Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Question about tests...
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1120501" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.</p><p>Am I ignorant? I wrote clearly, the technology used in the latest ESET looks very good in theory. And I don't ignore it. In version 17, the previous one, it didn't work well. Now, after the tests we can see, Eset works much better.</p><p>Ignorance is exactly in your case, because you assume that Eset works like it did a year or a few years ago and they haven't improved anything.</p><p></p><p>I will repeat. In theory, Eset now looks very good. It takes time to see if it will work well in practice. We have known the Bitdefender and Kasperky solution for years. They have refined it over the years and we have evidence for years that it works.</p><p>I am not blinded. The IT industry and security are not standing still. For years, BD and Kaspersky were at the forefront, but that doesn't mean they will be there all the time.</p><p></p><p>I don't know any Iceman. I registered to find a replacement for Fsecure, which has now become Avira. And I've written a few times that my first choice was to go back to Bitdefender after years. And I'd probably do that today. But I'm still curious about Eset's new solutions and how they'll work in the near future. I'll find a successor to Fsecure and I won't be involved here.</p><p></p><p>And even if BD is still better but only slightly, I prefer the peace of mind of Eset. It always has a better-developed solution that doesn't throw out errors like BD. Not to mention the fact that Eset flies on the computer and you don't feel it at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's what I'm writing about. Two different paths to the same thing. Only time will tell which is better, more effective and efficient.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Performing calculations on an installed machine has its limitations. It is the user's machine. Secondly, according to trends, AI security awaits us, which will be in the cloud.</p><p></p><p>Bitdefender also uses the cloud. Kaspersky too. Fsecure DeepGuard was also a cloud technology.</p><p>More and more services are escaping to the cloud in general and this trend is not decreasing but increasing.</p><p>In addition, Bitdefender is not perfect either. Higher in the test, where Norton crashed, Bitdefender let threats through, despite the fact that its signature is in VT. And this is not the only test where BD behaves like this.</p><p>There is no perfect solution for everything. And there never will be. And every AV, even with the best solutions, can give up on some threat.</p><p></p><p>Ending this conversation. I do not ignore the current Eset technology and I am curious how it will work after many tests. Today, for me, the leader is still BD, but only a cow does not change its views. And maybe in some time it will turn out that ESET will be better. Maybe. Time will tell.</p><p>I don't put a period and sign a pact with the devil and I don't have blinkers on to claim that only BD</p><p></p><p>*Kaspersky doesn't exist for me for political reasons. But I have already written on this forum that I respect him and have always considered him one of the best.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1120501, member: 121355"] Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Am I ignorant? I wrote clearly, the technology used in the latest ESET looks very good in theory. And I don't ignore it. In version 17, the previous one, it didn't work well. Now, after the tests we can see, Eset works much better. Ignorance is exactly in your case, because you assume that Eset works like it did a year or a few years ago and they haven't improved anything. I will repeat. In theory, Eset now looks very good. It takes time to see if it will work well in practice. We have known the Bitdefender and Kasperky solution for years. They have refined it over the years and we have evidence for years that it works. I am not blinded. The IT industry and security are not standing still. For years, BD and Kaspersky were at the forefront, but that doesn't mean they will be there all the time. I don't know any Iceman. I registered to find a replacement for Fsecure, which has now become Avira. And I've written a few times that my first choice was to go back to Bitdefender after years. And I'd probably do that today. But I'm still curious about Eset's new solutions and how they'll work in the near future. I'll find a successor to Fsecure and I won't be involved here. And even if BD is still better but only slightly, I prefer the peace of mind of Eset. It always has a better-developed solution that doesn't throw out errors like BD. Not to mention the fact that Eset flies on the computer and you don't feel it at all. That's what I'm writing about. Two different paths to the same thing. Only time will tell which is better, more effective and efficient. Performing calculations on an installed machine has its limitations. It is the user's machine. Secondly, according to trends, AI security awaits us, which will be in the cloud. Bitdefender also uses the cloud. Kaspersky too. Fsecure DeepGuard was also a cloud technology. More and more services are escaping to the cloud in general and this trend is not decreasing but increasing. In addition, Bitdefender is not perfect either. Higher in the test, where Norton crashed, Bitdefender let threats through, despite the fact that its signature is in VT. And this is not the only test where BD behaves like this. There is no perfect solution for everything. And there never will be. And every AV, even with the best solutions, can give up on some threat. Ending this conversation. I do not ignore the current Eset technology and I am curious how it will work after many tests. Today, for me, the leader is still BD, but only a cow does not change its views. And maybe in some time it will turn out that ESET will be better. Maybe. Time will tell. I don't put a period and sign a pact with the devil and I don't have blinkers on to claim that only BD *Kaspersky doesn't exist for me for political reasons. But I have already written on this forum that I respect him and have always considered him one of the best. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
