They tested when the AV actually loads. That’s not to say they’re actually protecting you during boot, but AVC didn’t actually test that.[/quote][quote who="Nimbin" reply="15" id="3356893"]
yuuuuuuuup, just another my dick is bigger than your dick Anti Virus comparison test. If the AV you are using right now works for you, then it is the right product for you. Who gives a flying frack if it takes a few extra microseconds to load or uses a couple of extra megabytes of memory in today's multigigabyte RAM systems. If it works GREAT.
Again. This is about boot time protection as well as system impact. From the OP:
They tested when the AV actually loads. That’s not to say they’re actually protecting you during boot, but AVC didn’t actually test that.
You haven't discovered America, I'm afraid. I stated that in the OP to make things clear. From their report (note the second paragraph, as well):
I also noted the limitations of the user machines tested. They did a good job of comparing "similar" systems, but there was too much variation. I believe they should have limited their testing to exactly when the AV/AM module loaded. They should have measured the impact from that moment on.
Clearly, I believe people should adopt AVs/AMs which give actual protection from the earliest possible time.
Also, they tended to compare apples and oranges. Suites load slower. They should only measure when the actual protection starts, while measuring system impact from the moment of starting the services and onward.
Their testing therefore, has some problematic areas. Also, "real world" testing is truly impossible because of the differences between machines in the real world: Age, disk saturation, processor speed, fragmentation and RAM are important. I mentioned all that as well.