Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
2690
AV-Comparatives 2010 Performance Test (Anti-virus)
Now available: http://www.av-comparatives.org/
The title is a bit misleading, since it is actually system performance, not AV performance, that is measured.
Twenty AVs were evaluated (using default settings) to determine how much they impacted (slowed down) a Windows 7 Professional operating system, testing several common file operations.
Comments:
Avast! Free 5.0 and Microsoft Security Essentials were the only free AVs tested. Their final scores were identical, and they tied for fourth place, beating 15 other paid AVs. Both were awarded Advanced+ certification. A very respectable showing!
They do not test boot times, for reasons they discuss. All but 2 (AVG and Sophos) loaded too late in the boot sequence to prevent malware in the start-up folder from executing. Not good!
This is the first performance test using only Windows 7. (Previous years used XP).
ky331
3 Apprentice
3 Apprentice
•
15.3K Posts
0
December 14th, 2010 18:00
"All but 2 (AVG and Sophos) loaded too late in the boot sequence to prevent malware in the start-up folder from executing. Not good!"
No, not good at all. One would have expected an anti-virus to have a significant priority in loading... say, immediately after the essential operating system files load, before anything else. But we learn from this report, as the song says, "It ain't necessarily so" :emotion-7:
bestis1980
159 Posts
0
December 19th, 2010 07:00
IMO, the power of antivirus in detecting viruses is the first important factor and speed of it is the second one. I think Avast, AVG and most antiviruses except McAfee and Norton have good loading speeds and i only note to their virus detecting power instead of their speed.