Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="roger_m" data-source="post: 883477" data-attributes="member: 31436">I don&#039;t think that tests are completely useless.&nbsp; But they definitely are flawed and the results can be quite misleading.If you look at test results, you will typically see very little difference from one product to the next, which indicates that you should be well protected no matter what antivirus you use.&nbsp; This can be misleading.&nbsp; As an example, Panda usually scores very well in tests, which should mean that it&#039;s an excellent antivirus.&nbsp; However,&nbsp; more often that not, it is slow to add signatures for new malware.&nbsp; Combined with its poor behaviour blocking, it doesn&#039;t do well at protecting against new malware.&nbsp; If it was tested against newer malware, it wouldn&#039;t score nearly as well.&nbsp; I believe that you would start to see a meaningful difference in results between products, if more recent malware was tested.&nbsp; But maybe, the tests reflect the type of malware than an average user is likely to encounter, in which case the age of the sample tested, isn&#039;t much of an issue.&nbsp; I&#039;d be interested to hear thoughts on this.When it comes to performance tests, quite often I find my real world experience with antiviruses, is quite different to the test results.&nbsp; Sometimes, antiviruses that I find to be quite heavy, score better than antiviruses I find to be light.&nbsp; Of course, antivirus performance can vary greatly from one computer to the next.&nbsp; Quite probably the best example of this, is that some people with low end computers are happy with Windows Defender&#039;s performance, while some with high end computers find it to be too heavy.&nbsp; I&#039;m sure that average users who see performance test results, are going to expect antiviruses to perform as well for them as they did for the testers.Having said all of that, I think there is some value in tests.&nbsp; Even if usually tests show that there is very little difference between antiviruses, it does indicate that they are not performing terribly.&nbsp; If an antivirus is never tested, it raises questions about the protection it provides.&nbsp; In my case, I think tests are fine, if you don&#039;t take the results too seriously.I spend nearly as much time online and also never encounter malware, despite making no effort to visit only well known and trusted sites.&nbsp; As a result, I&#039;m happy to use only an antivirus to protect me, as I don&#039;t feel I need anything else.&nbsp; While I don&#039;t use WD, in terms of protection, I&#039;d be happy to use it or any antivirus that does not perform terribly in testing.&nbsp; I&#039;m too concerned about having &quot;the best&quot; antivirus, as I don&#039;t come across malware, or get infected, so I&#039;m more interested in an antivirus which has the features I want and is light.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="roger_m, post: 883477, member: 31436"] I don't think that tests are completely useless. But they definitely are flawed and the results can be quite misleading. If you look at test results, you will typically see very little difference from one product to the next, which indicates that you should be well protected no matter what antivirus you use. This can be misleading. As an example, Panda usually scores very well in tests, which should mean that it's an excellent antivirus. However, more often that not, it is slow to add signatures for new malware. Combined with its poor behaviour blocking, it doesn't do well at protecting against new malware. If it was tested against newer malware, it wouldn't score nearly as well. I believe that you would start to see a meaningful difference in results between products, if more recent malware was tested. But maybe, the tests reflect the type of malware than an average user is likely to encounter, in which case the age of the sample tested, isn't much of an issue. I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this. When it comes to performance tests, quite often I find my real world experience with antiviruses, is quite different to the test results. Sometimes, antiviruses that I find to be quite heavy, score better than antiviruses I find to be light. Of course, antivirus performance can vary greatly from one computer to the next. Quite probably the best example of this, is that some people with low end computers are happy with Windows Defender's performance, while some with high end computers find it to be too heavy. I'm sure that average users who see performance test results, are going to expect antiviruses to perform as well for them as they did for the testers. Having said all of that, I think there is some value in tests. Even if usually tests show that there is very little difference between antiviruses, it does indicate that they are not performing terribly. If an antivirus is never tested, it raises questions about the protection it provides. In my case, I think tests are fine, if you don't take the results too seriously. I spend nearly as much time online and also never encounter malware, despite making no effort to visit only well known and trusted sites. As a result, I'm happy to use only an antivirus to protect me, as I don't feel I need anything else. While I don't use WD, in terms of protection, I'd be happy to use it or any antivirus that does not perform terribly in testing. I'm too concerned about having "the best" antivirus, as I don't come across malware, or get infected, so I'm more interested in an antivirus which has the features I want and is light. [/QUOTE]

Verification