0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think people should be looking at this: http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.phpAvast did excellent..it missed nothing and now the only thing we need to work on is the user dependent 1.4% factor and besides that if you actually know how to use and answer avast alerts then it isnt a huge deal really and Me thinks we did better than the paid products in terms of compromised ratio I guess.
Something doesn't make any sense at all really, how on earth could Eemsisoft, f-secure, G data, Kaspersky and Qihoo 360 get 100%. I mean that is completely bullsh#t no AV software on earth cannot be 100% perfect come on get bloody real, I can smell a dead rotten cheese and garlic about 500m away from my nose before Sylvester get me
Baseline blockage in the graph was 90% (and) that was solely provided by an up-to-date Windows 7 system. If you look, AhnLabs provided no additional protection. Also, the pdf link provided for March 2013 (page 3) does qualify the findings by stating that a/v programs that rated 100% in this test may not do so in the future.
Quote from: mchain on April 12, 2013, 10:53:11 AMBaseline blockage in the graph was 90% (and) that was solely provided by an up-to-date Windows 7 system. If you look, AhnLabs provided no additional protection. Also, the pdf link provided for March 2013 (page 3) does qualify the findings by stating that a/v programs that rated 100% in this test may not do so in the future.The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8.
The 90.3% baseline protection was provided by MSE in Windows 7 and Windows Defender in Windows 8. (Not competing)To me these figures are useless since they where supplied by the vendor.
MSE didn't compete in the test but was tested. Where does it state that these numbers were provided by the vendor?