how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| reply to Wai_Wai
You didn't actually test any AV, did you? This analysis amounts to a comparison of AV testing by other people and organizations, using different versions of AV engines, data files, etc., most of them almost two years old.
You didn't actually do any live testing of AV detection.
I admire the amount of work you did, but I don't see this as at all relevant to anyone considering which AV software to buy.
--
Addicted to Linux since 1998. | |
Wai_WaiA Guy Who Enjoys Thumb-Up
join:2004-07-30 | said by Mei Guo Ren:This analysis amounts to a comparison of AV testing by other people and organizations, using different versions of AV engines, data files, etc., most of them almost two years old. You didn't actually do any live testing of AV detection. I admire the amount of work you did, but I don't see this as at all relevant to anyone considering which AV software to buy. > You didn't actually test any AV, did you?
I did some research by myself, but I haven't included them in this summary report.
The reason is I would like to keep the information as reliable as possible. My research is far from representative. As I said under the limitation heading, there are limitations regarding to the age of the report.
> This analysis amounts to a comparison of AV testing by other people and
> organizations, using different versions of AV engines, data files, etc.,
> most of them almost two years old.
First off, I don't just rely on old reports. I make judgement based on brief reports too. Brief reports are usually the newest. However I don't make any summary table for them since their report are just too simple and do not have much to summarise. So the best is to provide links and you take a look at them.
Have you read them? I'm sure they are not 2 years old, but 0 year old. (:P Good news?!)
Second, look at the age of different types of reports:
Year === no. of detailed reports
2004 === 1 (- if the products were good in the past (eg 1 year ago), there is a likely chance that they are going to be good. A sudden dramatic chance is not likely to occur.
- It seems good to get the most up-to-date information, but if it is unreliable, what's the point of getting them? We are going to make wrong judgement base don wrong information
However to offset the problems of outmoded issues, I do look at some more reliable recent brief reports and see if the trend still holds.
I'm fairly confident that both McAfee and Kaspersky AVP are still keeping up their good jobs in terms of anti-virus capabilities over this year.
So I think I do fairly well in making the balance between informativeness/reliability and update-ness.
Any comments to further improve my analysis?
--
If you think my post is awesome, please vote for me  If it's thread (created by me) -> Simply click on "Topic functions : thumbs up, news-worthy". If it's reply -> click on the "thumb-up" icon under my reply. I enjoy seeing a lot thumb-ups around me! | |
|
