Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RoboMan" data-source="post: 1018786" data-attributes="member: 53544">There&#039;s only two facts I want to drop here:1. It surprises me how little effort Microsoft is putting into the KNOWN and REPORTED GUI bugs. That&#039;s one of the reasons I can&#039;t yet like it. It&#039;s ridiculous how hard it is to remove threats, since the GUI tends to bug, misinform and crash. That&#039;s a basic AV function and cannot function the way it does.2. I see a lot of comments where the discussion is &quot;detection rates&quot; and I strongly advice (mostly novice users) to NOT guide themselves with these. We must always remember this test and all tests should be taken with a grain of salt, which numbers only represent a general idea. For example, I&#039;ve seen AV&#039;s with 100% detection rate, meaning all the malware files within THAT TEST were detected, but this in no way means this antivirus will always catch 100% of all existing malware. I&#039;ve seen also Kaspersky score lower that competitors in &quot;protection rates&quot; which doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s worse, since for example, a well configured Application Control in Kaspersky will never let malware execute in the first place (of course, it may happen some time, like the CCleaner case).All in all, what I say is: do not let tests mean more than a general idea on what deserves or does not deserve to be tested by YOU when you feel like using it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RoboMan, post: 1018786, member: 53544"] There's only two facts I want to drop here: 1. It surprises me how little effort Microsoft is putting into the [B]KNOWN [/B]and [B]REPORTED [U]GUI bugs[/U][/B]. That's one of the reasons I can't yet like it. It's ridiculous how hard it is to remove threats, since the GUI tends to bug, misinform and crash. That's a basic AV function and cannot function the way it does. 2. I see a lot of comments where the discussion is "detection rates" and I strongly advice (mostly novice users) to NOT guide themselves with these. We must always remember this test and all tests should be taken with a grain of salt, which numbers only represent a general idea. For example, I've seen AV's with 100% detection rate, meaning all the malware files within [U]THAT TEST[/U] were detected, but this in no way means this antivirus will always catch [B]100% of all existing malware[/B]. I've seen also Kaspersky score lower that competitors in "protection rates" which doesn't mean it's worse, since for example, a well configured Application Control in Kaspersky [U][B]will never let malware execute[/B][/U][B] [/B]in the first place (of course, it may happen some time, like the CCleaner case). All in all, what I say is: [B]do not let tests mean more than a general idea on what deserves or does not deserve to be tested by YOU when you feel like using it.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification