Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 818584">That&#039;s how tests should be done IMO. They shouldn&#039;t be easy and quite frankly I&#039;m really happy with these results because it proves that all products don&#039;t score 99-100% every time.All products will fail and&nbsp; miss things, even the mighty Kaspersky. I don&#039;t see the need to go crazy because the results weren&#039;t what one was expecting. IMHO, if you consider the amount on malware out there, anything that can score in the 90&#039;s is more than enough. At the end of the day just because Kaspersky scored lower than WD for example, doesn&#039;t mean its crap all of a sudden. It also doesn&#039;t mean WD is better than Kaspersky, it just did better with this sample set. If anything, all this proves is that WD has improve quite significantly and is just as good as most 3rd parties now. It&#039;s no longer at the bottom anymore and is more than capable of protecting users.+1+1I always try to stress this as best I can. This test just proves that no product is perfect. This is not something new, this has always been the case and will continue to remain that way. Most products now a days are more than enough to protect users, but it&#039;s always important to practice safe habits. At some point it will fail, even if your product scores 99-100% consistently. It doesn&#039;t matter how well it scores, all it takes is one to get through.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 818584"] That's how tests should be done IMO. They shouldn't be easy and quite frankly I'm really happy with these results because it proves that all products don't score 99-100% every time. All products will fail and miss things, even the mighty Kaspersky. I don't see the need to go crazy because the results weren't what one was expecting. IMHO, if you consider the amount on malware out there, anything that can score in the 90's is more than enough. At the end of the day just because Kaspersky scored lower than WD for example, doesn't mean its crap all of a sudden. It also doesn't mean WD is better than Kaspersky, it just did better with this sample set. If anything, all this proves is that WD has improve quite significantly and is just as good as most 3rd parties now. It's no longer at the bottom anymore and is more than capable of protecting users. +1 +1 I always try to stress this as best I can. This test just proves that no product is perfect. This is not something new, this has always been the case and will continue to remain that way. Most products now a days are more than enough to protect users, but it's always important to practice safe habits. At some point it will fail, even if your product scores 99-100% consistently. It doesn't matter how well it scores, all it takes is one to get through.;) [/QUOTE]

Verification