Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 97327" data-source="post: 1022576">On what basis did you decide two years is enough? The sample test has to be relevant to the number of malwares in the wild in that specific period. Since nobody knowns how much malware lives in the wild in a given month (you can&#039;t count what you don&#039;t detect), I am still in the dark about why 2 years is sufficient, why not four years or eight?As posted earlier: it makes me smile about the passion MT-members debate qualities and advantages of specific AV&#039;s while you are saying the differences are irrelevant due to to small test sample sizes <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 97327, post: 1022576"] On what basis did you decide two years is enough? The sample test has to be relevant to the number of malwares in the wild in that specific period. Since nobody knowns how much malware lives in the wild in a given month (you can't count what you don't detect), I am still in the dark about why 2 years is sufficient, why not four years or eight? As posted earlier: it makes me smile about the passion MT-members debate qualities and advantages of specific AV's while you are saying the differences are irrelevant due to to small test sample sizes :-) (y) [/QUOTE]

Verification