Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="artek" data-source="post: 856745" data-attributes="member: 22897">98.3% was the lowest score of all the tested vendors from the jul-aug test.&nbsp; And it scored&nbsp; 98.4, which was the second worst score of all the vendors, on the February-May.&nbsp; The last test for the 2018 period, again Feb-may, it came in 4th last. Consistently in the bottom 4 for the real-world protection list is not what I would categorize as a &quot;not bad&quot; result.If last, second last, and fourth last, aren&#039;t bad results to you.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know what would be bad.&nbsp; And this is illustrative of my point.&nbsp; You&#039;re completely ignoring Eset&#039;s bad testing scores, while at the same time referencing Webroot&#039;s bad results.&nbsp; You said this in your above post:&quot;The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don&#039;t matter (because Webroot said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Webroot&#039;s poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.&quot;Considering Eset&#039;s consistently bad test results on av-comparatives, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to ignore this, I could just as easily say this:The sad thing is that many die hard Eset users, just blindly believe that tests really don&#039;t matter (because ESET said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Esets&#039;s poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="artek, post: 856745, member: 22897"] 98.3% was the lowest score of all the tested vendors from the jul-aug test. And it scored 98.4, which was the second worst score of all the vendors, on the February-May. The last test for the 2018 period, again Feb-may, it came in 4th last. Consistently in the bottom 4 for the real-world protection list is not what I would categorize as a "not bad" result. If last, second last, and fourth last, aren't bad results to you. I don't know what would be bad. And this is illustrative of my point. You're completely ignoring Eset's bad testing scores, while at the same time referencing Webroot's bad results. You said this in your above post: "The sad thing is that many die hard Webroot users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because Webroot said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Webroot's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it." Considering Eset's consistently bad test results on av-comparatives, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to ignore this, I could just as easily say this: The sad thing is that many die hard Eset users, just blindly believe that tests really don't matter (because ESET said so, so it must be true lol) and think that anyone says otherwise is a hater, rather than actually caring about Esets's poor performance and listening to people who raise legitimate concerns about its performance and not just bashing it for the sake of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification