Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Why I think testing "labs" are useless
Message
<blockquote data-quote="plat" data-source="post: 883302" data-attributes="member: 74969"><p>My longstanding perspective:</p><p></p><p>It's been a longstanding thing that the comparatives are more like marketing front-ends for the various antivirus vendors. Often the big ones will sport various medals and such on their homepages. Even Microsoft, Robbie.</p><p></p><p>One conversation in the past involved one of Defender's components being disabled and "tweaked" and then naturally scoring way low. Manipulating the AVs behind the scenes--big time NO NO Someone from a comparatives lab got very huffy and puffy. But you don't do that and then purvey "scientific" data. You can still see this on YouTube sometimes, to forward an agenda. How clean are these studies? Maybe very clean now but we consumers don't know. Money, money to be made. </p><p></p><p>It's amusing how intricate to simulate the "real world" these studies say they are. But entice me to install Brand X on my machine--not happening. However, for many, the pretty graphs and pie charts are way more "scientific" and therefore credible. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite119" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="plat, post: 883302, member: 74969"] My longstanding perspective: It's been a longstanding thing that the comparatives are more like marketing front-ends for the various antivirus vendors. Often the big ones will sport various medals and such on their homepages. Even Microsoft, Robbie. One conversation in the past involved one of Defender's components being disabled and "tweaked" and then naturally scoring way low. Manipulating the AVs behind the scenes--big time NO NO Someone from a comparatives lab got very huffy and puffy. But you don't do that and then purvey "scientific" data. You can still see this on YouTube sometimes, to forward an agenda. How clean are these studies? Maybe very clean now but we consumers don't know. Money, money to be made. It's amusing how intricate to simulate the "real world" these studies say they are. But entice me to install Brand X on my machine--not happening. However, for many, the pretty graphs and pie charts are way more "scientific" and therefore credible. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top