<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Benchmark on Omid Farhang</title><link>https://omid.dev/tags/benchmark/</link><description>Recent content in Benchmark on Omid Farhang</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.161.1</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>2026 Omid Farhang | All rights reserved.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:42:01 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://omid.dev/tags/benchmark/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Symantec vs AV-Comparatives, Which one do you trust?</title><link>https://omid.dev/2013/04/25/symantec-vs-av-comparatives-which-one-do-you-trust/</link><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:42:01 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://omid.dev/2013/04/25/symantec-vs-av-comparatives-which-one-do-you-trust/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Cross-posted from PCMag SecurityWatch:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://omid.dev/images/2013/04/symantec-calls-test-misleading.jpg"&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="https://omid.dev/images/2013/04/symantec-calls-test-misleading-300x236.jpg" alt="symantec-calls-test-misleading" /&gt;
&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last week independent antivirus lab AV-Comparatives released the results of an on-demand antivirus detection test. The fact that Microsoft came in near the bottom wasn&amp;rsquo;t big news; the fact that &lt;a href="http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/security-software/310201-microsoft-outperforms-symantec-in-antivirus-test"&gt;Symantec scored even lower&lt;/a&gt; was surprising indeed. In a &lt;a href="http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Beyond-the-Headlines-Don-t-be-fooled-by-misleading-security/ba-p/943843"&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; released today, Symantec decried the entire practice of performing on-demand malware scanning tests, calling it “misleading.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the early years of antivirus testing, every test was an on-demand scanning test. Researchers would assemble a collection of known malware, run a full scan, and record the percentage of samples detected. Modern labs work hard to devise tests that more closely reflect a user&amp;rsquo;s real-world experience, taking into account the fact that the vast majority of infections enter the computer from the Internet. Symantec contends that only the real-world sort of test is valid; I don&amp;rsquo;t entirely agree.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Goo.gl is the Fastest and Most Reliable URL Shortening Service</title><link>https://omid.dev/2010/11/04/goo-gl-is-the-fastest-and-most-reliable-url-shortening-service/</link><pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:09:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://omid.dev/2010/11/04/goo-gl-is-the-fastest-and-most-reliable-url-shortening-service/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vaUVXcmC3OI/TNKpTTbYScI/AAAAAAAADB0/ItMjWrVX4Ns/s1600-h/goo.gl_-577x126%5B2%5D.jpg" alt="goo.gl_-577x126" /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a lot of URL shortening services out there, but &lt;a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/10/29/is-goo-gl-really-the-fastest-url-shortener-chart"&gt;Pingdom&lt;/a&gt; has worked out which is the fastest. Reliability and performance is key for URL shortening services and Goo.gl is on top!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="https://omid.dev/images/2010/11/compare-url-shortnet.webp" alt="" /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As you can see from the above chart Goo.gl has the fastest service in all locations. Additionally, it was reported that they have a 100% uptime. So if you have already checked out the &lt;a href="http://goo.gl/"&gt;Goo.gl&lt;/a&gt; service then make sure you take a look.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>