Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 910448" data-attributes="member: 32260">He is not a WD expert and he obviously does not share a good opinion about WD. I do not think that he wants intentionally bash WD, because this particular test would contradict such intentions. A few of his tests I saw could rather suggest that he really believed that WD is not as good as most of popular commercial AVs. This can partially follow from his tests and his testing framework. It can be also true that he slowly changes his mind. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Anyway, I think that WD on default settings can score slightly worse in Malware Protection tests due to the lack of BAFS protection. This can be recompensated by using ConfigureDefender High Protection Level. But, it can be also true that the difference could be hardly visible for the home users.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 910448, member: 32260"] He is not a WD expert and he obviously does not share a good opinion about WD. I do not think that he wants intentionally bash WD, because this particular test would contradict such intentions. A few of his tests I saw could rather suggest that he really believed that WD is not as good as most of popular commercial AVs. This can partially follow from his tests and his testing framework. It can be also true that he slowly changes his mind. :) Anyway, I think that WD on default settings can score slightly worse in Malware Protection tests due to the lack of BAFS protection. This can be recompensated by using ConfigureDefender High Protection Level. But, it can be also true that the difference could be hardly visible for the home users. [/QUOTE]

Verification