10 ответов в этой теме

[risl]

Hello,

http://www.raymond.cc/antivirus/

According to this test, Dr.Web is one of the heaviest. It uses most system resources and causes more delays than others in many areas.

- uses most memory when idle
- slowest boot time
- slowest full system scan
- slowest in file input/output
- slowest in file extract
- 2nd slowest application starting
- 3rd slowest in application installing or uninstalling

[drumut]

Hello,

There are not any standards or baselines for these kind of tests and there are a lot of tests. Should we believe all of them?

[risl]

Hello,

There are not any standards or baselines for these kind of tests and there are a lot of tests. Should we believe all of them?

I don't see any problems in the test methods. All the 18 benchmarks were explained how they were done and it looks valid.

Should we deny every test that doesn't give the results we want to see?

[drumut]

Should we deny every test that doesn't give the results we want to see?

I don't deny but in my personal experience dr.web is the lightest software for my netbook.

[fallnout]

Should we deny every test that doesn't give the results we want to see?

I don't deny but in my personal experience dr.web is the lightest software for my netbook.

It might be the lightest for "your" netbook, however, I respectfully ask that you consider the other factors of the test and how it stacks up against the competition.

If someone reads that test, and takes the time to analyze the results, would they go out and buy Dr Web?

I am a loyal devotee of Dr Web, however, I wish that the results were much better.

- uses most memory when idle
- slowest boot time
- slowest full system scan
- slowest in file input/output
- slowest in file extract
- 2nd slowest application starting
- 3rd slowest in application installing or uninstalling

Cheers

[drumut]

It might be the lightest for "your" netbook, however, I respectfully ask that you consider the other factors of the test and how it stacks up against the competition.

My main point is "Users should listen their own experiences"

If someone reads that test, and takes the time to analyze the results, would they go out and buy Dr Web?

Maybe not but is this right way to choose an antivirus software? Should dr.web work for tests?

Also "customization" is another word which test users should know about that. If you arange scan priority to high it effects results etc... I believe there is not any standard and everyone makes tests.

[risl]

My main point is "Users should listen their own experiences"

Maybe not but is this right way to choose an antivirus software? Should dr.web work for tests?

Antiviruses ofcourse should be chosen by user experience after a trial period.

However, if a test has valid methodology and proves that a product I pay for isn't performing well, I would like to know what is being done to improve that.

If detection is proven to be bad, I wan't to know if measures are taken to improve it. If it is shown to be heavier than other products, I want to know if they are doing anything to optimize/improve it.

It's simple as that, I just want to know when an update or fix will be released if issues like this rise. If the developers always deny everything or refuse to comment, I might switch to some other product that care more about their users.

I just explained the logic, but currently I have no complaints about Dr.Web. The product is working well enough for me.

[drumut]

I just want to know when an update or fix will be released if issues like this rise. If the developers always deny everything or refuse to comment, I might switch to some other product that care more about their users.

I have just seen Konstantin Yudin has fixed a bug a few days ago even it wasn't in bug tracker, it was in our forum, here is the link. As you see they don't deny, they accept and they correct if there is a bug.

What is the reliablity of these tests? Dr.Web is an antivirus and security company but there are a lot of companies who uses dr.web's security solutions, please tell them they do wrong because raymond.cc or etc.. say so.

However, if a test has valid methodology and proves that a product I pay for isn't performing well, I would like to know what is being done to improve that.

If detection is proven to be bad, I wan't to know if measures are taken to improve it. If it is shown to be heavier than other products, I want to know if they are doing anything to optimize/improve it.

You shouldn't use any antivirus because of khobe attack thing if you think tests are important? is this right?

Please subscribe to news feed of dr.web. Here some recent news.

http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=1208&lng=en&c=5

http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=1209&lng=en&c=5

I just explained the logic, but currently I have no complaints about Dr.Web. The product is working well enough for me.

I understand you and my aim is not just reply you, also i would like to enlight guests, readers about these test things.

[tony]

risl,

Look the test about load website http://www.raymond.cc/antivirus/webload.html dr.web do it well and it is important not slow down the surfing.

[wedder]

dr.web should improve on-access scan speed. it should use something like Nod32 to apply advanced heuristics / emulation to newly created file only, so scan existing file on system can be faster.

[NAMOR]

Hello,

http://www.raymond.cc/antivirus/

According to this test, Dr.Web is one of the heaviest. It uses most system resources and causes more delays than others in many areas.

- uses most memory when idle
- slowest boot time
- slowest full system scan
- slowest in file input/output
- slowest in file extract
- 2nd slowest application starting
- 3rd slowest in application installing or uninstalling

The only issue that I have experienced from the list is slow full system scan, which is fine by me since I hardly ever run full system scans. Everything else is fine on MY computer.