Cortex

Level 12
Having used ESET & Emsisoft on the same pretty fast PC, well starting to get on somewhat (16 GIG RAM) over the last couple of weeks & done ripping, photo work etc. I really don't find a huge if any perceived difference in impact despite the scores. It seems to run fine with either & with Kaspersky? (I hasten to add not all at the same time) :eek::eek::eek:
 

oldschool

Level 37
Verified
Anyway, those results have nothing to do with the real protection of many users, because in the real world the users are infected mostly by ignoring AV detection, running cracks or pirated software, etc. Those infection vectors cannot be properly measured by any AV Lab.
Agreed!(y) I wonder how this thread became (for some) simply another opportunity to bash WD? :unsure::emoji_neutral_face::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot:
 

RejZoR

Level 11
Verified
BONUS: performance test, being the number #1 the lightest and the number #17 the heaviest.

Guess who gets "the worst optimized AV" for Windows? LOL
Not really surprised. Windows Defender is the ONLY antivirus that causes massive lag spikes on very fast CPU with 12 threads, 32GB of RAM and fast massive SSD. Which is why I rolled my eyes ultra hard every time Windows Defender came out among the best in performance tests. It's just physically not possible. And I don't get it why Microsoft can't address this. It literally takes several seconds for system to react with Windows Defender when launching large installers for example. Something you hardly ever see with any other AV...
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Agreed!(y) I wonder how this thread became (for some) simply another opportunity to bash WD? :unsure::emoji_neutral_face::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot:
Sadly its always like this, it's quite funny actually. Nobody had any issues with these tests when WD was scoring around 75% consistently, but all of a sudden Microsoft makes an effort (mind you with increased FP's) to make improvements, all of a sudden, it's not possible, these tests are stupid, there's no way Microsoft can make improvements, Microsoft must be paying them for these results, blah, blah, blah.

WD is far from perfect, it does have it warts, but its a far better program now compared to when it was integrated into the OS (Windows 8). Surprisingly (and I am sure that I will be labelled as a fanboy, even though I am not), I haven't run into the performance issues that some of these tests report. Actually since upgrading to 1809 I've noticed it get lighter, than before. I agree with @Andy Ful , these tests do not represent the true real world usage for WD, or any product for that matter. I agree that default WD may leave a little be to be desired, but when configured, its quite capable. Add a program or 2 (ie: OS Armor, Syshardener, Hard_Configurator, etc...), combine that with safe habits and there's a high probability you will be infection free. As for WD and new malware, I though that's what "block at first sight" was for?

Any who another test, more or less the same silliness. At the end of the day just use whatever you want/like and combine that with safe habits and you should be good to go. No product is perfect, regardless how they score on tests like these. @Andy Ful said it best, its all an illusion!
 
5

509322

Nobody had any issues with these tests when WD was scoring around 75% consistently, but all of a sudden Microsoft makes an effort (mind you with increased FP's) to make improvements, all of a sudden, it's not possible, these tests are stupid, there's no way Microsoft can make improvements, Microsoft must be paying them for these results, blah, blah, blah.
No one needs an AV lab to test WD to see that against new malware it will detect\protect in the 40 to 60 % range. Just test it for yourself. The other products do significantly better.

I agree that default WD may leave a little be to be desired, but when configured, its quite capable. Add a program or 2 (ie: OS Armor, Syshardener, Hard_Configurator, etc...), combine that with safe habits and there's a high probability you will be infection free.
How is the typical user (computer illiterate) supposed to figure that out ? They aren't security soft geeks. They don't come to places like MT. And even if they did they still would have a difficult time figuring it all out.

As for WD and new malware, I though that's what "block at first sight" was for?
Sure, that's fine if the user can figure out how to enable it - and that's something a typical user simply cannot do. LOL... it was only recently that "block at first sight" could analyze non-portable files, and even then it doesn't work like default-deny. It uploads the file for cloud analysis. Then makes a determination.
 
5

509322

At the end of the day just use whatever you want/like and combine that with safe habits and you should be good to go.
I could not agree with you more because I say the same thing all the time, but at the same time people need to be informed about Microsoft's Throne of Lies. There is no substitute for knowledge.

Even @Andy Ful has stated that a user would be better off installing Kaspersky and learning to configure it.
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
This test is trying to represent the environment of a "typical" user, one who is not downloading cracks in torrented zip files, or turning off his AV to install warez, or running packs of malware on his desktop just for fun.
If you are any of the above, this test is not reflective of your environment.
 

oldschool

Level 37
Verified
Sadly its always like this, it's quite funny actually. Nobody had any issues with these tests when WD was scoring around 75% consistently, but all of a sudden Microsoft makes an effort (mind you with increased FP's) to make improvements, all of a sudden, it's not possible, these tests are stupid, there's no way Microsoft can make improvements, Microsoft must be paying them for these results, blah, blah, blah.

WD is far from perfect, it does have it warts, but its a far better program now compared to when it was integrated into the OS (Windows 8). Surprisingly (and I am sure that I will be labelled as a fanboy, even though I am not), I haven't run into the performance issues that some of these tests report. Actually since upgrading to 1809 I've noticed it get lighter, than before. I agree with @Andy Ful , these tests do not represent the true real world usage for WD, or any product for that matter. I agree that default WD may leave a little be to be desired, but when configured, its quite capable. Add a program or 2 (ie: OS Armor, Syshardener, Hard_Configurator, etc...), combine that with safe habits and there's a high probability you will be infection free. As for WD and new malware, I though that's what "block at first sight" was for?

Any who another test, more or less the same silliness. At the end of the day just use whatever you want/like and combine that with safe habits and you should be good to go. No product is perfect, regardless how they score on tests like these. @Andy Ful said it best, its all an illusion!
You must be a "fanboy" (or Fanboi if you prefer French!) and a fact deny-er! :LOL: How dare you! :LOL::LOL::LOL::devil::devil::devil:
 

DeepWeb

Level 24
Verified
:giggle: hi

why are the testing methods here bad?

windows defender slowed down my PC far more than bitdender.

i did not get bugs from bitdefender.
This is the $10 question here my friend. The tests people do here reveal very different results. Something like WD, Vipre, QuickHeal (lol wat), shouldn't have more than 95% detection rates. Let's see if the malware survives reboot for example which many do.
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
This is the $10 question here my friend. The tests people do here reveal very different results. Something like WD, Vipre, QuickHeal (lol wat), shouldn't have more than 95% detection rates. Let's see if the malware survives reboot for example which many do.
MalwareHub testing does not try to represent the environment of a "typical" user. It tests the raw power of the AV against relatively unknown threats.
That's the difference, in a nutshell.