You know this claim because you actually used all of Eset modules to their full capabilities, adding manual rules to both the Hips and firewall as well as adjusting all the advanced settings?
Overall... Kaspersky's HEUR and BB is better then ESET. Not opinion but test data. Either way who cares
They test at defaults. Eset is an advanced application with manual rules to be applied, but your right who cares if we wrongly inform others from lack of knowledge.
Right, but do you have to manually apply rules in Kaspersky to get the excellent results it achieves with its default settings?
That's not the point, no one is bashing Kaspersky without knowing how to use it. They are bashing an application that many of them have no clue how to utilize. What benefit does it apply to users, this misinforming based on ego and attitude.
I know. But I know NOD 32 so well, and know it's a very qualified AV. IRL I'm not sure the difference is so big. I do know system watcher is a very good module in K, but Eset have its strengths too. I use a standard account, and I make sure to think all the time when I surf, so I feel reasonably safe. As one said, in 2024 Windows is not that easy to get infected if you watch it.
So is Kaspersky... I am Vendor Agnostic so I don't care
I used to be an ESET Fanboy also from v2
Refer to post 8 the latter part.So is Kaspersky... I am Vendor Agnostic so I don't care
I wont because I am too busy and thought I'd reply. I still respect you my Brother
Wait, I reread the topic starter a couple times and didn't see a word about effectiveness, it's all about performance. I've long believed that installing Eset is essentially a tweak to improve OS performance while keeping it secure compared to Defender and most other solutions, except Norton, which is also as lightweight as possible.
This is true of course, but Eset Smart Security is also good at zero-day protection, if we are not talking about targeted attacks, thanks to cloud sandboxing, also according to all tests Eset is in the top 5, so the difference in protection allows you to choose a solution within the scope of what you are more comfortable and like to use.
This is what happens when you take something out of context. It wasn't aimed at op but at another responders comment.
Easy now. I am not a "fanboy". BTW thanks for the old Eset picture, where the moduls had names like Amon, Dmon etc. Those were the days.So is Kaspersky... I am Vendor Agnostic so I don't care
I don't even use Kaspersky
Yes sir! They were the good days.Easy now. I am not a "fanboy". BTW thanks for the old Eset picture, where the moduls had names like Amon, Dmon etc. Those were the days.
Now that's an honest and accurate assessment.As far as I'm concerned, Kaspersky and ESET are pretty much identical.
I've been an ESET user for a long time, and the same goes for Kaspersky.
There's good and bad in both. Detection is relatively good on both.
But I chose Kaspersky because it's relatively automatic (and I'm a big slacker, I don't want to bother with configuration and end up with lots of false positives... it'll annoy me most of all xDD ).
After that, I wouldn't say no to going back to Eset (even if they don't like GigaByte and AMD files), but I prefer Kaspersky
But even in lab tests, Eset is always almost the absolute leader in terms of no false positives, isn't it? In my experience, it has never triggered any false positives at all.
