Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="czesetfan" data-source="post: 1067033" data-attributes="member: 93724">For me ESET yes. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />It really is lightweight, this is evident in almost every test, even from practical experience. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /> <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🥇" title="1st place medal&nbsp; &nbsp; :first_place:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f947.png" data-shortname=":first_place:" />Also consider ESET&#039;s philosophy of balancing - protection, false positive detections and low load. In practice, this means almost zero false detections, but the price for this is slightly more &quot;cautious&quot; protection results. Again in most tests ESET is a few tenths,hundredths of a percent below the top.This can be well helped by hardening settings, detection levels, HIPS, etc. But this already assumes, as mentioned here above, one&#039;s own proactive approach and willingness to learn. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="📖" title="Open book&nbsp; &nbsp; :book:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f4d6.png" data-shortname=":book:" /><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🛡️" title="Shield&nbsp; &nbsp; :shield:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f6e1.png" data-shortname=":shield:" />Finally, beware. NOD32&#039;s lifetime seems to be slowly coming to an end. I assume that going forward the lowest basic protection will be the &quot;Internet Security&quot; package.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="czesetfan, post: 1067033, member: 93724"] For me ESET yes. (y):) It really is lightweight, this is evident in almost every test, even from practical experience. (y) 🥇 Also consider ESET's philosophy of balancing - protection, false positive detections and low load. In practice, this means almost zero false detections, but the price for this is slightly more "cautious" protection results. Again in most tests ESET is a few tenths,hundredths of a percent below the top. This can be well helped by hardening settings, detection levels, HIPS, etc. But this already assumes, as mentioned here above, one's own proactive approach and willingness to learn. 📖🛡️ Finally, beware. NOD32's lifetime seems to be slowly coming to an end. I assume that going forward the lowest basic protection will be the "Internet Security" package. (y) [/QUOTE]

Verification