Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Local Host" data-source="post: 808478">[USER=72227]@Raiden[/USER] But WD hasn&#039;t performed well in any testing, even in the Malware Hub.The first question everyone asks in those negative tests is &quot;Is this using Hard Configurator?&quot;Considering the majorly of users use WD with Default Settings, that is irrelevant, not to mention even with Strict Settings, WD is easily bypassed by Malware constantly (and malware that targets WD is actually used in Home Systems, since it&#039;s the default AV).Reason why everyone started talking about the Anti-Tamper in WD, which clearly shows lack of testing from you guys, as the Anti-Tamper in WD has proven to be ineffective and still in testing.So no, WD is not a good AV for casual users, and as for us advanced users we don&#039;t need an AV in the first place, so using us as benchmark and claiming WD is good, is not exactly a good idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Local Host, post: 808478"] [USER=72227]@Raiden[/USER] But WD hasn't performed well in any testing, even in the Malware Hub. The first question everyone asks in those negative tests is "Is this using Hard Configurator?" Considering the majorly of users use WD with Default Settings, that is irrelevant, not to mention even with Strict Settings, WD is easily bypassed by Malware constantly (and malware that targets WD is actually used in Home Systems, since it's the default AV). Reason why everyone started talking about the Anti-Tamper in WD, which clearly shows lack of testing from you guys, as the Anti-Tamper in WD has proven to be ineffective and still in testing. So no, WD is not a good AV for casual users, and as for us advanced users we don't need an AV in the first place, so using us as benchmark and claiming WD is good, is not exactly a good idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification