket science and generally possible for all competitors. Exceptions can always put anyway - and if the real-time protection gaming machine slows so that you can tell during the game, then the evidence not just of a resource-saving real-time protection. In my eyes, so are some pure selling points for Papas who want spendieren some protection to the "Gaming" -Rechnern their children without even knowing what the kids do with it really.
- Commissioning and installation -
The installation is virtually self continuously and uses the operating system such as in a shop, to ensure maximum protection. Ambivalent in my eyes. For ordinary end users, given the minimization of own workload probably even a selling point.
- Usability and ergonomics -
Basically, the usability for the normal customer is sufficient for the system administrator but not. Especially the factor "How can I optimize performance and protective effect against each other?" is somehow too short. It is here that, there is what - and noted no effect.
- MAINTENANCE AND CARE -
A virus scanner, which automatically updated. Something new ...
Joking aside, F-Secure is neither better nor worse position than other scanners. A fish among many.
- FEATURES AND TIPS -
In the final test with respect. The detection of unknown malware, F-Secure is at least the fourth place (just ahead of Kaspersky). As such not a bad result - therefore is F-Secure even in fact (and I can see that as a special feature) in one respect recommended: It protects and operated so that the stereotype that a knight is well protected in its thick, portly armor. Fascinating is the way in this regard, that in most cases in the same tests also my favorite scanner (Note: irony!) Drives Avira in the head around. Where Avira with their totally nebulous, meaningless Toolbar to vulnerable customers quasi its own version which delivers what many end users have come to hate as "Ask Toolbar", making F-Secure one of absolute safety. That we had already times. I just wonder when the first semi-shady antivirus comes up with its own program on data retention. Of course, only for the benefit of the customer ...
- Services and contacts -
[...]
Here you can see that F-Secure is really not bad. . The values shown elsewhere on this page regarding "performance" or "performance degradation" I want to say the least doubt - but the test systems, it may well have been so, that there were hardly any performance degradation. Who knows?
- AFTER A WEEK -
I have endured almost two and a half weeks. In my two and a half weeks translates testing hot but something different from the usual "in the time I was three or four times on the computer". For me, these two and a half weeks or less hot "everyday good 8-10 hours".
The performance hit on Windows 7 are significant. In an alternative installation under Windows 8.1 on the same computer, they are less blatant, but still present. The syncing large file volumes has been slowed down significantly compared to the quasi not (unfortunately not in the protective effect) to bemerkenden Microsoft Security Essentials and the only moderately covered significant competitor Sophos. Particularly noticeable was at cross transfers from one NAS to another, which I run routinely by a sync tools on my computer in order to simultaneously scan for viruses. The effect here was literally expressed in hours.
- Conclusion -
So, let's leave the church in the village, if we consider ourselves the compassionate reviews of my colleagues from the Vine program: get "nothing" When I delivered software, then of course I have a reason to install me. Do I get paid a license - Well, who is the gift horse in the mouth look even not?
So go ask critical "recommended" with statements like to, if you do you not exactly clear why the program A, B, C or D should be so unearthly good now that you should buy it.
Fasting is considered F-Secure neither a particularly good nor a particularly bad solution for the home user. In a corporate environment to me some of the more obscure features would be an eyesore - especially those who do not want to say so right to me as a system administrator, what they intend to do so.
For end users reached F-Secure in my eyes, weighing between protective effect (very good), performance (with me: mau) and system integration (deeply rooted in the protected components) a rather average result of 3 stars.
As an end user you can not go far wrong with F-Secure, that's for sure actually. Sure it may be that your system is slow - but that will possibly happen to them when competitors also. Are you all to the protection, then you are pretty good because - although other manufacturers the feat tune each other perform better performance and effect.
The end result is I get to 3 stars. I will F-Secure continues to hold on one of my installations, if necessary to complement a long-term report and then me to enlarge upon the intense performance. So far, the software has discovered in the usual syncs only a few stale Trojans that I keep as a positive sample in ZIP archives. From new malware no trace so far ;-)
[This review is often updated by me. Just a corresponding comment. Thanks.]
