performance tests..

i could have sworn i saw more than the av comp one somewhere. am i crazy or can someone tell me where another recent one is? thanks

 

Do you mean this? https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=261921
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question.

 

This one? http://www.passmark.com/benchmark-reports/index.htm

 

sorry....

 

yeah the passmark one was the one i saw. thanks

also was that the one sponsored by symantec?

 

Are you referring to Dennis test?
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=256947

 

Passmark promo, er, test is also sponsored by Symantec.
A lot of money for the best propaganda, er, research.

Cheers

 

Gotta love all the FUD.

 

Very true

 

Yes, Symantec funded the Anti-Virus and Internet Security Products Performance Benchmarking (2010).

However, did you notice that Norton Internet Security 2010 didn’t score in first place in Benchmark 1 (Boot Time), Benchmark 4 (User Interface Launch Time), Benchmark 5 (Memory Usage during System Idle), Benchmark 6 (Browse Time), Benchmark 7 (Internet Explorer Launch Time), Benchmark 8 (Installation Time), Benchmark 9 (Installation Size), Benchmark 10 (Registry Key Count), Benchmark 11 (File Copy, Move and Delete), Benchmark 12 (Installation of Third Party Applications), Benchmark 13 (Network Throughput), Benchmark 15 (File Compression and Decompression), and Benchmark 16 (File Write, Open and Close)?

But, obviously, Symantec is controlling and manipulating the test results. (Sarcasm intended.)

 

@ Pleonasm

I paid a tester to thoroughly compare our cars.
The test result is that my car is beautiful and yours is ugly.
Result accepted? Of course!

In fact it doesn't matter if you accept the result or not.
Like Symantec I didn't ask other competitors prior to testing or before publication.

Cheers

 

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is, more often than not, the best. The simplest explanation for the solid performance of Norton products in the PassMark test is that those product are indeed excellent. It takes quite a bit of convoluted conspiratorial circumlocution to “explain” away the results otherwise.

 

I think NIS is a great product but the tests for example from Passmark aren't the ultimate truth even tho I believe they do of course reflect a lot of truth.

Take for example the "scan speed test". There was analysis of what and how those scans where so it's impossible to rate the best and fastest scan speed without a further more thorough test etc.

Nothing is perfect and these tests are useful but people shouldn't make their decisions solely based upon them etc.

Advanced users such as myself I don't like the limited firewall in NIS and I think the user interface is overbloated and too many "protection" engines which could be summed into a single name called "active protection" instead of braking it down to 7 different "shields". However this is my opinion and the same thing I'm complaining about in NIS is something that will make some one else happy etc.

I'm just glad we have a lot of good software to choose from.

 

But somehow when avast! does the same thing by breaking down its protection into multiple shields - IM,P2P,Mail etc, nobody complains.

 

@ Templar: do you know you can set the firewall to advanced mode and create custom rules etc....under advanced mode its not at all a bad firewall, agreed with the multi procc's.. i hate programs that run 20 different ones in the backround. if some companies can do it with one or two imo no reason all those are needed

 

FWIW Templar appears to be referring to active protection, or shields (p2p, network, im, etc.), and not individual processes.