Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ChoiceVoice" data-source="post: 893178" data-attributes="member: 28876">you seem to be trying to make a point veiled as a question: and yet your question undermines your point. you ask:&quot;Is it true that WD really is lighter and faster than most other AVs?&quot; (a point is made) -- yet you then say:&quot;This discussion is irrelevant if people do not list if they are running Windows on HDD.&quot; and your rationale is:&quot; HDD is legacy hardware that is the reason for slow performance.&quot; (you just admitted WD is slower in this regard)--if some OTHER AVs don&#039;t have &quot;slow performance&quot; with HDD, that indicates they are faster. and they will still be faster with SDD, but it won&#039;t be as pronounced, so you might not notice it. but faster is still faster in the metric you chose to focus on. i don&#039;t know whether WD is slower or not in disk activity, but i do know you just said it was slower while simultaneously telling us to ignore that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ChoiceVoice, post: 893178, member: 28876"] you seem to be trying to make a point veiled as a question: and yet your question undermines your point. you ask: [SIZE=4]"Is it true that WD really is lighter and faster than most other AVs?" (a point is made) -- yet you then say:[/SIZE] "This discussion is irrelevant if people do not list if they are running Windows on HDD." and your rationale is: " HDD is legacy hardware that is the reason for slow performance." (you just admitted WD is slower in this regard) --if some OTHER AVs don't have "slow performance" with HDD, that indicates they are faster. and they will still be faster with SDD, but it won't be as pronounced, so you might not notice it. but faster is still faster in the metric you chose to focus on. i don't know whether WD is slower or not in disk activity, but i do know you just said it was slower while simultaneously telling us to ignore that. [/QUOTE]

Verification