Andy Ful

Level 41
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
...you just ignore the line where i said the Admitted it to me ! And immediately refunded me after 3 months.
I am not sure why you want to continue the discussion. Your situation was clear. It was evident that their software did not work with your VPN, so why should you buy it? That was the sufficient reason for the reclamation.
Please, read my posts again. Everything I wrote, can be logically concluded from the information that you wrote. And it does not look like defending BitDefender.

This is my last post here, because our discussion is off topic, and I opened the new thread: What is a bug?(y)

Post edited.
 
Last edited:

L0ckJaw

Level 7
Verified
I am not sure why you want to continue the discussion. Your situation was clear. It was evident that their software did not work with your VPN, so why should you buy it? That was the sufficient reason for the reclamation.
Please, read my posts again. Everything I wrote, can be logically concluded from the information that you wrote. And it does not look like defending BitDefender.

This is my last post here, because our discussion is off topic, and I opened the new thread: What is a bug?(y)

Post edited.
So hard for you to read correct. I stop in this topic.
 

gricardo21

Level 19
Verified
i´ve used bitdefender in the past and one month ago i installed again to see if if changed, well it was the same, few things to point are the laggy UI (some times settings are lost after close etc). One thing that bothers me a lot is the fact that every time bitdefender tries to update itself the proccess that manage that, starts to read the disk in a horrible way (me for example being a gamer, a huge disk usage will result in a drop in FPS), back in 2013 with another pc, i experienced the same issues(so if you dont have a SSD you may suffer from some slow down while updating, worse case is the fact that the update process may take up to 3 minutes, since it takes ages to "process" the definitions it uses). Other thing to notice is that the firewall itself may interfere with other programs.

However i do prefer to use bitdefender in a non-direct way, products that implements their SDK(signatures) are proven to be really good for example emsisoft or f-secure, so their signatures are excellent but the main thing (the product itself, is laggy or heavy in a normal day of usage). the problem here is that their signatures are way to heavy, so in any product that contains bitdefender SDK you should expect a 200MB or more on RAM usage.

One thing I want to ask to @cruelsister is: bitdefender IPS or active control is really good? i mean i know is not bullet proof but at least "it does somethnig?" in the past i knew bitdefender for it decent behaviour againts zero days, but know i dont know for now.
 

Cortex

Level 8
I gave 2018 a good try & just could not get on with it despite many glowing tests, I recently tried the latest version & decided it was never going to be for me, I'm not really sure why?. Most AV's ether give a month trial or your money back, IMO that's enough to decide whether its for you or not, we all though have different wants & needs. I keep ending up with Kaspersky & Panda on my lappys. I do like messing with software again I'm not sure why :)
 
Last edited:

Burrito

Level 12
Verified
You should rather avoid such general statements, based on your individual single-event experience. General statements require some objective basis.
Every AV can be buggy for some users. Also, the new upcoming versions have usually more bugs. Most AV vendors refund the money if the AV does not work well on the consumer system. Some problems may be related to the special hardware or software configuration, some may be introduced by the consumer who uses more than one security software or changes the security several times.
Look at the post above yours - it is far more specific and less general (you even did not mention the Bitdefender version).
Be safe.(y)
Yeah.
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 13
Verified
This was posted in Eset's forum. They say that they had done well in terms of proactive protection.
Got it ! What they have said that firewall was blocking Wanna cry @ the network port level ..is too nothing but a signature roll out.
Statements with out evidence is vain.
Eset was vulnerable to almost all the ransomwares i tested. It was the only PAID AV that was defeated against all the ransomwares.
Check the review forum once!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV-Freak and Nestor