soj:
> How can a Pulse Update every 5 to 15 minutes be considered "poor?"
When content is more important than frequency.
> CR is a non-technical publication, and it seems more likely to me that when they rate Updating,
> it has to do with how quickly a local signature database is refreshed,
> rather than the specific signatures that each update contains.
There's an assumption in there.
> The way they define "Updating," though, is somewhat ambiguous
> as to whether they are using a measure of quantity or quality.
No kidding.
I more or less agree with you though. Cars are pretty technical, and CR does a pretty good job of evaluating them. I would say though that that's one of the few areas that they do a good job of.
Specifically with regard to this issue, unless CR knows the _content_ of the NIS updates their opinion isn't worth much on that aspect of their study.
There's an old saying: even a blind pig finds an acorn sometime. Meaning I don't disagree with their overall conclusion.
It seems to me that Symantec's products are not of the same quality that they previously were. Their reluctance not to participate in the AV Comparisons study, and issue a lame excuse instead, was one indicator of a possible concern about being evaluated.
A look at the threads in this forum, going back aways, shows that Symantec's ability to fix problems, which was never speedy, has deteriorated further.
The previously disclosed loss of NAV source code, and the claim on Friday of NIS source code also, if true, may be diverting effort. It's tough to believe anything you hear about this.
