What is the point in having a huge setting button on the main gui that offer nothing and you can access it from the left panel? I can accept the logs one that shows me the amount of malware detected (i wouldn't have it there either ideally) but if you are not trying to boost sales to old people houses then you can lose the huge setting button.
The majority of our customers is over 60. That being said, I agree. What would you like to see in its place or how do you think the settings button could be made more useful? Would adding shortcuts to specific sections do the trick?
Same story with the mobile application. Don't like it.
The mobile version is literally a rebrand of the Bitdefender product. So that is kinda expected.
Imo Emsisoft should drop Bitdefender engine and relay totally up on their own + BB to show if they can still compete. My expectations were just too high, I thought Emsisoft was unique company, not "rebrand" of other product. (5+ years paid customer)
It's something worth considering. There are a few issues though. First of all, while we can discuss whether or not AV tests are useful, the economic reality is that they are important for sales. While the majority of AV tests do include a vast variety of real world scenarios these days, they unfortunately usually have at least one old "on-demand" test as part of their testing series which doesn't work well in a product that focuses on only real world scenarios. It's the reason why certain products simply refuse to be tested.
The other issue is that a lot of our users are very privacy conscious. Doubling down on our own technologies will mean that we ultimately have to become more invasive when it comes to telemetry and the data we collect on our users' systems, which would include reporting of files we haven't seen before, automated file submissions, collection of behaviour data of all the applications running as well as much more frequent cloud checks. While this isn't anything other products including Windows Defender already do, it may not jive particularly well with our current customer base.
That being said, there are some major things in the pipeline to restructure our product lineup and also some major technology changes of how EAM works.
As for their own engine, virtually impossible to keep it relevant with the resources they have so it's an adjunct probably forever.
The reason why it is an adjunct isn't lack of resources at all. It's because there is literally no point in doing it right now. Wasting the user's resources and increasing memory usage dramatically just so that there are more detections by our engine instead of Bitdefender's is kinda pointless. That doesn't mean that if we were to drop Bitdefender we couldn't keep up with samples.
Signature creation at any AV company is heavily automated. Essentially you throw a bunch of malicious files and a large amount of non-malicious files into a system and it spits out signatures that match the malicious files, but do not match the non-malicious files in most simplest terms. There is no manual labour involved and hasn't been in like the last 10 years at the very least.
I don't know why this UI change is necessary.
I went into the reasons before. Essentially we are moving to a different UI toolkit that allows for better performance, hardware acceleration and ultimately more flexibility like the implementation of alternate themes. You may have also noticed that the UI very much feels like a website now. There are reasons for that as well, which we will probably reveal within the next months.
Yes as per the price it is ridicously high..rest i ECHO you
However they seem to be heavily dependent on Bit defender for signatures..as like F secure i see very very little detection from their own engine..HUGE PRICE is a heavy drop for its Sales which i echoed many times here..) Hope they will
The reason you don't see a lot of detections by our engine is because we go out of our way to disable any signatures that are already covered by Bitdefender in an attempt to improve resource usage of your system. There is no point to have two signature for the same malicious files. So essentially when we see a new malware or PUP sample, we create a signature for it and that is usually a bit quicker than Bitdefender creating a signature as well. However, once Bitdefender adds a detection for the same sample, we will disable our signature as it became redundant.
That being said, when we look at our telemetry, our engine is responsible for the majority of detections on our user's systems. We usually don't make a lot of our statistics public, but a few years ago, we released some of them. Essentially, this was the breakdown of detection types about 3 years ago:
I can tell you, that it shifted even more towards PUP detection in later years, but it may actually be a good idea to have an update to that article and provide some more recent statistics.
So by far the biggest chunk of all infections we see are related to PUPs, vastly outnumbering literally anything else. As a result, the vast majority of all detections are coming from our engine:
This is due to the fact that PUPs are so much more prevalent than actual malware these days and while Bitdefender does a good job at detecting malware, they don't care much about PUPs. As a result, our engine is detecting and removing about 4 times more PUPs than Bitdefender's does.
Communities like this one are very malware-centric. So when you do your tests with your malware packages only, you will not see a lot of our detections. Once you turn towards PUPs though, that will change drastically.
I couldn't agree with you more and what frustrates me is that when i first bought Emsisoft which was more than six yr's ago, it was a lion beginners had controls to set they didn't care about, an advance users made the most of them but now in 2018 we have the same lion but it's teeth is gone, perfect example bitdefender free reminds me at the moment of emsisoft, hardly any controls, it make me feel like they are catering this product to children.
Which controls have been removed compared to 6 years ago that you miss dearly?