- Jan 10, 2017
- 1,061
Eset and Kaspersky behind Bullguard :X3: Panda again a winner place...but how?! their sigs and behavior blocker cannot be the reason
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! I wonder how this thread became (for some) simply another opportunity to bash WD? :emoji_neutral_face::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot:
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
Agreed! I wonder how this thread became (for some) simply another opportunity to bash WD? :emoji_neutral_face::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot::barefoot:
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.
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?
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.
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!
Btw what happened to the user Windows Defender Shill?So entertaining to see that the fanboyism has already begun. When will my fellow Kaspersky lovers chime in? Or are we holding back to watch the fun?
No idea. Noobs like me just listen and learn...Btw what happened to the user Windows Defender Shill?
lmao. Are you Windows Defender Shill? Just in case.No idea. Noobs like me just listen and learn...
Nope. KSC Free guy here (and VS/OSA).lmao. Are you Windows Defender Shill? Just in case.
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.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.
thank you for the reply.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.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.