Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dex4Sure" data-source="post: 855531" data-attributes="member: 79841">Can&#039;t help myself to answer this old thread... I&#039;d pick lightweight and stable product with best in class signatures, firewall and web filter any day over the bloated offerings you just mentioned. Kaspersky is great in protection I don&#039;t deny it, but they have too much bloatware. Norton and Bitdefender are also full of bloat. Tell me, why do I need cloud back up etc when I have Office 365 subscription with 1TB OneDrive space? Alternatively, Google drive offers 2TB for 99 dollars a year... When I see AV product trying to inject all this bloat I never even give them a chance. I&#039;d have a hard time to get infected even if I had no AV turned on at all. Been using WD from times when it was still far from the best AVs, never got infected. ESET is still among the best AV&#039;s out there and probably the lightest of them all (lightest of any local AV anyway). On my opinion what ESET is doing is smart. They are focusing on quality of the product, its stability and its speed. Nobody wants to run an AV that slows down their computer. Nobody wants to run an AV that conflicts with Windows&#039; built in features. This is what all the AV vendors should have in mind when designing an AV. You are building the AV around Windows. It shouldn&#039;t be Microsoft building Windows around your AV... Many AV companies are literally trying to battle with Microsoft&#039;s built in security mechanisms. Like Kaspersky tries to get you turn off device guard so you would use Kaspersky&#039;s virtualization instead... I just don&#039;t think that&#039;s smart approach by Kaspersky at all.And if ESET was so bad, how is it that Google is using ESET&#039;s scanning engine to secure Google Play Store, as well as uses ESET&#039;s scanner in its Chrome clean up tool. Google rarely teams up with anyone except the very best. If ESET really sucks as much as you claim it does, surely Google would have picked Symantec or Bitdefender over ESET as their partner? Not to mention, ESET endpoint protection is among the best as well. There&#039;s a reason why ESET has very large user base in corporate environment. If it didn&#039;t do its job well, it wouldn&#039;t be that popular.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dex4Sure, post: 855531, member: 79841"] Can't help myself to answer this old thread... I'd pick lightweight and stable product with best in class signatures, firewall and web filter any day over the bloated offerings you just mentioned. Kaspersky is great in protection I don't deny it, but they have too much bloatware. Norton and Bitdefender are also full of bloat. Tell me, why do I need cloud back up etc when I have Office 365 subscription with 1TB OneDrive space? Alternatively, Google drive offers 2TB for 99 dollars a year... When I see AV product trying to inject all this bloat I never even give them a chance. I'd have a hard time to get infected even if I had no AV turned on at all. Been using WD from times when it was still far from the best AVs, never got infected. ESET is still among the best AV's out there and probably the lightest of them all (lightest of any local AV anyway). On my opinion what ESET is doing is smart. They are focusing on quality of the product, its stability and its speed. Nobody wants to run an AV that slows down their computer. Nobody wants to run an AV that conflicts with Windows' built in features. This is what all the AV vendors should have in mind when designing an AV. You are building the AV around Windows. It shouldn't be Microsoft building Windows around your AV... Many AV companies are literally trying to battle with Microsoft's built in security mechanisms. Like Kaspersky tries to get you turn off device guard so you would use Kaspersky's virtualization instead... I just don't think that's smart approach by Kaspersky at all. And if ESET was so bad, how is it that Google is using ESET's scanning engine to secure Google Play Store, as well as uses ESET's scanner in its Chrome clean up tool. Google rarely teams up with anyone except the very best. If ESET really sucks as much as you claim it does, surely Google would have picked Symantec or Bitdefender over ESET as their partner? Not to mention, ESET endpoint protection is among the best as well. There's a reason why ESET has very large user base in corporate environment. If it didn't do its job well, it wouldn't be that popular. [/QUOTE]

Verification